All Episodes
Previous Next
July 25, 2021 - Viva & Barnes
02:03:28
Ep, 71: Whitmer Entrapment; Biden Coverup; Tucker; Vaccines; CNC AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's finally happened.
I'm live streaming from the car.
Alright, we're going to see if the audio is good.
I'm using the Blue Snowball, so it's not my Shure M7B mic.
And I'm in a car, in a campground, in the middle of Quebec.
Let's see what it says here.
Okay, totally late.
Am I not on?
Am I not live yet?
No, I'm live.
What are you guys saying?
Do you prefer...
Okay, let me just see if...
Okay, people can see me.
No Fs.
The internet, the cell reception is a little slow.
So there may be some lag.
I hope it's good enough.
It's going to have to do for tonight because this is the best I can do.
We are in the middle of Quebec.
I'm at a campground.
We've pitched the tent.
The kids are eating dinner.
And this is the most glorious aspect of modern technology when it allows you to be productive pretty much anywhere, at any time.
And I'm happy.
I wouldn't want to be doing anything else than this right now on a Sunday.
Now, I'm using the camera on my computer because I've got to use as little energy as possible on the computer because I don't have any power, so we can only go as long as the computer will last.
How is everyone doing?
What can we say?
This week is going to be big for Law Stories.
And it's the day after the big announcement, so my new channel, Viva PPC, which is going to document my journey running for the People's Party of Canada.
We're up to 4,000 subs already.
The first video did very well.
I'm doing episodic content on that channel.
It's going to be different subject matter as the day goes along, or depending on the day.
And I'm going to keep some of the channel stuff separate because I don't think everybody wants to hear about PPC every time I do a video or go live, and that's why I'm going to distinguish the two channels.
The rant of the day, however, which was the subject matter of episode two on Viva PPC, but it's something we've talked about on this channel.
Government subsidized media is corrupted media.
And people don't really ever understand this, but...
You don't appreciate it until you see it.
And, you know, when we've been talking about the government paying $13 million a month in COVID awareness, that is, in reality, nothing more than a manner of bribing the media to give favorable coverage of the government.
It could be in a totally different context to COVID.
It could be in any context whatsoever.
Government paying for ads on radio, television, etc.
When they have no obligation to pay for ads everywhere, if they pay for ads anywhere, is a way of buying good favor with the media.
The federal government gives a billion dollars a year to CBC, which might explain some of the coverage of some of the scandals coming out of the federal level.
Provincially, you know, I've talked about this a dozen times.
The government pays $13 million a month for COVID awareness, which translates into ad space on radio shows, ad space on television, ad space on, you know...
We all see the banners on my videos.
The government pays for that.
But they don't have to pay for it everywhere, and they can pick and choose which media outlets, which radio stations they want to subsidize by way of advertising.
And in Quebec, we had a pretty decent scandal of sorts, which was government and government entities basically pulling all ads from Radio X out of Quebec City because they didn't like the message that Radio X was promoting.
And so they always cloak it in benevolence.
We're not funding...
The big C word.
Conspiratorial people.
And that's how they justify it.
But it is how you see the government, when it offers goodies, but doesn't offer them to everybody, you know, people become dependent on those goodies.
Or they really want those goodies, so they'll be really good to get those goodies.
And that is how subsidizing media corrupts the media.
We're seeing it in Quebec, Canada, in the States, I think so as well.
But different type of subsidizing there.
So how is the speed, by the way?
Are we good?
It's going to be not the most ideal stream, but it's going to be magnificent nonetheless.
I've missed a bunch of the Super Chats, so let's get into the standard disclaimer.
The fact you're in the woods talking through what looks like a showerhead shows your dedication to subscribers.
We appreciate you, Brandon.
I love it.
I don't want to miss a night.
And if you don't, we drove five hours.
Get here, pitch two tents, cook dinner, jump in the car, and my biggest panic was we bought an adapter.
We bought an adapter, but it doesn't seem to want to take my computer.
I guess it's not the right voltage or whatever.
I'm going to miss some of the super chats.
If that's going to miss you, don't give a super chat.
I don't want anyone feeling bad if I don't get to it.
YouTube takes 30% of the super chats.
So if you don't like YouTube taking 30% and you want to support us, you can go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and support us there.
If you want to support my campaign, distinct from my channel, don't give here and say it's for the campaign.
Totally different.
And don't give to the campaign if you want to support the channel.
Two different things.
If you want to donate to the campaign, that's on the website, vivapc.ca.
For Viva PPC, do you need to create an entire new business entity?
What do you expect their attacks will consist of?
Good question.
Viva PPC, yes.
I don't have...
Any control over that bank account, that is a bank account created in the name of me, but via the campaign, we have an auditor, we have a chief financial officer, an accountant, and I'm not assigning authority on that account.
So separate entities, definitely.
It's actually, it's been a very interesting learning curve for me because you've got to create the bank accounts.
Elections Canada has to certify the EDA, Electoral District Association, or something along those lines.
And then you've got to get your tax accreditation.
So if the Elections Canada certifies the association, then you can start giving tax receipts.
And until then, you can't.
Which might make for some incentive not to rush to certify certain organizations.
But the election hasn't been called yet.
Regardless, two totally distinct entities.
I'm not wearing my merch stuff in any of the Viva PPC channel videos.
I'm keeping it very distinct.
What will the attacks consist of?
I've lived a pretty transparent life, so I don't know what they can find.
I think they might try to go back to pull up some of my old videos and say you did things with your drone that were impermissible.
Whatever.
What's done cannot be undone.
If anything in my history discredits me from running for the PPC, that'll be the new standard, but will certainly only be applied to one side.
They ran a criminal check.
They ran a background check.
They actually ran a scan of my social media posts to see.
If I've tweeted anything, posted anything remotely offensive in the history of my social media footprint, I know that I hadn't.
Because even when I had anonymous accounts, I always took for granted one day everything would be hacked and leaked.
And so I never said things privately that I would never have said publicly.
So that should answer the question.
How are you going to get your message in front of the people that need to see it?
That's going to be a good question also.
You know, this could be an entire AMA on this entire subject, but how do you get it there?
The reality is...
In my district, I'm only in Westmount NDG, so there's 55,000-60,000 people that need to see that message in my district.
But my running is for more than just my district.
It's for Canada.
And it's so people can see the PPC and get those ideas out of their head of what the CBC was depicting Maxime Bernier and the PPC as being in 2018.
I remember the attacks.
Racist.
You had the Kinsella guy trying to sabotage the campaign.
I remember the attacks.
And then I remember getting to know the party.
And then I got to know Max.
And I am going to normalize the party Canada-wide so that people can be proud to run for the PPC.
They can be proud to publicly say they're going to vote for the PPC.
PPC is not exactly the best acronym, but it is what it is.
All right.
Are Americans allowed to donate to your campaign?
No.
And we set up credit card accounts to block non-Canadian cards and to limit the amount.
Of the contribution to the maximum single donation, which is $1,650.
In 48 hours, 24 hours, we raised more than we thought we were going to raise all cycle.
It's a max per association of $100,000, but I'm not raising $100,000 just to spend $100,000.
The money's going to be spent extremely judiciously, and I am not expensing anything of my own personal expenses through this account.
I am fortunate enough to be able to...
Pay my own way through this.
It's going to be for paying accountants, website developers, who we've had, and all that other stuff.
Okay.
I see Roberts here.
Let me do this.
Given that U.S. citizens cannot denote your campaign, are there non-monetary things we can do?
Non-monetary versus things of value.
Just spread the word.
There's nothing more important than spreading the word.
The network we have created is the most invaluable asset of anything.
Okay.
Oh my God, I have the perfect thing to discredit Viva.
He's a...
Dang lawyer.
Horrible.
If I was an oppressed Canadian, I'd vote for you despite being a lawyer.
The only good lawyer is the one who hates the practice of law.
The only good politician is the one who hates politics.
Okay, I see Roberts in the House.
Let's do this.
Okay, so what's the workaround for Americans today?
No workaround.
Everything is above board.
More Catholic than the Pope.
More kosher than a rabbi.
I am above board.
To a neurotic level.
Everybody knows that, and it's the way I'm going to stay.
All right.
With that said, because I don't know how long my bat...
89%.
We're doing well.
I'm going to lower the light on my computer to maximize battery power.
Robert, how are you doing?
Good, good.
This is surreal, Robert.
If you knew where we were, I mean, you wouldn't think this would be theoretically possible that we can actually conduct a live stream tethering off my phone in the middle of Quebec.
Someone's coming into the back of the car.
Nothing's happening.
Robert, what's the good word with you?
How's everything going?
Going good.
Going good.
We got a big one tonight.
There's a lot of stuff.
There's a recurring theme in some of the subject matter tonight, and it is seeming government corruption.
I think we have to start with the Whitmer because it's going to lead into...
I was going to say, I just found out about a new case that's a good lead-in to the Whitmer case, which is White Boy Rick.
Has filed suit in Michigan.
And that's the movie was made about him, Abakaways.
For those that don't know the backstory, who aren't familiar with it, basically this was someone who was recruited by the FBI as a 13-year-old to become a drug dealer in Detroit.
And he did, ratted out a bunch of people.
But what happened was he stumbled into the real corruption, the real drug-running protection in Detroit, which involved the entire political establishment and high-ranking police officials, including Gil Hill.
Gil Hill was famously the detective chief actually portrayed himself in the movie Beverly Hills Cop.
So the Beverly Hills cop, Gil Hill, who later on became a city councilman, almost became mayor, was part of the Coleman Young political machine, was a high-ranking police official.
He was implicated by the undercover informant work that white boy Rick did.
He also implicated the Coleman Young political machine.
There had long been rumors that Coleman Young was really running drugs out of a barbecue joint and all this other stuff.
And he implicated a whole bunch of high-ranking officials.
What's the nature of the lawsuit?
It's total news to me, but what's the nature of the lawsuit?
Damages or is it a FOIA request?
About the whole enchilada.
So he only got out about a year ago, finally, due, I think, to a heavy court of public opinion campaign and Gil Hill finally fading from the scene and the Coleman-Young machine finally fading from the machine.
They had orchestrated ways.
I mean, there are stories about...
Them helping to coordinate hits on White Boy Rick, all this kind of stuff.
And so he has filed suit against the FBI, against the city of Detroit, against various U.S. attorneys, claiming that they basically conspired to use him as an informant, trained him in the drug trade, introduced him as a kid to the drug trade, and then abandoned him at key times when it became politically inconvenient and let high-ranking political officials in Detroit.
Harass him and harang him.
And so he filed suit this week.
Now he's got a lot of procedural hurdles.
The big one's just going to be a political one though.
Are the courts in Michigan, the federal courts in Michigan, really willing to deal with the kind of explosive allegations?
Because this goes back to the 70s.
This seems like the plot from Rush.
And the one with Johnny Depp, what was it when he went undercover?
What was the Johnny Depp movie?
They dump him in the world and then leave him to rot.
Correct.
And here what's egregious is they recruited him as a kid, like 13, 14 years old, because that's who was doing a deal.
Now, his father was alleged to be an arms runner who knew a lot of the hitmen in Detroit and things like that.
There's allegations that his father had been off and on informant.
But a lot of people, former Detroit police officers, former FBI agents, have attested to large parts of his story.
Al Proffitt has done multiple videos about this, including many documentaries.
He's the guy who details a lot of the history of the drug trade, including governmental involvement.
One of the high-ranking people that he ended up exposing, because basically the political patron of the mayor and the chief of security for the mayor.
We're caught on tape offering protection for Colombian drug lords, who they thought were Colombian drug lords, to bring drugs into the city of Detroit.
But one of those people ended up getting pardoned by the Bush family, by George W. Bush.
So there's long been rumors and ruminations about what exactly did white boy Rick stumble into as a 17-year-old kid.
They got him in when he was 13. I mean, am I imagining right that they probably threatened him with something in terms of he might have committed some juvie crime to say, help us?
Or do they threaten the parents?
I mean, how do you voluntarily get a 13-year-old?
No, they just offered him pay and put him into the business.
So it may have been the case that his dad may have had some exposure, but my understanding is it wasn't a coercive threat.
It was, we think you could be a great asset for us and we'll help you protect you in this and we'll make you a drug dealer.
And as the youngest known FBI informant in history.
And basically, it would embarrass the FBI to fully expose that, so they hid it.
I mean, they even covered up an attempted assassination on his life.
I mean, all kinds of things.
Multiple attempted assassinations on his life.
The rumor was that people connected to the mayor and the police actually put a half a million dollar bounty on his head at a period of time.
And the feds only partially came to his rescue.
Now there's criticism that he made some mistakes along the way himself.
He was introduced to a trade that he was like, hmm, I kind of like this trade.
So there's some of that there to it.
But it's extraordinary.
But it's a good introduction.
Because who could have met?
Because it's Michigan.
It's FBI corruption.
It's informant corruption.
Misuse.
I mean, it's all of those components to it.
But so it's an interesting suit.
I imagine this 13-year-old committed crimes in the context of his employment with the FBI.
You take a minor and you basically turn them into a criminal in no lesser terms.
I mean, I know nothing of the story.
It's Donnie Brasco, by the way.
I'm thinking Donnie Brasco and I'm thinking Rush, where they get people hooked to drugs in the context, leave them out to dry.
They get them so far in, they can never take them back out.
And they're pawns in the game.
And ultimately, they're just...
Committing crimes while protecting those who are the actual underlying criminals.
It gets even crazier.
I mean, they set him up at his trial.
There's rumors that the police chief is the one of high-ranking police officials, paid people to appear to be drug dealers and go to his trial and pretend to be his friend to influence the media and influence the jury.
That a one of the law enforcement officers testified that he was forced to testify in ways that he regrets that there really wasn't a foundation for his explosive testimony against against him.
Then he was kept in prison long after he should have been released.
And so the there was multiple issues with what took place.
Every level of corruption, he just kind of stumbled into it.
And because of the corruption he exposed, he ended up serving a much harsher punishment than anybody else in his comparable position would have.
And what he didn't realize is that he not only stumbled into Detroit political institutionalized corruption involving the drug trade, But that it may have also involved some famous families who might have occupied the White House during periods of time he was in prison.
Unbelievable.
Now, I'm giving everyone in the chat fair warning.
I don't believe in killing any animal unless you're going to eat it, with the exception of mosquitoes.
And I see some mosquitoes in the car, so if you see me killing something, it's a mosquito, and I'm going to do it because they are awful creatures that have no business on this earth except to feed bats.
Okay, Robert, with that said, I'm going to look this over because apparently it's a $100 million lawsuit.
Sounds like they're going to make a movie of it if it's not just a remake of two, three, four movies that have already been made.
But getting into the things that no one could have ever thought actually happened, and if you suggest that they're happening currently, you're a crazy conspiracy theorist, despite the fact that they've happened time and time again.
Okay, White Boy Rick revealing what some are suggesting could possibly be the case with Governor Gretchen Whitmer's alleged kidnapping plot.
And Robert, so you brought it up?
You sort of...
Predicted this before it was even predictable.
And I took some flack from friends and family who said, you know, be careful.
Don't make these suggestions because you look like an apologist for some criminals.
It's not necessarily an apologist because I couldn't even see that far ahead of the curve.
But now we're there.
And now we know the details, which is 12 plus informants with FBI agents who are some of these informants are being paid $55,000.
I don't know if it's annually or whatever.
They're being paid.
To not just infiltrate, report back, to actively lead.
They are given leadership roles by the FBI.
They're training.
To say that they're suggesting or inciting or encouraging is an understatement.
They are basically infiltrating a militia.
This one's called the Wolverine Watchmen.
And they're basically egging them on in terms that are so active and so proactive, it's shocking.
But they're taking leadership roles in training, in running Whatever they call them, the test runs to go check out the properties.
And then, you know, lo and behold, they arrest 12 people and run up the charges that they did.
And the question is, the question even BuzzFeed is asking is, would there have even been a conspiracy but for the proactive involvement of the FBI and the informants?
Robert, the legal question is this, to me.
I think I know the answer, but I probably don't, and I'm sure others don't.
When does investigation become entrapment?
What is that threshold in law where they cross the line?
So under the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals jury instructions based on a Supreme Court change to entrapment law in the early 90s, a Jacobson, a different Jacobson decision, a better Jacobson decision, that was Jacobson versus the United States, is that the two factors are, did the person already have the idea before the informant appeared?
Before the FBI or the informant appeared?
And that's the first step.
So were they already going to commit it and somebody infiltrated a criminal organization already dedicated to the crime?
And then the second part is, did they instigate or persuade any aspect of it?
Here, what's becoming clear is that both of those elements, and the government has to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of those two facts.
And so some people get confused because of affirmative defenses.
There are affirmative defenses in civil law where you as a defendant bear the burden of production of evidence and proof at trial to whatever the standard is, usually the standard, sometimes clear and convincing evidence, usually it's just preponderance of the evidence.
In a criminal case, that's not the case.
Even if something's labeled an affirmative defense, it really doesn't mean that.
It only means that for the purpose you have to give notice to the government and the court that you're going to raise this defense.
But once it's raised, it's the burden of the government to disprove it.
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
So what they have to now prove is that all of these defendants already had the idea to do this before the informant showed up, when all the evidence is none of them had the idea to do this until the informant showed up.
Sorry, just to stop you there, because before I knew what militias meant and what it means in American society and Second Amendment concepts, militias...
I know what I think they look like as a Canadian, and I picture what I see in Afghanistan, Iraq, and whatever.
In the United States, a militia does not necessarily refer to the same entity that we conceive of it as in other nations.
Is that roughly accurate?
Well, absolutely.
In the United States, they're just political organizations that are named after the Second Amendment.
That's all they really are.
And so the modern, quote-unquote, militia movement...
It sort of started in strength in the 90s.
And by the way, it started in strength in the 90s after the FBI decided to create their own militia to instigate militia movement in the United States called PACCON that they hid for almost 20 years from the public.
And I talk about it in one of the Hush Hush episodes.
FivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com So they're just political movements.
The political movements who believe in the Second Amendment.
So the idea is that you have an obligation to protect your country under the Second Amendment, that the militia can be called up.
There's a federal statute that still authorizes Congress to call up the militia, which includes 17-year-olds, by the way, that thus has interesting Second Amendment implications in other contexts.
But yeah, they're not like militias everywhere else in the world, which are actually armed insurrectionist movements generally.
Okay.
So, because when we first heard this, they infiltrated a militia.
People are going to have the same impression that they have when they read articles about residential schools and mass graves.
These terms evoke specific connotations.
But this is a group, a bunch of guys, you know, doing whatever.
I say doing whatever because, you know, people form these militias.
They call them militias because they want to hang around and talk about Second Amendment stuff and the U.S. Constitution.
But when they say they infiltrate a militia, It already sounds bad, but by the sounds of it, they infiltrate this militia of guys who, by and large, did any of them that we know of have any criminal histories or meaningful criminal histories?
Well, that's one of the five factors they consider under entrapment law in the Sixth Circuit, is their prior histories.
And to my knowledge, the only people that had extensive prior histories are the FBI informants themselves.
Including now the lead FBI agent running it, who's like something right out of a James Elroy novel.
In that, you know, it turns out he had a side hustle, his own little side businesses going on.
He was involved in swinger parties.
He was in, apparently, you know, he's now been charged and arrested for a severe assault on his wife.
And this is the guy that's kind of a heading, one of the key head people involved.
One of the other key head people, by the way, that approved all of this was promoted after this and ended up being heavily involved in the January 6th investigations.
So it's an interesting connection.
Maybe just coincidental, some people would say.
But clearly what's showing up is that...
I would say other people would say there are no coincidences.
But sorry, Robert, go on.
Yeah, not with involving some three-letter agencies.
And so to my knowledge, they've already met the first element because...
They're also extraordinary.
It's like the January 6th cases.
The government's hiding a whole bunch of evidence.
They've seized the defendant's own phones and electronic equipment and have refused to return it.
I mean, these people were arrested back in October.
So, you know, we're almost nine months, whatever it is, into the process, and they don't even have their own records of their own statements yet.
I've never even heard of something that egregious for a case like this.
And they've been trying to hide because apparently they accidentally discovered.
This is how you really get discovery in a defense case.
It's almost always accidental when the government turns over something.
I had a case like that where someone had assigned a privileged taint team, and the privileged taint team thought this was tainted material they should return back, not knowing what it really exposed as the government had been involved with secret informants spying on the criminal defense the entire time.
That case got a satisfactory resolution, ultimately.
In this case, for anybody who doesn't know, the issue, it was in the motion to compel discovery of the defendant Cabrera, I think that's his name, where they apparently got a four-page truncated text exchange between the informant and the FBI agent, basically saying, this is what I want you to go out and do today.
Get as many people as you can to go on recon.
That's the word I was looking for.
To go on recon.
To get involved in training.
Get as many people involved as you can, because the more you can get, that would be a good day.
But they only got like four pages of this text thread.
Apparently, the government is not producing the exchange in its entirety, which was part and parcel of the motion to compel discovery.
So that's what you're talking about for anybody who doesn't know in that context.
So they get this document.
It looks like a very active participation interaction between the informant and the FBI agent.
Yeah.
They're instigating it.
They're promoting it.
I mean, like, the FBI informant ends up being mostly in charge of this.
He ends up number two in charge of the whole organization, which gives you an idea that it wasn't, it was a pretty loose organization.
It was a political organization is what it was.
He becomes number two within the eight months or the five months that he's involved because it's, you know, there's that much of a hierarchy to run up.
Okay, so the criteria for entrapment, history of the individuals.
Instigating or inciting the actual act.
What else is going to go involved into that consideration?
So they look at...
How much promotion there was involved, how much instigation there was, how much the defendant was involved in prior criminal activities like this before or after.
They look at whether or not certain actions of the FBI, I mean, was the FBI just watching or was the FBI instigating?
Was the informant just watching or was the informant instigating?
Here, just the little bit they got, it was all being instigated by the FBI and the informant.
All of it.
And there's no evidence that I've seen so far that any of them had this idea at all before the informant shows up.
And that's your classic entrapment case.
A famous one is Marion Barry.
They wanted to get Marion Barry on tape smoking crack.
So they set him up with one of his mistresses.
And he says no like eight different times.
But she's like, if you want to have some fun, you're going to have to smoke it.
He's like, fine.
Finally smokes it.
That's classic entrapment.
He clearly wasn't, despite the fact he may have had a history with it.
I was going to say, you're going to have to do a little more than twist my rubber arm to get me to smoke crack, because if I've never done it before, I'm never doing it, ever.
So I would imagine anyone who begrudgingly agrees probably has done it before, because that's not something you begrudgingly agree to do for the first time type thing.
But yeah, okay, totally.
I mean, I remember the Marion Barry scandal.
I didn't know anything back then.
I was...
I was ignorant.
I was the kid who didn't know how to ask the question because I didn't even know that the question needed to be asked.
They're clearly hiding this evidence because it's more exculpatory than inculpatory.
There's no doubt about it.
You don't need to hide evidence that makes the defendants look bad.
You need to hide evidence that shows...
That the whole record in track history was this was an FBI-created event, FBI-instigated event.
That's the meme that's been on our Locals board, where they unmask everybody, and everybody's the FBI pointing at the FBI.
Yeah, I saw a better variation, which was ordinarily just two Spider-Men pointing at each other, but there was one who was six guys, all FBI.
I think there was one non-FBI agent in there.
But yeah, this is...
Coming out that there are more FBI agents and informants than alleged perpetrators, and it seems that none of these perpetrators, I have not heard that any of them had any meaningful criminal history, if any.
And I imagine that would have been the first thing that would have come out, because the first thing you want to do is make them look like criminals, you know, career criminals, which they don't seem to be.
And there was an article on Cabrera, the one who filed the motion to dismiss, where they said...
You know, they referred to some of his anti-government posts on Instagram.
And I watched those videos.
And to refer to that as, to suggest that that is anything incriminating in a criminal sense is an absolute abuse of the word anti-government messages, where that's just, you know, stuff that disgruntled people who pay too much in tax say.
Nothing like, let's go plan this plot with Whitmer.
And for those who don't know, can you explain the timing, the convenient timing with her re-election campaign?
Yeah, the reasons why I was a suspect was, first of all, was the timing because I thought it was tied to the presidential campaign.
Because it's a key swing state, Michigan, right on the eve of the presidential election, right on the eve of United States Senate elections in Michigan, right on the eve of key U.S. House races in Michigan.
And the FBI, within I think it's a week before the election, announces dangerous militia anti-lockdown Trump-connected group tries to kidnap and kill.
Kill or kidnap the dear good governor of Michigan.
So I was suspicious right out of the gate.
And then the other two factors were when they showed some of these defendants.
I was like, these are people in their basement.
I mean, on YouTube.
These are not conspirators to revolutionaries to overthrow the government or to have any plot or plan.
It looked like that Dan Aykroyd movie where they plot to kill.
Kidnap a basketball player to help the Celtics.
I mean, it was that laughable, some of the story.
I've never seen that movie, but it's not to be judgmental.
I don't want to be judgmental as to these militia members couldn't have been legit criminals.
But you look at them, it's like there are career criminals, there are hardened criminals, and then there are people who are just not criminals because not everybody can be a criminal.
And not knowing anything about these guys, I've looked at the one who filed the motion to compel Discovery.
His Instagram posts are not what I would consider to be threatening anti-government messages.
But, you know, some of the messages in here, you know, they say, go find somebody who wants friends.
And then you got five undercover FBI agents who come in and say, hey, let's talk about your interest of anti-government stuff.
And then, hey, man, someone gave the analogy.
It's like an FBI agent infiltrating a group of teenagers and saying, hey, let's go throw stones at that window.
And you get the kids to do it because they're easily impressionable.
But for the involvement, it would have never happened.
Well, and that was the third thing.
I knew the long history of the feds doing this.
They've been doing this for, well, they've been doing this as long as law enforcement exists.
But, you know, they really got accustomed to doing it in part in the 90s with some of the militia issues that you can look into whether Oklahoma City was a kind of a backfire of a plan gone AWOL.
You have to look at Hush Hush.
At VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com for that.
But post-9-11, they did it all the time.
Darren Beatty with the revolver, Glenn Greenwald on his own independent substack, have both been writing about this.
That it was not a surprise for them to see this because if you knew that post-9-11, they wanted to prove to everybody how they were keeping the country safe.
And they usually found nitwit teenagers they could sucker into a half-wit plot that wasn't real.
And they would make it, oh, we saved a building from being, you know, some terrible event was just about to happen.
And you dig in, you're like, oh, no, you just cooked this up to look good for the cameras.
And this smacked of this, everything about this.
And then we're getting just evidence upon, evidence upon.
When even BuzzFeed is saying, hmm, this kind of looks like the FBI did this whole thing.
Then you know how bad it is.
They're saying it in a way that leads me to believe they're just trying to sensitize people.
It's like, yeah, maybe it's entrapment, but at least we, you know, we prosecuted 12 dudes.
Who had a militia and were prone to being entrapped.
Now it's going to be like, prone to entrapment is going to be a crime.
But at the end of the day, someone asked a question like, what happens to the FBI?
Do they get spanked if the judge says this was clear entrapment?
Where is the accountability?
Assuming at the end of the day, a judge says this was obvious entrapment, shame on you.
Where's the accountability and who doesn't?
Well, a study some years ago documented 2,000 cases where state and federal prosecutors or agents were cited for extraordinary misconduct by the courts, courts that usually go out of their way to hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil when it comes to the government.
More than 2,000 cases where the courts themselves found egregious misconduct, and in only two instances was anybody disciplined at all.
And just look at Spygate.
Nobody was disciplined in Spygate.
So, I mean, Clinesmith got a slap on the wrist.
I was going to say, whoa, Clinesmith, what happened to him?
He got a one-year suspension that didn't even matter.
A one-year suspension.
Retroactive to last year.
Exactly.
It was completely unimpactful.
He got a one-year suspension for a time period he couldn't have got a job anyway.
So, no impact by the state bar, only probation, no criminal punishment of any consequence.
I was going to say, for the time period, he was on leave in any case, disciplinary leave, but he just had a kid.
He probably would have wanted to stay home anyhow.
It is what it is, and it's offensive to everybody who is paying attention.
So by and large, nothing's going to happen because who would have to look into it?
Department of Justice?
Who would investigate that?
The same reason why White Boy Rick is filing suit.
It's that the system only investigates itself.
And that's a good bridge into the next conversation because you can see that, I mean, the Biden administration, you know, while they're pursuing this Whitmer case that they should have dropped soon after the election, that they are aggressively pursuing the January 6th cases, going after COVID dissenters like we talked about last week in ways where they're trying to expand the criminal law in questionable manners and targeting people that the feds would never prosecute normally.
At the same time, they're letting people accused of being Chinese spies walk.
They let most of the Antifa people walk.
Nothing happened with the Spygate people.
And now they're letting all the Democratic governors walk from probably, at least, go ahead.
I was going to say, before we get to the governors, explain the Chinese spies, because that's another one where I don't really, I mean, I appreciate the overview, but not the details.
What's going on there?
The Trump administration had put a big focus on espionage by the Chinese government and its allies throughout academia, especially in various think tanks and other people that had access to government-funded projects and things that would be otherwise secure.
China's infamous for its espionage.
I mean, if there's hacking going on, people shouldn't be looking to the Russian government, much more likely from the Chinese government.
Of a consequential kind.
So the Trump administration had charged a bunch of people and put a bunch of people under investigation, and it was announced this week that a whole bunch of those charges are either the cases are not going to be brought or not be pursued or just flat out dismissed.
And so it's part of a broader pattern that...
You add that to what's happening on the other side of the aisle, but particularly the Democratic governors, that they're not going to investigate Cuomo any further.
They're not going to investigate Pennsylvania Governor Wolf any further.
They're not going to investigate Governor Whitmer any further.
So while they're pursuing a bogus prosecution that boosted Whitmer politically in Michigan and boosted the Biden campaign at a critical time in Michigan, they're turning around and making sure the governor gets to walk from what appeared to be Just direct misconduct and misrepresentations to the Trump administration about what they were doing with the elderly people in nursing homes during COVID.
And I mean, look, I've done videos on this.
We've talked about this at length in prior streams.
Cuomo, it wasn't just a question of him enacting executive orders of transferring COVID-positive patients to nursing homes.
Because at the beginning, the defense was that the CDC was recommending it.
CDC subsequently stopped recommending it, and he continued to do it.
So it wasn't just that.
It wasn't just that he continued to do something that was being recommended against now by the CDC.
It's that he fudged the numbers in terms of identifying where people died so that it would under-report the fact that they died in nursing homes and attribute the deaths to hospitals.
And then some people were saying, well, to pull a Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make where they died?
Well, a big difference, because when you're dealing with a...
A pandemic, you want to know where the outbreaks are, you want to know where the contagion is, you want to know where the deaths are actually resulting from and not just occurring.
Send them out into the forest doesn't mean that the deaths occurred in the forest if they contracted it at a hospital, at a nursing home, because you were bringing in COVID-positive patients.
And apparently the European variant or the New York variant, whatever it is, was the one that spread the most.
So this was something that actually impacted the entire United States.
And other than the fact that 15,000 people died.
Or something between 5,000 and 10,000 who didn't have to, whose deaths were concealed.
Other than that, it impacted the nation.
And now, nothing's going to happen.
That's it?
That's it?
Done.
So Whitmer gets to walk, Wolf gets to walk, and Cuomo gets to walk.
And so, I mean, the Biden administration is weaponizing the Department of Justice full scale.
All the things they accuse Trump of doing is what Biden...
Trump didn't do.
In fact, it was weaponized usually against him, his own Department of Justice.
But the Biden administration is doing it at a level that even Obama didn't reach.
Even Obama didn't quite...
I mean, Obama weaponized it aggressively.
Eric Holder was definitely his standby guy, his protector.
But this is even much further than that.
So not only is, of course, nothing...
We've heard nothing about the Biden investigation that's been...
Bill Barr kept secret during the campaign.
And we've heard nothing yet, of course, from the Durham investigation.
So this is a pattern that shows the Department of Justice is now an arm of the political party, in this case the Biden administration, and it's being weaponized for precisely that purpose.
Some will argue, not me, but others, that the reason why it might be occurring more under Joe than under Barack or others.
It's because Biden is effectively not in control of anything.
It is the apparatus that is in total control.
And they've got someone who's beyond a lame duck.
It's someone who can barely string a sentence together.
And I'm not saying that to make fun of any form of dementia or anything.
I think it is actual abuse what we see going on in any normal circumstances.
But they've got someone who can't even oppose because he's basically not even aware of what's going on.
And that's what happens when...
The deep state, the apparatus runs amok and that's what we see happening now.
And so Michigan, I've noticed it's convenient.
It was Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New York.
I'm not saying this for partisan purposes.
Was there any Republican state that enacted a similar policy that resulted in nursing home deaths being higher than other states?
No.
I mean, those three states were the most egregious, and I don't know if any other state also did it.
But I don't know if any Republican state, because the CDC came out quickly.
People like me were saying nursing homes are going to be a high-risk vector from the very beginning, given the age profile of who the victims were and given, if you know anything about nursing homes.
My mother worked there when I was a kid.
And I looked at legal cases concerning it.
What even made it worse?
Because I had people whose...
Family members died during this time period.
People like Cuomo in all of these states, they immunized any of the nursing homes.
They forced the nursing homes to take COVID-infected patients, knowing the nursing homes are high-risk vectors.
They continued even after the CDC explicitly warned not to do that.
Then they turned around and immunized the nursing homes from any suit for anybody who died.
So they just let a lot of people die, I mean, knowingly at some level, and they're going to face no consequences civilly or criminally for it, thanks to the Biden administration.
And then meanwhile, they're going to get the FBI involved to entrap people under the Whitmer kidnapping plot on the basis that they were acting out because she was locking them down.
I mean, similar problems in Canada, but not exactly the same.
Just the nursing homes, long-term healthcare facilities, as we call them, it's more politically correct, were understaffed, under-equipped, and everyone knew it.
And while everyone knew it, Justin Trudeau is donating our PPE to China in February, knowing this is coming because everybody knew it was coming.
And sure as sugar, 70-80% of the deaths and even more of the transmission occurred at nursing homes, understaffed.
So they were shifting staff, infected staff, from one home to the next.
I was getting calls, but anybody sending me an email, I'm not practicing law anymore if I can avoid it.
So people were calling me like, I want to sue.
I was like, I can't do it.
I hear someone who might.
But I heard about this, Robert, early on as well.
It's just hindsight is 20-20, and it gets even worse than you thought it was at the time when you were still learning how bad it was.
So they're all going to walk, and that's it.
That's the end of the story.
Sorry, go ahead.
As just another illustration, the Office of Inspector General came out with another report this week of another high-ranking FBI officer who was illegally leaking information to the media during the key time period you can almost guarantee it was about Trump.
2016, for anybody who doesn't know.
2016.
They don't mention the name, a high-ranking, senior-ranking FBI official accepting tickets to black-tie events and disclosing confidential information to the media.
Nothing to see here, folks.
And there's no name.
And what was the outcome of this OIG report?
Nothing.
Here's this bad stuff that happened.
He retired and he's getting his full pension.
Refused to admit or acknowledge anything.
Refused to sit down and talk.
And there's going to be no follow-up of any kind.
Because the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office is too busy making sure that the grandmas taking selfies in the Capitol in an unauthorized manner are all rounded up.
And so you sent me this.
It's a two-page report, but I did pick up on that.
It says, we can't compel testimony from anyone who is retired or retired in the context of the investigation.
And I guess retired or took whatever it is, are no longer with the FBI.
So they can no longer be compelled to testify or provide answers.
We've investigated ourselves.
This time, it's not no wrongdoing.
It's some wrongdoing, but we have no remedy because the person no longer works for us.
And case closed, end of story.
We're not even revealing the name of the individual.
So the collective knowledge can go out and find what happened.
That's it.
Done.
And nobody even...
How do you even find that two-page report, even if you're looking for it, Robert?
Yeah, exactly.
Okay, it was a rhetorical question.
Yeah, exactly.
Sorry, go ahead.
That transitions into...
Sorry, go ahead.
There is a lag, so we're going to talk over each other.
You go.
I'm not saying another word.
Oh, sure.
No problem.
So that's a good lag.
Good lag.
Good transition into...
The cases they are paying attention to, which is the January 6th cases, and some people keep sending me, why am I not involved in the January 6th cases?
I represent Kyle Rittenhouse, and if I got involved in the January 6th cases, they would use it very quickly to smear Kyle Rittenhouse.
They've already smeared.
And by the way, it may be eternal truth number three.
Eternal truth number one, Sally Yates is corrupt.
Eternal truth number two, Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.
And maybe for the time being, eternal truth number three, Black Rifle Coffee totally sucks.
Because Black Rifle Coffee smeared Kyle Rittenhouse, then had a bunch of so-called conservative press try to cover up for him this past week.
But because I represent Kyle Rittenhouse, given how easily he's smeared by the press and the media, I can't get involved in those cases personally until the Kyle Rittenhouse case is finished.
But here are some things that...
Some public defenders are doing a very good job.
Not all, but some are.
Some, what's called CJA, Criminal Justice Act, appointed a counsel who are private lawyers but paid for out of government funds.
Some of them have been assigned to the cases.
Some of them are doing a very good job.
And there's some private counsel doing a very good job.
Now, one person who has not done a very good job as yet...
Is someone who's totally disqualified for handling these cases, and that's John Pierce.
But to give an example of the kind of work these lawyers could be doing, and apparently there was word that Sidney Powell might get involved.
She does have skill set in the criminal context, so I think she could help.
Her current political position is probably not the best one to be in.
She may run into pro-hoc problems, but putting that aside.
But also, this is what we were discussing at the time, is the baggage that the lawyers have now created for themselves, which is going to reflect poorly, not reflect poorly, but rather translate poorly onto representation of their clients.
That's the thing that people have to appreciate in general.
Even when I was doing my YouTube stuff, I could understand a judge looking at me and not taking me seriously, and then if I'm representing a client, that translates badly for their representation.
She's not the best front counsel to represent any of these people.
She has a skill set.
She might have to do it behind the scenes and have someone who doesn't have the political baggage taking the foreground.
The things they could be bringing for relief include, well, now this one a lot of them I haven't brought yet.
None of them I think have brought yet, but I would recommend to at least look at and consider, which are motions to disqualify.
The courts involved, and even the U.S. Attorney's Office, because it's becoming clear that they feel personally, politically connected, personally connected, feel like they're personal victims of what's taken place.
Judges have made comments like that.
Prosecutors have made comments like that.
I would use that to highlight the problem of prejudice in the judiciary and the local prosecutorial team to say, motion to disqualify and at least put it on the record.
The second set of motions that can be brought are motions for bails.
Now, some lawyers, some have been doing a great job at this.
Some, well, like John Pierce, I don't think he's filed a single one yet for his clients, but some have done a fantastic job taking it up on appeal, but continue to do it over and over again because the longer they're in, the more the bail becomes unreasonable.
There's a length of time argument.
There's this conventional understanding that in order to bring a new bail motion, you have to allege new evidence.
That's not really true.
Because the reasonableness of a detention changes based on the length of the detention and based on evidence that comes out in terms of discovery and speedy trial issues.
So they should continue to fight for bail over and over and over and over again.
I imagine it's also relative to even the maximum sentence of the crime for which you're accused, or does that not come into play?
Yeah, that always comes into play.
Because that's your risk of flight and your risk of...
I think they're misinterpreting the risk of causing harm.
I would include a constitutional challenge to anything other than flight as well.
That was a 5-4 decision when the Supreme Court decided it.
Put everything at risk for the system by continuing to pursue these cases in the abusive manner that they are.
Third, bring motions for speedy trial.
Don't waive speedy trial.
Bring motions for a speedy trial if your client's detained.
Fourth, I mean, I get if your client's not detained, you want to make sure you have all the discovery first, but if your client is detained, force that issue.
Fourth, motions for discovery.
They're still hiding the documents.
They were trying to get a private company to handle the discovery, and the court rejected that, said they just need to start turning over the documents and information that they're sitting on.
Why not publish it to the world?
They have 14,000 hours of video.
Let the world see it.
What is so scary about what's in there that the government does not want people to see all of the video evidence that they've gathered?
So motions for discovery is part three.
You have a right to anything that could help the defense.
But do you not have the right to complete footage?
Because they are releasing piecemeal 30-second clips to show how violent it was.
And there's no denying there were elements of violence.
There's no denying that we saw violent clashes between the police and the protesters.
No denying it.
But they're releasing two minutes of 14,000 hours.
I forget how many hours it is.
They're releasing two minutes of it.
Can you not compel the context?
For the video that they are releasing and why hasn't that been done and what are the chances that that happens?
Their excuse has been it's so unmanageable they need to give it to a private company rather than just turn it over.
I don't buy that.
I mean, you have it, you can just turn it over.
This is not hard.
Let the defense manage it.
If it's so unmanageable, let the defense deal with it.
If they do a bad job, you can accuse them of using it out of context, but let them deal with it.
That's typically how it works.
It's the old Friday night dump.
And why not disclose?
I mean, almost all of this is evidence, and so it's not private, to my knowledge.
So almost all of this should be publicly disclosed.
It should be disclosed to the public, so the public can see.
Because my guess is crowdsourcing will lead to more information.
And crowdsourcing part of the evidence for these cases, Matt Brainerd's doing some good work on these cases, I think could also be very helpful for these financially strapped defendants.
The next thing is motions to dismiss.
There was a group of lawyers that John Pierce replaced.
The lawyers that he replaced that actually brought a very good motion to dismiss.
Attack these charges at every single level possible.
Including the motions for discovery, everything connected to QAnon.
By this point, the judges and the prosecutors at different times have cited QAnon connections as relevant.
Well, let's find out.
How much QAnon looks like the Whitmer case?
And on the message boards.
How many feds were on these message boards encouraging, inciting violence to take place?
There's videotape of someone the night before who apparently was a federal agent trying to incite it the night before.
And then people in the crowd start chanting, fed, fed, fed.
That was probably Alex Jones crowd.
They could spot a fed a little ways away.
The people that Jones made sure never went inside.
Have that as part of the discovery.
Bring motions to dismiss.
And they can bring Bivens claims, and they should include this also in bail motions, that they're current, for anybody who's incarcerated, that those conditions are borderline torture.
They're what the judge identified.
Explain what a Bivens claim is for those who don't know.
I remember it briefly, but I know there's going to be those who have not heard it yet.
So when it's the feds that are detaining you or violating your civil rights, you don't have a Civil Rights Act claim because that only applies to state governments and local governments.
It doesn't apply to the federal government.
The federal government has to be a direct constitutional claim, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case called Bivens v.
Six Unnamed Federal Agents, identified that in certain circumstances, you can bring a federal civil rights claim for federal agents or federal officers violating your rights.
They should also understand all the internal BOP policies and U.S. martial policies, BOP being the Bureau of Prisons, depending on where they're detained and who's maintaining that facility, because they'll often have internal administrative procedures.
I mean, 23 hours being isolated every single day, reports of being beaten, assaulted, harassed, all the rest, being denied basic access to their counsel in many instances.
So make that part of bail.
Say, look, this is an unreasonable condition.
There needs to be an alternative.
I've long argued it makes no sense that the alternative is prison.
Or release?
Why can't there be something in between?
You could have someone detained at a halfway house.
Those facilities are available at a whole bunch of places.
Ankle bracelets.
I mean, take their passports.
Nobody's running to Canada.
Canada's not letting anybody in.
You're not jumping on a plane without a passport.
The idea that one of the judges in the January 6th said the defendant showed the ability to travel across the country without a job, and that's why we're detaining them, and that's been six months?
I mean, that's preposterous.
It is cruel and unusual punishment.
I don't know how you'd see it as anything else.
For whatever anyone was accused of on that day, that they're still in jail is an outrage.
And then, to bring it back to the Whitmer case, the federal agent in the Whitmer case, who was accused of violent assault on his wife, but not murder.
It was called intent to cause serious bodily harm, but not murder.
Out on $10,000 bail, personal recognizance, and has his firearm taken away from him.
Well, you want to talk about a real insurrection?
Those two lawyers who were going to firebomb with Molotov cocktails, police officer cars in New York, got released.
So, you know, how is it people like that are getting released, but people that took unauthorized selfies are not getting released?
Or people that had one interaction with one officer are not getting released?
So, I would continue to attack and attack and attack and attack and bring out all the Bivens claims.
You know, and people can file, the defendants can file those Bivens claims, pro se, even.
Just say, here's what's happening to me inside.
Put it under penalty of perjury.
Put the whole system under massive scrutiny.
And then bring motion to Trump.
Let me ask you a favor.
Say that part again so that we can cut a one-minute clip of this and everyone can share it around the world.
The defendants can file pro se Bivens claims.
Yes, so any defendant doesn't need a lawyer to file a pro se Bivens claim, and if they can't afford it, they can check the box that they don't have the ability to pay the filing fee or anything else, and they can have and just list their complaint.
Tons of Bivens claims are done by prisoners every year this way.
Habeas petitions are done by prisoners this way every year.
So they can file individual claims saying, I'm being deprived of my civil rights by the conditions of my detention, including any beating, any harassment.
Any threats to be beaten, any threats to be put in the general population solely for the purpose of being assaulted, the failure to protect them, and the isolation of 23 hours a day, denial of access to counsel, denial of access to be able to prepare their own defense.
All of these impact the denials of the right to have free speech.
Remember, they're presumed innocent, so they have First Amendment rights like anybody else.
So all of that, you're getting First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights, Sixth Amendment rights, Eighth Amendment rights violated, in my view, and they can bring any and every claim that relates to it to at least get it on record and force the system to come to terms with what it's doing to these people.
All right, everyone, if anyone wants to cut that clip, share it left, right, and center.
Please do.
I'm going to do it myself.
It's at 55 minutes, give or take.
I think the lag is affecting Super Chats.
Can you ask Barnes about the other Thomas Caldwell?
I honestly don't know about the other Thomas Caldwell.
Now I'm getting a kid who's flashing a flashlight at me because it's gotten dark enough now that I might need extra lighting sooner than later.
Could a Bivens claim be brought against a U.S. intelligence agency for harassing one of their employees under color of quote national security?
For employees it's a whole different thing.
There's an exhaustion of administrative remedies.
There's specific claims you can or can't bring.
There's the Federal Tort Claims Act.
So it varies when it involves a federal employee.
And there may be federal tort claims they can look at, too.
Their exhaustion of remedies is required.
So like Ashley Babbitt is having to go through that.
Her family is having to go through that process before they can file suit in D.C. with the Capitol Police.
But so they have all of these expansive remedies available to them.
Now, as to sentencing...
Credit to the lawyer who advocated for that person who was sentenced still to a ridiculous sentence.
Basically, his only crime was he spent 15 minutes in the Senate chamber.
Carrying the flag, a Trump flag, which the judge just kept, the Trump flag, the Trump flag.
That's a judge who should not be presiding over these cases.
If you start shaking it, the Trump flag, recuse yourself, disqualify yourself, rather than disqualifying the legal system you're supposed to be upholding.
And so that was embarrassing.
And that guy got eight months?
Well, look at Clinesmith, high-ranking government lawyer, lied in order to have massive spying on people, doesn't serve a day in prison like every other Spygate criminal who never even got prosecuted, and this guy for 15 minutes in the Senate chamber gets eight months?
And they did mention, I think they specifically said he committed no act of violence and no act of vandalism.
I'm fairly certain, if that's not right, correct me, but I'm fairly certain that's correct.
It is...
Look, okay, you make a stupid decision.
You get a little carried away.
But other than the time already spent, eight months.
Now, admittedly, nothing would have been a little bit silly.
I don't know, but a week?
A day?
A month?
Eight months?
Why not the $50 fines everybody who raided the Kavanaugh hearings got?
Because they raided it for the purpose of preventing those hearings from going forward.
They didn't get criminally prosecuted at all.
They got paid a $50 fine.
If it was good enough for those people...
I like that, Robert.
And the shame of having paid the $50 would haunt them for the rest of their lives.
I agree with you.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Not only that, this guy had no criminal history, took care of cats, was a low-income worker, was described by everybody as a nice guy.
He never should have been criminally prosecuted.
However, credit to the defense lawyer, because the government was trying to put him in for 18 months.
And for someone who's never been in the system, big difference between eight months and 18 months.
And they would have got that from this Obama appointee who was shaking at the Trump flag, but for an excellent defense by that defense lawyer.
Apparently the guy's a veteran.
He's about to recommit.
And he just laid down the law and he took it.
He said, you know, this is everything absurd about the system, everything unfair, partial prejudice.
And he took a judge who I guarantee probably walked on the bench planning on maybe even going above 18 months and realized, OK, I can't do this in safe face at all.
So I'll still whack him, but I'll whack him at the lowest level that's sustainable.
And what's key about that is now that that eight months has been set, it'll be very hard for any other judge to go above eight months.
For anybody else that's a nonviolent defendant.
So that lawyer's great advocacy probably saved a lot of people a lot of time in prison.
It's amazing.
And you say the judge shouldn't be sitting there, but the judge is thinking the one screen, two films, that judge is sitting there saying, I have to be here.
This was an affront on the institution itself, on the republic itself, and I need to set the example to make sure that this never happens again.
It's the...
Contextualizing.
And everyone's a hero in their own story.
That judge undoubtedly is a hero for exacting justice on this.
But everyone else, separate circumstances, different judge, different context, whatever.
I don't have to worry about it.
I didn't realize the Kavanaugh hearing disruptors only had to pay $50 fines.
I didn't know that.
All the Antifa people and others who did that violence during the Trump inauguration, all of them walked.
They either got jury nullification or no prosecution.
So, I mean, the disparity, but it tells you where our legal system is, that federal judges are more scared about people carrying a Trump flag in an unauthorized manner on the Senate floor than they are lawyers trying to Molotov cocktail police officers, than they are high-ranking law enforcement officials creating false perjured affidavits to illegally spy on a bunch of U.S. citizens.
Those things are not shocking to them.
Carrying the Trump flag, oh lord, that's terrifying.
It shows how politicized our legal system has sadly become.
Wait until they qualify the Trump flag as a symbol of hate and therefore carrying it is going to be an, what is the word?
Not an exacerbating element, an aggravating element.
And for anybody who's new to the stream and doesn't know why I'm in a car, we're camping in Quebec.
The lighting is natural lighting with the sunroof.
It's $7 a month extra for this sunroof, and it was the best thing we ever got.
But that's why there's lag, it's pixelated, it's imperfect, but you're here for the information, not for my beautiful face.
So what is the news now?
There are still people being detained.
Who was it that posted?
I forget the name.
It was a post being shared around describing the conditions.
You can believe him or you cannot, but there was a post that went viral describing the conditions.
23 hours a day.
You could get out for a walk 20 minutes a day.
No exercise.
Their muscles were turning to jelly.
I forget who it was.
If anybody knows in the chat, let me know.
But people are still under these.
The main reporter that's been covering this is Julie Kelly for The American Greatness.
And she shared that as well.
So she's been getting information from them and has been reporting on all of it, reporting on the hearings, and has done a very good job.
Doing so.
Been on Tucker, I think, a couple of times.
So for people who want to keep up to date with what's happening in those cases, Julie Kelly with American Greatness is the person to follow.
You can find her on Twitter.
You can find her at American Greatness as well.
All right.
And actually, just to throw the proper respect out as relates to Whitmer coverage, Charlie LeDuff.
Check him out.
He's got the No Bullshit Hour on Facebook.
Amazing.
Amazing eccentric guy.
Amazing journalism.
Robert, I know what I want to talk about now, but is there a better segue, or do we go straight to Candace Owens and Facebook?
No, Candace Owens is a good one.
Okay, so for those who don't know, Candace Owens sued not Facebook, and we're going to discuss the strategic decision given the outcome now.
It's nice to play front seat driver or Sunday morning quarterback.
I screwed both of those up.
Candace Owens sued Lead Stories and the other parent company for defamation.
Tortious interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with prospective business relations, and unfair competition because Lead Stories fact-check Candace Owens' stories, slaps a label on it on Facebook for and on behalf of Facebook because Lead Stories contracts with Facebook to do the fact-checking.
In so doing, conveniently enough, diverts traffic from Candace Owens to the real fact-checkers, Lead Stories itself.
So diverting traffic from Candace Owens' wildly popular page.
Candace Owens, as a result of the hoax alert, false fact check label, gets demonetized on Facebook, which works sort of like YouTube, so she doesn't get ad revenue from Facebook.
She's no longer allowed to advertise on Facebook, so she can't sell her book anymore.
For anybody who thinks that's a sin, too bad.
She's allowed selling her stuff.
So she sues for all these damages.
Judge comes in and says, essentially, there's a debate on jurisdiction, which I don't think anyone cares about.
The judge says, I have jurisdiction to hear this.
I have jurisdiction, and now I'm dismissing the case because there was no defamation because the statements that Candace Owen made to the effect that death counts were being inflated for the purposes of exaggerating the pandemic, they were denied, contradicted by Dr. Birx and other authorities.
To the extent that they were denied...
We can say that the fact-check false is sufficiently true so as it doesn't constitute defamation, and then once you lose the defamation claim, you lose all the other claims.
You lose the tortious interference because there's no tort, and you lose the unfair competition because there's no act of unfairness.
On the merits, Robert, I mean, it wasn't an untenable decision, but what's your impression of the decision on the merits of the issue if you didn't know the parties involved?
Well, I thought the main point you highlighted with that great Alex Jones memed rant at the end of your video is the apropos one.
The big problem was they labeled her statements a hoax.
They labeled her post a hoax.
And he went to great lengths to say, oh, you know what?
That's just hyperbole.
And he actually said this with a straight face.
He said, no reasonable person.
Now, this is the legal standard he had to come to the conclusion of.
But he said no reasonable person would conclude that the alleged allegation of a hoax by a fact checker organization actually has any factual implications whatsoever.
It was a preposterous claim by a politicized court.
I'll go even one step further in the description.
The judge said nobody reading Hoax Alert would have understood it to be that Candace Owens was propagating a lie.
They would have merely understood it to the...
To mean that they have to read it with a more cynical, scrutinous eye.
And now, the funny thing is, I'm sitting there, Robert, on a paddle boat, because this is where I'm thinking about the Candace Owen video, and I was like, geez Louise, that's exactly what Alex Jones said when he came out and said another tragic event was a hoax.
And they sued him.
You know, we'll see what happens on the merits.
The problem is here, I can appreciate I can't suck and blow at the same time either, because I do think, you know, calling something a hoax, it's an argument.
As to whether or not it's a matter of opinion or a statement of fact, whatever.
But they went after Alex Jones, full throttle, straight to the Supreme Court, still ongoing.
And in this case, they say, well, when they called her statement a hoax alert, they didn't mean hoax.
They just meant read it with a more scrutinous eye.
Nonsensical.
But then on the one hand, you say, they said that the fact check was false and that they're not...
I'm mixing up the words.
They said the fact check was not a defamatory statement, that it was a false statement.
Because it was contradicted.
And at the same time, they go and say that calling it a hoax was not a factual statement either because it just meant read it with skepticism.
I mean, the case law, I don't know the case in that decision.
I mean, what was the underlying case law?
The problem with his, that's the most problematic aspect of his decision.
Because legally, he has to determine not whether he as a judge thinks that.
He has to conclude that no reasonable person could possibly interpret A hoax alert from a fact-checking organization as having anything to do with facts.
I mean, just that statement is frankly ludicrous.
What's ludicrous is the judge's statement.
That's what's ludicrous.
And so that statement made no sense.
Now, they chose to sue in Delaware.
And I think what we talked about at the time, the suit could have been improved a little bit, in my view.
And it was a risk to pick Delaware because, I mean, that's the president's home state.
So, you know, I mean, that's where they're investigating Hunter Biden right now.
But why did she pick Delaware and not?
I can't, I don't know what would be a more favorite.
She lives there.
She lives there.
And my guess is some local people thought it would be smart.
Some of the lawyers probably thought it would be smart legally.
But I don't think...
I think they misread the dynamic.
Delaware is...
Suing in a heavily Democratic state is a big risk.
Unless you know what you're...
Unless you know something that I don't know.
But this very politicized judgment, he made a statement that I don't think can be justified with a straight face.
Because it's one thing if a comedian said it or someone that says hyperbole.
All the time says it.
Things like that.
But this is a fact-checking organization.
A fact-checking organization.
Fact-check, they say not just false.
Hoax alert.
Now, to me, that's a factual statement.
That is not saying...
Someone's going to accuse me of being politically biased here, but that is not like saying something is a hoax.
Because when you say something is a hoax, it can mean any varying degree of severity of something.
When a fact-checker says...
And then above and beyond the false, hoax alert.
The only thing, the only conclusion I draw from that is that it's a lie intended to propagate misinformation.
And so, I mean, I thought it's totally untenable.
It's incongruous of an argument.
But the only question is, is it appealable?
And is any higher level court going to say, OK, well, even if we disagree with that statement, the substance of the rest of it, I think we can agree with.
OK, it's not it's not a defamatory statement to say false or fact check false.
It's our fact-check assessment.
We agree now that these fact-checkers are not actually fact-checkers, but they are sort of opinion pieces.
I think we all agree that that's what they are now.
Nobody takes it as fact-checkers.
It's an interesting defense in that sense, because this exposes the Facebook fact-checkers as not being about facts at all, according to a federal court.
That they're just a bunch of political hyperbole and opinion makers.
That's what the federal court determined.
So that, you know, can Facebook even continue to call them fact?
Maybe Facebook can be sued for fraud, for calling them fact checkers.
So I think that she has a very robust appeal.
It's whether the court can get past the politics of the issue.
Because I don't think any honest judge could say that no reasonable person anywhere...
Could interpret that statement not to be a factual statement when it's being made by a fact-checker organization.
It's so outlandish on its face.
I'm beyond reasonable, as far as the person goes.
That's exactly how I took it.
It was not just fact, hoax.
Because she's out there, and it's even worse than that.
It's that she's out there trying to promote the hoax, to sell her book, to make money, and to be the worst of the worst in terms of exploiting tragedy by propagating lies so that she can sell whatever she's selling.
As a result.
It's the worst of the worst.
It was pure defamation.
It was the classic definition of it.
What I think it recommends is for people that are looking at these cases in the future, they should incorporate a public opinion polling.
I've been saying this to lawyers for venue.
In the January 6th cases, they should poll the different venues.
Before jury selection, you should poll the local venue.
They should poll to see how people interpret that statement.
Because I think we all know 75% of people, probably, Who read that statement would interpret it as a factual statement accusing Candace Owens of lying when Candace Owens didn't lie.
No, and that's the other thing.
She didn't lie.
She has her authorities that are justifying her position.
Dr. Birx comes out and says, that's what debate is.
But you don't come out in the debate and say, I fact-check my opponent and they're wrong and I'm right and I win.
And beyond being wrong, they're liars and promoting a hoax to mislead.
It was over the top.
We'll see, but now, easy to play Monday morning quarterback, hindsight's 20-20, she made the strategic decision not to sue Facebook.
My understanding is that she had a weaker claim against Facebook because she has a terms of service contract with Facebook that says they can shut it down whenever they want, however they want, for whatever reason they want.
So she basically has no argument.
I might have argued the...
I know parasitism doesn't exist under U.S. law, but I would argue something else, unfair competition involving Facebook's scheme for unjust enrichment, maybe.
Yeah, she had a claim that was like that.
And the court just said, unless they said anything false, you can't bring any other claim.
And that's generally the case.
I'm not sure it's quite the case here, because you can't have a separate claim, like false light invasion of privacy, for example, is speech-based tort.
But you could be saying something true, but you invaded their privacy and maybe put it outside of context or things like that.
So there are ways you can bring suit regardless of defamation.
So I'm not sure that part of his order was that strong.
But to me, the egregious part was just determining that any statement made...
By a fact-checking organization, pretty much, by this judge, can never be sued for defamation because it doesn't imply any facts.
The fact-checks are not fact-checks.
The fact-checks are not factual.
The hoax alert doesn't mean hoax.
It just means read with caution.
But now, jokes aside, I know Jones is being sued in different jurisdictions.
Can this be used at all?
This is bad case law, Robert.
They've ignored all the law in Jones' cases.
They've thrown it all out.
They've said you can be sued for defamation, even if you never talked about that person ever.
If you never mentioned that person, that person can sue you for defamation or intentional affliction of emotional distress.
Unheard of.
They've ignored all the law governing speech.
They've ignored the law governing procedures because they hate Alex Jones.
So the court system is showing how openly and overtly Political they are in these kind of cases.
When Rachel Maddow and the fact checkers get treated one way, and I get saying that nothing Rachel Maddow ever says is factual and nobody sane would ever believe it.
That's basically what the federal court says about it.
I could understand that more.
When Tucker Carlson is saying this is literally extortion...
It's quite clear to me he's expressing an opinion and not saying literally extortion because clearly no one was convicted of extortion.
I still think it's dangerous to accuse people of crimes, yada, yada.
When Rachel Maddow says they're quite literally Russian propaganda, I can appreciate.
It's an opinion show.
She's expressing herself.
I can understand that.
But a fact checker coming in and saying false hoax alert, that's beyond a factual statement.
That is a don't proceed with warning.
That is...
Never read again.
That is totally discrediting of an individual where we're still dealing with a disputed...
But no, see what's happening with Jones.
I mean, this is bad case law.
I can see it.
And I understand that the case law is already in favor of Jones.
But when you have a unique case, you can find all the reasons in the world to circumvent the existing case law to create your own that is unique only to that particular case.
No doubt.
And so I think she has a robust appeal.
I'm sure she will appeal.
And it'll be whether the courts are willing to put aside any political bias they may have in Delaware to actually apply and enforce the law.
All right, now I'm looking for the next subject matter, but if you can segue us in more easily than me looking on my phone.
Speaking of speech, I brought suit this week in Arizona for the librarian who has been a librarian for more than a decade.
You know, done great work at his local library.
No problems of any kind.
All he cared about was getting people books that they wanted and were interested in.
He was part of a private listserv of librarians that decided that some of the people on that listserv decided to weaponize it for politicized purposes during the George Floyd BLM protest.
And so they started saying every librarian needs to re-examine what they're doing in the library.
And it was like a little mini CRT lecture for librarians.
And he responded and he said two things.
One, he said, let's not use the listserv for politics.
And secondly, he articulated, because here's what my politics would be and I would disagree with yours.
Do we want a long extended debate on this?
He goes, here's the counterpoints to what you put out, but let's just drop politics, period.
They then reported him to the local library where he worked in the city of Flagstaff.
And that library then turned around and fired him because he had opposed his private speech on a private email group, which is what a listserv is for those people who don't know.
And so we brought suit on First Amendment grounds and other grounds this week, hoping to reestablish that...
First Amendment speech matters and that it protects everybody and that the government can't go around firing people because they don't like their speech outside of the governmental capacity.
First question I have, not knowing anything about the case.
The library, is it municipal?
Is it private?
Is it a school?
What kind of library?
It's owned by the government.
City of Flagstaff.
Okay.
Subdivision of the state of Arizona.
So what defenses are the library or what defense of the staff or whoever fired is going to have?
They're going to have?
I don't want to ask stupid questions.
Are they going to have any form of immunity because they're government officials carrying out government functions?
I mean, no, I mean, they're going to have to argue that he has no First Amendment rights and that they could fire him for his speech.
Because as far as I know, at least when he went through the process, they didn't really give him due process either.
But the only grounds was this grounds.
They didn't have any other grounds.
So maybe they'll try to manufacture things.
Sometimes they try to do that after the fact.
But I think that ship has sailed on them as well.
So this happened during the summer of 2020, late July of 2020.
And so I don't think they have a vibrant defense.
The only question is, does the First Amendment apply and protect people or not?
Or is BLM speech somehow magically outside of that?
So it should protect them.
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't protect them.
And now it's not like there might be some correspondence that you're not privy to or that you're not aware of that could have justified the decision.
They have to file a report that says why they did this on the basis of what.
Clean record for his 10 years of past employment?
Completely clean record, no problems, no issues.
And they even said that their excuse is, and this is fascinating, so this might be their only defense, but this is not a constitutionally cognizable defense.
Their defense is your speech makes us look bad at the local library.
If you're not on the BLM page, then our library looks bad in the local community, so we can fire you for that reason.
The speech was private among whom?
A library association of librarians.
So the fact that somebody out there was offended and basically they're saying if you don't have the speech that we tell you to have...
We can fire you because we think that makes us look bad with our local patrons.
That's not a legal excuse to fire people.
They might be pulling the YouTube demonetization.
If you do something we don't like on another platform, we can demonetize you on this one because it's a community and we don't want people reflecting poorly on this community by doing embarrassing or controversial things on other platforms.
Speaking of platforms getting sued...
The class action was brought against Facebook this week in Florida for censorship of COVID-19-related speech.
And the class action, it still could have been a little more specific, but it was more specific than Trump's.
And it said basically that the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, and the CDC had ordered Facebook to remove any post.
And what they did is, what we talked about last week, they cited heavily.
I think they could have cited more what Biden also said, but they cited Biden's statements and the press secretary's statements saying, look, they're saying that they are telling Facebook what post to remove, but these group of people have had their post removed that fit that category.
So we're saying this was actually done as a state actor, at least in this context of these statements related to this speech during this time period.
So it's more specific than the Trump suit, which is good.
It could probably benefit from being a little bit more specific, in my view, but it comes much closer to making the specific allegation that Facebook did this at the direction of the government.
No, and you have to, I mean, they have the benefit of these actions having occurred presumably before they filed, so they can incorporate facts that didn't exist when Trump filed.
But the question I was going to ask was, yeah, if this survives a motion to dismiss stage because you have sufficient specificity of the allegations, My impression, Robert, you'll tell me if I'm ahead of the curve on this one or just imagining, is that what Jen Psaki, I like Psaki better than Psaki because it sounds bad.
When Jen said what she said, my impression is that there's going to be much more active, if not direct backtrack collusion between the government and Facebook than what anyone's thinking right now.
So they need to get there and discover this.
In the United States, you have something called a litigation hold, right?
So they tell Facebook, don't delete emails, don't change anything, because all of this might be relevant to the litigation?
Yes, that usually goes out very early on.
And that's one part.
The other part is, and then Facebook has its own internal policies and procedures about how it keeps documents and information.
And then certain government documents will always be in the government's possession in case Facebook gets rid of it.
The government has limitations.
The reason why Hillary had her server outside of government servers is so she could be delete, delete, delete, delete when it came time to do so.
Much harder to do so on government servers.
And so the complaint could have still been more robust by being more specific.
And that may still be a limitation on the claim.
But it's at least further along the path and it shows what this is unleashing.
What we predicted last week was those statements are going to lead to more lawsuits.
They already have.
This is a big class action brought for everybody that fits that category.
And how much they can keep weaseling and wiggling out of this, given the kind of statements they made, it's going to be harder and harder for courts to pretend there isn't the degree of collusion when the President of the United States is threatening them, accusing them of murder if they don't go along with his instructions.
Yeah, it's getting better and better.
All you need is one to get through.
To discovery stage.
And then you'll see, look, maybe there is nothing.
Maybe the evidence comes out and it's just, you know, Jen Psaki sending an email saying, hey guys, can you take that post down?
And they do it.
I'll concede.
That's not the government coercion that I'm envisioning that could bring Facebook to be a state actor.
But if it happens to be back channel stuff, like, we're just going to do it for you.
We've noticed it.
We flag it.
We remove it because we have that back channel.
Well, lo and behold...
Big problems for Facebook.
So we'll see where it goes.
And I think it explains why Zuckerberg is coming out now and being much more proactive in separating the government from Facebook, even if, to me, it looks like controlled opposition.
But it would explain certain conduct now.
Class action.
So the class is easy.
It's going to be a defined class of those who think they've had posts censored in a certain time frame.
Problems we know...
Our own Theopatra might be part of that class, potentially.
I don't know what Cleopatra's posted on Facebook.
I don't follow her on Facebook, but yeah, she's...
She had posts censored, contesting the institutional narrative.
And speaking of which, two suits that I'll be only addressing at locals because of YouTube censorship.
One is the lawsuit that was just filed by the Frontline Doctors Group challenging the emergency use authorization.
For the COVID-19 vaccines for anybody under the age of 18 or who already has COVID.
I'll be breaking down that whole suit in a video tomorrow at vivabarneslaw.locals.com because that topic is unkosher here at YouTube.
And then the Arizona audit.
I'll be getting into details about the Arizona audit.
There was a Senate hearing that took evidence from the people that conducted the Arizona audit.
And YouTube removed the video of a public Senate hearing of testimony.
That's where we've gotten to the point.
Where public hearings that the public has a right to know about, YouTube is now allowing them to see it.
I'll be discussing the Arizona audit and maybe some interesting things about Sharpiegate at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, as well as whether or not some of that frontline doctor suit gets into issues about the accuracy or inaccuracy of certain data that's coming out right now related to the vaccine.
All of that will only be discussed there to stay free from the YouTube censors.
And I appreciate that, Robert, because I told you, like, I read that decision.
I said, I don't know how you discuss this abiding by YouTube's terms of service, even if you're discussing allegations in a lawsuit.
Because, yeah, the lawsuit is extremely well drafted, and it's just going to be a question of expert evidence.
And there's going to have to be a battle of experts to say whose experts are right and whose are wrong.
And this seems like information that can be factually verified.
When the time comes before the court of law.
In Canada, we've been having our federal lawsuits, we've been contesting these issues, and some of them are, you know, they go through the court slowly, but there will be evidentiary hearing on the merits, and at some point, someone's going to have to make evidence of their claims, and someone's going to win and lose, or succeed and fail.
Speaking of evidence.
Yep.
Speaking of evidence, once again, another case goes to evidence in California on the lockdowns.
And once again, the government loses because they cannot come up with any substantiating evidence to justify their lockdown policies.
In this case, went all the way up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
This was about prohibiting private schools and private tutors from having in-person education during the last year.
And they first correctly ruled that mootness did not get rid of this.
Mootness is another bogus doctrine, but that's another story for another day.
We've gone over that, and that's led to fights with other YouTube lawyers, such as Nate Brody, on the issue of mootness.
Exactly.
This was a classic case of capable, even under the mootness doctrine, which I think is made up judicial doctrine, even under that doctrine, if it's capable of repetition, and yet evading review...
Then that's not moot.
The Ninth Circuit properly recognized this was clearly capable of repetition because the state of California has repeatedly gone back and forth on what policies they would have.
But once they put the test to the evidence, whereas the plaintiffs came up with evidence from all over the place, from doctors, from scholars, from you name it, from educational experts, psychologists, epidemiologists.
I can't say epidemiologists.
That's it.
That worked.
From all those people, they had massive evidence.
The state could come up with only two weak affidavits that sounded like one of these CDC statements where they said it's possible that this might have this rare effect.
They couldn't even come up with any evidence.
And so the Ninth Circuit said that was a violation.
You have a constitutional right to control your children's education.
That includes the right to send them to the private school of your choice.
That means the state cannot interfere with that without meeting strict scrutiny, which means it needs to be a compelling public interest and the remedy is narrowly.
Yeah, no, someone had just asked here how long the flag is going to be at half-mast for.
This is something I've talked about in Canada where...
Lighting is going to get bad and I can't seem to make it better.
Apologies, people.
In Canada, we have this residential school scandal which is making the waves now in the media.
Going back to my argument about government-subsidized media is corrupt media.
An issue about the mistreatment of...
I have to make sure not to get the wrong term because First Nations apparently is no longer proper.
I said Aboriginal and apparently people say that's no longer proper.
Indigenous.
Incidentally, interesting history.
Apparently only certain Indigenous groups were recognized as First Nations, which is why that's not appropriate.
I don't know why Aboriginal is not appropriate, and I might, you know, go interchange.
But bottom line, this residential school scandal, which has made the waves now, is not a new problem.
But, you know, the politicians and the media have made it into something of a new problem where you'd think we just learned about this yesterday, where...
It's been 100 plus years.
There was a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Took seven years to get to the bottom of the problem, list the names of the children, those who were documented.
Conservative government paid out a settlement to them, multiple lawsuits.
But now it's the media making a big deal of this pre-election season so that people running for office again can get their photo ops.
Robert, you've had similar residential schools type scandals in the United States, right?
This is...
Something that's, if not more prevalent, as prevalent, more prevalent in the United States?
I don't think of it in those terms.
I mean, we have reservation controversies.
Controversies about what land was made reservation, how people were treated on the reservation, the removal.
It's more forced removal.
There was forced removal of Indian children.
I use the word Indian because that's the legal term.
I get you could say Native American, everything else.
The historical legal term in the States is Indian.
I get it's because Columbus thought he landed in the Indies.
But putting all that aside, I landed in India.
Interesting side note.
In Quebec, there's something called Lachine Canal, which is Lachine Canal, which is literally the Chinese canal, because I guess they thought they found the pathway to China when it was nowhere near that.
But that's turned into Lachine Canal in Montreal.
But yeah, the forced removal.
So that's basically what the residential school system was, is they removed Aboriginal children, tried to assimilate them, forcibly assimilate them.
Massive abuse in those school systems which were run by the church.
And not to say that the abuse was not limited to Aboriginal children either.
The church-run schools have abuse problems throughout Canada as well.
So it sounds like you have a similar thing in the States.
But no, for whatever the reason now, it's become front-page news where the media has to portray it as a new problem that the government is now resolving so they can get the brownie points for re-election.
You sent me a decision which I found shocking.
I can't believe it, and you're going to have to explain it.
Gas stations being held liable for selling gas to inebriated patrons, and this was a split decision two to one from what I understood.
Robert, you've got to explain the context and explain how it is.
We're in a world now.
What were the facts of this particular case?
How egregious was the drunk individual who purchased gas, got into an accident, and hurt somebody?
In my view, it's a misapplication of the negligent entrustment doctrine.
So historically, the negligent entrustment doctrine is you give some tool, a vehicle or something else to someone you know is not able and capable to handle it.
They cause an injury.
You can be held liable.
What they've done is they've extended that negligent entrustment doctrine in New Mexico to say that if a drunk driver comes up to your gas station Pays for gas and drives off and then causes an accident.
You can now be sued as if you gave them the car.
Because the theory is allowing gas to go into that car somehow entrusted that person with the car itself.
And so basically any gas company, any little gas station can now be sued.
If for drunk drivers that happen to drive, and who knows where that could go?
I mean, how you're supposed to know whether or not they're drunk?
I mean, are you not supposed to do sobriety tests before you allow the gas to come out?
I thought it misunderstood.
They didn't give them the car.
So the fact that anything that helps with the operation of the car now becomes your responsibility for anyone operating the car?
I mean, does this apply to mechanic shops?
What if you're fixing somebody's car and you know they're a bad driver?
Are you now prohibited from giving them back their own car?
I mean, who knows where this can go?
First of all, I'm not saying this to ask.
This is a joke.
Does it apply to self-serve?
I mean, if someone pulled up...
They didn't impose any limits.
Their interpretation was, this is no...
I mean, I don't know.
I wouldn't apply to rental car companies at this point.
Anybody.
But I mean, theirs is even a little closer.
Their interpretation was, anything that allows that car to be on the road that you help do, that is being driven by someone in a derelict manner, you're now liable because you've negligently entrusted them with it.
Which is a total, it's a radical expansion.
And the court case really didn't deal with the fact that they were entrusting them, they were interpreting negligent entrustment to go beyond giving them the actual car.
It's now anything that helps that car to be on the road.
And like, you know, I was just trying to think of an example where I could understand how it got there.
Let's just say they go to a small mom and pop's gas station.
The person stumbles out of the car, reeks of alcohol, goes up to the counter to give a 50 for the prepay of the gas.
Okay, I mean, I can understand on an extreme case, but when I was reading this decision, it was, I mean, the dissent was clearly correct.
But they're basically saying, you know, absolute responsibility, effectively, because how are you supposed to know?
And then I'm thinking, you know, outside the box in terms of, like, humorous situations, what if someone has a limp?
What if someone has a speech impediment?
Are you supposed to then say, you seem drunk, you sound drunk, you're walking drunk, I'm not selling you gas.
Show me medical records to show that you have a lisp, a stutter, a gimp, I mean, like a leg that doesn't work properly.
Where does it end?
And where does it end?
And what is the responsibility?
And how are they supposed to know what the responsibility is?
Exactly.
And it seems to me that this doctrine can go...
Could keep getting worse and worse and worse and worse.
I mean, basically, this is...
I mean, I get it.
It's a payout to the plaintiff's bar in New Mexico, which is a big, important part of the coalition and the Democratic coalition in New Mexico.
And I forget how New Mexico judges are whether appointed or elected, but I have no doubt that the political...
In every state, John Grisham actually writes novels about this, about Mississippi.
There have been many examples in Mississippi.
The example is a certain county in Illinois where they used to file so many class actions.
They created a special federal law to deal with class actions to prevent that county from handling it because all the judges were basically elected by the plaintiff's bar.
In that case, the class action bar.
I'm often on the plaintiff's bar side of the aisle in a lot of cases, but this is where they go AWOL.
They're looking at, hey, we want a deep pocket.
We can sue when something bad happens.
Let's just...
They dramatically expand liability in places that, to me, don't make sense and are not consistent with what the restatement of torts was all about.
They cite the restatement over and over again, and they're not paying real attention to what they're talking about there.
They're talking about, you know, I have some guy that's drunk and says, I want to go over and shoot somebody.
Will you give me your gun?
And I give them the gun.
That's negligent entrustment.
Not somebody's driving, and now I'm responsible to make sure they're a good driver before I even let them use my gas station.
By the way, just so I don't get into trouble, I meant limp, by the way, and not gimp.
Some people are laughing, some people think...
No, I meant a limp, which was what I...
Okay, on that note, it's a question of verifying people who...
Literally asking for proof of medical conditions for anybody who appears to be intoxicated, inebriated, whatever.
But part of me, the cynical side now, who's looking ahead of the curve, says, okay, if we can get the gas stations on selling gas to someone who gets into an accident, we're only one step away from going after gun manufacturers, which is, I guess, the endgame, and maybe this is just one step towards that end.
And basically just expanding liability and redistribution of power and influence from private enterprise to the state.
Because ultimately it's the court issuing an award, the court enforcing the award, the court coming up with this legal doctrine.
That's how I see it as well.
Pay off to the plaintiff's bar and expanding the power of the state against private business.
And making it more and more difficult for private business to make a living.
Because this could go anywhere.
You're now as a gas station supposed to monitor your It was the highest court.
Of New Mexico.
Yeah, because, yes, of New Mexico.
The federal court asked the state court to determine this issue of state law.
And once they determined it, that's it.
Then it comes back to the federal court and they have to enforce it.
And that's now the law for the state of New Mexico.
I mean, gas stations woke up to a whole new line of liability and lawsuits, because given the limitless nature of that decision and opinion.
Yeah, it's shocking because it creates an impossible burden on people that is actually going to lead to more problems than not creating that burden in the first place.
Lighting's not going to get better, people.
My apologies.
I can actually look really, really scary if I move into the light.
I'll just move back and you'll enjoy the...
What was the good news, Robert?
Other than that, how was the theater?
So yeah, exactly.
The good news was, in terms of courts being willing to reverse themselves, the 11th Circuit initially overturned the district court in Florida.
That actually struck down the CDC's attempt to impose social distancing and mask mandates on the cruise industry.
State of Florida, once again, all the evidence sided with the state of Florida.
Another case that when they see the evidence, like Judge Dickman's decision a year ago or so in the Western District of Pennsylvania, when the actual evidence comes into trial, these lockdowns and public health interventions lose because they do not have the evidence to support them.
So the 11th Circuit initially reversed.
And my guess is for purely kind of political motivations of we don't want the white lab coat crowd to judge us for something bad happening.
So right away, credit to Governor DeSantis, he filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court.
And Justice Thomas presides over the 11th Circuit.
Now, normally he will always refer that to the whole court.
But he has some power in that process, depending on how much he wants to exercise.
And so all of a sudden, the 11th Circuit got inspired.
Within 24 hours of that motion of the U.S. Supreme Court being filed, they suddenly reversed themselves and said, we're sorry about that.
We're going to reinstate that stay.
The district court was right all along so that the cruise industry could get up and running in Florida.
So it was a big win for the governor against some of these crazy CDC rules and mask mandates.
How does that work exactly?
Because we were doing the live stream last week.
Someone said the decision that we thought was favorable was overturned.
How do they do that?
Issue an emergency request.
Who reviews it?
So what happened was the district court issued an injunction against the CDC, but stayed it for the 11th Circuit to rule on it, as long as the 11th Circuit ruled within a certain time frame.
The 11th Circuit comes in and says, we overturn it for now.
It's not a final decision, but for now, we're not allowing any injunction against the CDC.
But that decision could then be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And they cite, it was a very well done brief, they cite again how all the evidence is with them.
They also point out that the 11th Circuit in the eviction context had said just the opposite two days before.
Where they said the CDC did not have the power to issue an eviction moratorium.
The same logic applied to the CDC not having the power to even do this in the first place.
And so they highlighted that to the U.S. Supreme Court.
They have to file a copy of that with the 11th Circuit.
And that's when, within 24 hours, the 11th Circuit realized, well, rather than getting embarrassed by the U.S. Supreme Court or the risk of it, we're going to quickly reverse ourselves for a decision that simply was not well-founded in law.
When they initially stated.
Oh, the facts and the law was on the state of Florida's side.
So that's how that got reversed so quickly.
I don't want to not give credit where credit is due.
I do recall, Greg, I didn't remember it was you, but I remember someone had said it during the chat last stream and Robert said, I hadn't heard about that decision.
But within the time of that last stream and this stream, it was overturned and then re-overturned and now it's back into the realm where the cruise line industry can operate.
So what are we waiting for now in the decision?
So they're still appealing it, but there's no state?
That's really kind of going to do it, because there'll be a final decision, but CDC is now lost.
They're not going to try to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, I don't think.
So I think that they're going to fold up shop.
But some of those cases will go up because there's been conflicting opinions on some other issues about the CDC's power.
So the U.S. Supreme Court probably, the D.C. Circuit, not surprisingly, said CDC can do pretty much anything they want.
And so the U.S. Supreme Court has a conflict between the circuits, probably will take one of these cases and should rule in the right way.
They implied in the CDC eviction context that the CDC clearly didn't have that power.
But Kavanaugh was like, oh, it's almost over.
So let's not do anything about it right now.
But it was clear from that decision they're going to say the CDC does not have, cannot use their quarantine power to completely control the economy and civil society and redo the cruise industry or anything else they want.
The Green New Deal has not passed and it's not part of their authority at this juncture.
Good ruling, finally.
You mentioned it en passant, but it is only a matter of time now before there are going to be environmental lockdowns because I'm predicting in a year, two years, the studies are going to show that during the lockdown, the environment got that much better.
And so in order to improve the environment, we need to go on another environmental lockdown.
This one's going to last six months.
You can't go too far from your house because that would be...
In some sick sci-fi novel, it's going to happen, but the world seems to have turned into a sick sci-fi novel, which is a good segue, speaking of sick sci-fi novels, and spying, and Tucker Carlson, who was lambasted, ridiculed, called the conspiracy theorist guy, when he said that the NSA was spying on him and his emails.
He said it on national television.
I don't know what evidence he thinks he had when he said it.
The media went nuts, called him a crazy person.
No, they're not watching you.
And now, eh, the evidence came out.
They weren't doing it on purpose.
He wasn't being targeted.
He wasn't the object of the surveillance.
But he accidentally got caught up in it.
So what were the recent developments?
I've read the headlines, but what was the recent developments in terms of evidence?
So, I mean, the way NSA spying works is the NSA is spying on everybody.
Through their echelon and other programs.
But the key is they don't know who they're spying on.
So they gather all communications, all emails, all texts that go through any centralized database, server, right?
So, for example, Signal does not.
So Signal communications are not part of the NSA database.
There's some other ones that are not part of the NSA database.
But almost everything else is.
But they don't know who sent a message.
They just have a computer system gathering all of these messages from this number or this email.
And in order for the person to be specifically spied upon, someone has to make what's called an unmasking request.
We request that all of these communications, either they ask for it, they want all communications by this phone number, by this email, with this name involved, or they say we want these set of communications we already know about, we want to know who made those communications.
And that's the unmasking.
The unmasking cannot legally, the unmasking is a Fourth Amendment search, which requires probable cause of a crime.
If you're a U.S. citizen, in my view, there's some legal argument about this context in particular.
But in this context, but apparently that didn't happen.
It doesn't appear that happened.
Somebody did, in fact, unmask Tucker Carlson asking about specifically his communications in a particularized context.
And that they weren't supposed to do outside of Fourth Amendment purposes.
So what the whistleblower told Tucker was absolutely true.
He was being spied on by NSA.
They were intercepting and reading and watching and sharing his communications with third parties.
We're still not sure who, FBI, CIA, we're not sure of the State Department, who else was involved.
But his fundamental allegation was accurate, and those people criticizing him once again get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
I pulled up, the mosquitoes are getting bad because there's only one source of light to come to now.
The articles, CNN, the way they frame it now, Daily Beast.
They're nothing shy.
Liars is an easy way of putting it, because they're not just lying.
They're lying in a way to demonize an individual to discredit them, which is even worse than lying.
It's like, you lie to cover yourself, to protect yourself, to make yourself look better.
They are lying to now, on the one hand, cover up their initial stupidity, which was, no, you're not being spied on, to now continue to frame it in a way to try to make Tucker Carlson look like a liar himself.
It's over the top, but it was over the top from the beginning as if all of the media now is suddenly defending, pretending that the NSA is not constantly spying on everybody.
We're involved in the largest illegal domestic surveillance program ever.
But now, what are some of Tucker's recourses?
He's filed a FOIA request, right?
He has no, that we know of no progress on that FOIA request?
Yeah, we don't know of any further developments on that yet, but that can also lead to a suit.
And under certain circumstances, as Carter Page has brought suit, There are circumstances where if you're illicitly spied on under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or something related to it, that you can bring a suit, a statutory suit.
You can also always bring a Bivens claim under certain cases as well.
So he may have all three.
Interestingly enough, he was up in Maine fly fishing and some fly fisherman guide started harassing him.
And then it turned out the guy used to work for a CIA front.
It's like, is that really a coincidence?
I mean, it's like the system doesn't like Tucker outing them so publicly.
The amazing thing is, if anybody hasn't seen it, it's viral on Twitter now.
The guy comes up to him and is basically telling Tucker Carlson that he's the worst person on Earth.
He's done terrible things for America, terrible things for American citizens.
And these are certain things that I don't chime in on, but my reflex was...
You have to be a very special person to think that what good people do is accost bad people in public, even if they are bad people.
I see Francois Legault in a fly-fishing store.
Regardless of what I think of him, I'm not going to go up and accost him, even though I understand some people would because they're politicians, yada, yada.
But this guy goes up to him and says, you're the worst person on earth.
You've done terrible things for America.
I want you to know.
The shame, the guilt, the slander.
But meanwhile, this guy is approaching Tucker Carlson in a fly-fishing shop, and as if good people lambaste bad people in public.
It was lack of insight.
Yeah, and what he probably didn't expect is that people would potentially out him.
At least the initial information hasn't been confirmed, but the initial information is within a couple of hours, the internet folks figured out, hey, this guy appears to have worked for this group, and this group appears to be a CIA front.
Unbelievable.
It's glorious.
The collective knowledge of the internet.
It's amazing.
Robert, people are asking about Larry Elders.
What's going on with Larry Elders?
So, yeah, there are two other cases I definitely want to mention before getting some locals questions from vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
The Indiana vaccine case I'll also be talking about at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, given the U2 censorship.
So all of that will be there.
Everything related to the Arizona audit will be at the vivabarneslaw.locals.com as well.
So for Larry Elder, they try to keep him off the ballot on bogus grounds.
The state of California is trying to impose these ridiculous tax return disclosure requirements.
There were some clerical issues with how it got processed.
They tried to keep him off the ballot.
That wasn't grounds to keep him off the ballot.
Went into court and won.
So Larry Elder will be on the recall ballot for the state of California.
And speaking of liars, really the NSA, we have a Class A liar in Kevin Smith.
So, Kevin Smith of the, you know, of Clerks, of, you know, comic book kind of fame, about a year ago announced that he was in a He-Man series, and it was, or maybe a little more than that, and it was going to be dedicated to He-Man, and he was a big fan of He-Man.
And a few months ago, a Twitter feed for the show Clownfish TV.
Clownfish TV, at that time, had a very small audience, now a pretty big audience.
I think one is Keon, and the other one's, I think, Geeky Sparkles.
So they're just great nerds.
Why do you know this, Robert?
Why do you know this?
Because it's a broader story because I've been thinking about ways to sue.
But so one is Kevin Smith goes out in libel.
This is when Clownfish TV is kind of small.
They point out they've got a tip and a rumor, and they disclose it as a rumor, that in fact the He-Man show isn't going to be the He-Man show.
That even though it's been pitched as a sequel, that even though Kevin Smith has said he's a big fan, in fact, they're going to make it about a woman character who has a girlfriend and that He-Man doesn't really matter in the show of any great consequence.
Kevin Smith then put them on blast to his million-plus Twitter followers, basically accusing them of lying, said that that's totally false, the show's all about He-Man, there is no girlfriend, da-da-da-da.
Continued to attack them for months.
Well, then the He-Man show came out this weekend, and the rumor was right, and Kevin Smith lied.
Lied to the world.
Because, in fact, the show is basically, they've retconned it like they've done with parts of Marvel, like they did with Star Wars, like they did with Star Trek Discovery, like they did with Picard, like they've done with so many Doctor Who.
They destroyed the canon, burned the canon, urinated, undefecated on the canon, and retconned it to push a leftist agenda, a woke agenda.
Basically, they want our kids watching it.
Oh, yeah, you can watch He-Man.
I remember that when I was a kid, not knowing it's going to be this bombardment of wokeism, which is what it is.
And Kevin Smith lied to get people, and in my view, Netflix lied, because he's the apparent ostensible agent of Netflix, for the, hey, come subscribe, because you're going to get a great throwback to this great show you remember when you were a kid, when in fact it attacks that show.
It attacks the characters you like about that show.
So the two questions are, one, could Clownfish TV sue Kevin Smith for libeling them?
I think they could, because he's repeated these libels.
He keeps repeating these libels in multiple contexts, and he should be held liable for it.
Now, they're not inclined to, but I think they could.
The second thing is, could consumers sue Kevin Smith and Netflix for anybody who bought or kept Netflix because they thought they were getting the real deal on He-Man, and instead it's like a version of She-Man, and that's true at multiple levels.
I mean, they make her look like a male character, all this jazz, got a weird hair thing, you name it.
Public disclosure, I don't know what you're talking about, but the words are funny.
I know nothing about this show.
But to me...
Consumer fraud is consumer fraud.
These big companies and the big entertainment industry has continued to lie to consumers to get them to watch something.
They put out a completely misleading trailer.
They let Kevin Smith lie to the world, probably, presumably, to get people to stay subscribed or get subscribed to Netflix for the purpose of watching something that wasn't what they said it was, for what they said specifically it was not.
And so to me, that's consumer fraud.
So why shouldn't Netflix be suable on a class action basis for mass deception of the public?
It's similar in spirit to what you said about Joe Rogan at the time with Spotify, where representations that are warranting things that are going to induce people to sign up and that turn out to be absolutely false.
I don't know the details.
I just saw everyone had lost it on Kevin Smith on Twitter, and I now understand a little bit more detail.
But, yeah, well, I suspect it's not going to do too well, and then Kevin Smith is going to say this is just a right-wing movement to try to punish me for...
Oh, they're already doing that.
And the whole access media, like they have these fake review, they have all these critics who, if they rate of Rotten Tomatoes, you see over 90%, that almost always means it's politically correct, not that it's actually aesthetically interesting or of value.
But most of the public that's been responding is saying this is crap.
And so a bunch of media hit pieces saying they're being review-bombed by these trolls and whatnot.
No, it's a bunch of actual He-Man fans who realize you lied to them, Netflix.
You lied to them, Kevin Smith.
Sad, sad, pitiful place where Netflix is where Kevin Smith has got to.
Well, that's the thing.
It's so terrible because Kevin Smith, you know, I know Clerks.
I know, oh, the other one.
What's the other one that I know?
Chasing Amy.
I mean, was Kevin Smith chasing Amy?
I think he was.
I think he was.
Kevin Smith made some great, raunchy, edgy humor movies way back in the day.
Everyone seems to live long enough to become the villain.
He needs to go back to being fat, Kevin Smith.
Skinny Kevin Smith is terrible.
Go back to being fat, Kevin Smith.
Then you'll be funny and interesting again.
Or back to Silent Bob.
He was Silent Bob, right?
Yeah, Silent Bob.
He should have kept that Silent Bob advice this time.
I have some cultural references, Robert.
I've lost my modern culture because with kids, I don't get to watch anything anymore.
I watched American Pie the other...
Don't have them watch He-Man.
He-Man sucks.
It sucks almost as bad as Black Rifle Coffee.
What do we got for questions from locals?
Yeah, I'm bringing it up.
Let's see what we got.
Five minutes left to two hours, which is great.
I got enough battery that I know we're not going to go dead before we wind it up.
Robert and Viva, please see if you can get Ethan VanSkyver.
Famous artist, got blacklisted from DC and now makes millions with Frog Comics.
He's very funny and knows the scam.
I've never heard of him, but...
Screenshoting?
Yeah, he would be a good guy to get.
We're going to have some different people on.
Odin's movie blog is very good.
Jeremy from Geeks and Gamers is going to be on down the road.
He does great commentary.
And obviously, Doomcock, Nerdotic, all those guys.
They're going to have a field day with this.
Razor Fist had a field day with the audits.
He put out a good video the other day.
If anybody wants to go watch it.
I was shocked it was still up.
Let's see.
There we go.
Oh, I know.
And I think we got to everything on our list, which is amazing.
There might be a couple we missed.
There's like 10 smaller cases, but we can get to those another week.
It was obviously a busy, busy week.
Here we go.
It's a beautiful place out here.
Just briefly, the state of California had made it a crime to misgender someone in the nursing home or other certain health context.
So that even if the other person didn't even hear you misgender them, and by misgendering, it meant the patient's definition of what gender they were.
So not biologically what maybe their gender was.
And so a lawsuit, they brought a lawsuit saying they've made this a crime.
That's kind of insane.
This is compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.
And to the credit of the California Court of Appeals, they agree.
They said that, no, you can't.
This is not narrowly, this needs to be strict scrutiny.
It's coerced, compelled speech.
Just like you can't prevent someone from speaking, you can't compel.
They speak in a particular manner.
And so they've said you do not have, the state of California cannot make it a crime or force someone to use the chosen pronoun of the individual because that's pure speech at the end of the day.
That's what Jordan Peterson has been talking about in Canada since, oh, I've officially lost light.
Hold on.
There we go.
Robert, any time to talk about what is happening in South Africa?
I'm going to talk about it some tomorrow with Richard Barris, People's Pundit.
And I'm doing a live bourbon with Barnes every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday when I'm not in trial at vibabarnslaw.locals.com where we talk about Cuba, talk about South Africa, talk about all these foreign policy stuff because some of this stuff runs afoul of various YouTube censorship rules.
And by the way, if anybody wants to see Robert more casually attired, those lives are amazing.
We're not yet able to go together on Locals, but Robert's been doing multiple a week, and I've started doing them periodically, so you get some exclusive lives on Locals.
Yeah, a lot of the questions we've already answered.
One was about the military dropping off people who have come in who are...
Not legal citizens at various locations and the risk that they may be spreading COVID.
That, too, I'm going to address at the VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
Anything COVID or election-related, for the most part, is going to be there because when YouTube is taking down public state Senate hearings, we're in a whole new big tech world.
It's a brave new world, and it's shocking.
There's people out there who won't call you the coward, Robert.
They call me the coward because I'm bending over to YouTube censorship.
It's no good cutting off your biggest voice just so you can talk about one issue out of spite.
You've got to go into the cathedral to get people out.
So the things that we won't talk about inside the cathedral that we talk about at vivabarnslaw.locals.com, the way to get more people out of the matrix is you've got to occasionally go back in the matrix to get them out.
Actually, I think we covered all of it.
The state of New York is going to try to do mandatory vaccines for kids.
That's another issue I'll address at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
We're getting there in Quebec because the government's announced basically it's not compelled, but certain vaccines have been approved for 12 to 17. Government basically says you don't get your full civil rights and liberties back until 75, 80, 90% are vaccinated.
It's a never-moving target.
You know, few people are contesting it here.
It's got to be a political solution anyhow because the courts are not coming to the rescue of the people anytime soon from what we've seen.
Yeah, I mean, there were some good rulings this week, but not enough.
And so the battle continues.
And the fact of success is reasons to continue to march forward, recognizing the difficulties and hurdles and obstacles in front of us.
Well, you're going to have to encourage me because I'm now seeing...
You know, I'm seeing what I've...
It's another red pill.
The entrapment, the way the FBI works, the way that they might be creating, like the M. Night Shyamalan movie, Unbreakable, creating the tragedy so they can be the solution.
I've seen it now.
And now we're seeing the Department of Justice politically, conveniently, whatever, dropping certain investigations, pursuing others full throttle.
How are you going to encourage me or instill any optimism in me or people like me when we're getting a little discouraged seeing this happening?
Well, in the first place is that people are aware of it.
And the reality is it's been here for a long time in different degrees.
And the difference is in the past, people just didn't know about it.
So they had a certain bliss.
Ignorance is bliss, but it wasn't really bliss because the government was getting away with really bad stuff.
And a way to prevent the government from getting away with bad stuff, the first step is the court of public opinion.
And there, you know, we're seeing public opinion polls showing, for example, that Biden administration is starting to sink politically because people are not happy with some of these lockdown strategies.
Protest all around the world.
This past weekend against the new lockdown efforts and attempts from Australia to France to Italy to you name it.
So any effort to sort of force feed this onto people is facing real resistance.
And it starts with a real resistance in the court of public opinion.
And that is showing up in some of these court cases where you have a right where lockdowns are getting struck down that apply to private schooling, mask mandates and rules about the...
Cruise industry and eviction moratoriums struck down that interfere with private enterprise.
So for every bad case, there's also been a good case because the court of public opinion continues to awaken.
And as long as they do, then there's always hope.
All right.
Now, I'll just bring this one up, Robert, and it'll give me a good opportunity to ask another question.
Can you quickly ask Barnes if Michigan Lara has authority to require my boss to make a record of who...
Who at my work is vaccinated?
There's a common misunderstanding.
I am looking at suing the NFL, looking at a bunch of suits related to this.
And again, I'll discuss that in detail at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, including the factual allegations.
Some of these stats, let's just say they're kind of interesting when you dig into how they're really creating them.
But the broader context that people get confused is HIPAA versus the ADA.
HIPAA precludes your medical care provider from sharing information with third parties without your consent, and your employer with sharing information they have about your medical information to third parties without your consent.
It does not apply to what an employer can ask about.
What does is the ADA.
The Americans with Disabilities Act doesn't require you have a specific physically, legally recognized disability.
It just says it limits the ability for your employer to do a medical exam, limits their ability to ask about certain things, limits their ability to discriminate against you based on your perceived health status.
And that will be a key part of the suits that I'll be talking about.
Okay, excellent.
And for those who are already on Locals, there was a template that you had put up.
Can you remind people where they can find that?
Yeah, I'll be putting up a new one this week to update it.
Occasionally I receive letters from the ocean that come in a little bottle, and these letters happen to have interesting information in it, and I share it with people.
And if you choose to share it with your employer or anyone else, God bless.
It's not legal advice.
The State Bar can't harass me.
Like you said, I just got it in the mail through the water.
But that's where I'll be.
And I'll be at a live chat right after the show.
For the after party at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
All right.
And with that said, everybody, thank you all for tuning in.
My apologies for the lighting, but, you know, done is better than perfect.
And there was too much to talk about this week to postpone.
We're going to be on Wednesday with, who do we have Wednesday?
Richard Barris?
Richard Barris.
Amazing.
So Wednesday, Richard Barris.
Might be even more pixelated, but there's internet.
We're going to be doing it.
And next Sunday, I'm going to see you all.
Robert, thank you very much.
Everyone in the chat, thank you for the support.
Thank you for the comments.
Thank you for tuning in.
And we will see you next week.
Enjoy what's left of the weekend.
▲
Export Selection