Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 7, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:07:06

Ep. 73: Patrick King, Joe Biden, January 6, Vaccine Mandates & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All right, on time today, Obelix.
	How dare you doubt the punctuality of Viva?
	Good evening, everyone.
	First of all, let's just wait for these standard Fs.
	There we go.
	Oof.
	All right.
	Let me know if the audio is good, if the video is good.
	I am back.
	I won't say it's good to be back in the home office as opposed to being eaten alive by mosquitoes by the ferry in Deer Island, New Brunswick.
	I got my good mic.
	I've got my good lighting.
	I'm sweating still a little bit because I got off the treadmill a little too late before this super, super stream, live stream.
	So I might still be glistening or glowing, as we say.
	All right.
	Are we simultaneously streaming on Rumble?
	So if anyone is trying to watch or watching on Rumble, let me know.
	We had a problem last week.
	I was talking with Chris and it looks like it's back to good.
	Hold on.
	Did I just see?
	Okay, that's Reketa Law's avatar.
	I thought Reketa was in the house, but thank you, Richard.
	I'm not sure what the context of that comment was.
	Okay, people, we're back to basics, back to the basement, back to Sunday night live stream with good lighting and good internet signal, and we've got a good action-packed stream for tonight.
	Okay, where do we start?
	I'm going to start with a rant.
	A little rave.
	First of all, the vacation beard has come in beautifully, but if things go the way we are expecting them to go, we might be in election season as of tomorrow, and if it's not as of tomorrow, it might be as of a week from tomorrow.
	Apparently, word on the street from the insiders in Ottawa, Trudeau is talking about meeting with whomever they meet with the general attorney or the attorney general to call the election, Game time.
	But how?
	So for now, no news, but I'm going to have to trim down the beard when it happens so that, you know, I don't scare the neighbors when I go door to door asking for the hundred signatures I need to get started.
	Okay, so standard intro, disclaimers.
	Woot just got done mowing the yard in time to watch the stream.
	Booyah, Ghost of Recon.
	Nice mask in as much as masks can be nice.
	Peter Bemis.
	Peter Bemis.
	Important lesson from a business professor.
	Early is on time.
	On time is late.
	Late is don't show up.
	I like it.
	I like it.
	And we got some people from Salty Cracker.
	We're supposed to do a Salty Cracker stream one of these days.
	Okay, so standard disclaimers.
	Super Chats.
	Thank you all for the support.
	If you give them.
	No expectation, no pressure whatsoever.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, and I can understand some of you wouldn't, you can support me on Patreon or Subscribe Store, but don't.
	The best bang for the buck, $5 a month or $50 for the year.
	On Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Robert Barnes turns that into a treasure chest of knowledge.
	It's amazing.
	I bring what I can bring.
	Robert brings endless wealth of knowledge.
	So that's the place where if you want to support, that's the place to do it.
	Superchats, I always appreciate them.
	If I don't get to them and you're going to feel miffed, don't give it.
	I don't like people feeling rooked, miffed, chilled, grifted, whatever.
	No legal advice.
	Certainly no medical advice and certainly no statements which could undermine or contradict the infallible, unattackable things of 2020.
	Is that safe enough?
	That's safe enough.
	Okay, so how do you spell perfect timing having your steak be done a couple of minutes into my favorite stream?
	That, I would say, is like the scene from Pulp Fiction when you come back from the bathroom and your meal is on the table.
	Okay, so let's see here.
	Oh, someone just said Viva don't shave.
	Who said it?
	Does Viva shave?
	No, I don't grow body hair.
	Funny enough, I do not grow body hair.
	Which I believe is, I don't know, a sign of, I don't know what it's a sign of.
	It's a sign of getting colder quickly or in cold weather.
	Building a chicken tractor while listening.
	Keep up the good work.
	Thank you very much, French fry.
	And speaking of French fries, bringing it back to my province.
	I took the kids to Chinatown yesterday.
	I actually took them to Old Montreal because I needed to get a lightbulb for my studio lighting.
	And we decided to go to Chinatown to get Lanzau noodles, best noodles in Montreal.
	Lanzau noodles had a technical problem with their stove, so we had to go next door, and not as good as Lanzau noodles.
	We walked back from Chinatown, and it's about a four-kilometer walk.
	We went through Chinatown, through the downtown core.
	I hadn't been there in a while.
	I've been there in a month.
	And it was...
	I'm not being melodramatic.
	I'm not trying to be doom and gloom.
	It was depressing.
	Old Montreal, where my office used to be, the Aldred building right across the street from Eglise Notre-Dame, the Notre Dame Cathedral, the place where I used to have lunch every day of the year, every day when I went to work, in that building.
	Out of business.
	The places where I used to get shoes.
	Out of business.
	Expectations across the street.
	Out of business.
	I walked by the courthouse.
	Simon's camera is out of business, but that was before COVID.
	We walked through Chinatown.
	We're accosted is not the word.
	Just approached by homeless people asking for money.
	One person told me they are quite literally in withdrawal.
	We walked through the downtown core, boarded up businesses one after the other.
	Homeless people.
	One guy.
	You know, it's what you imagine meth looks like when you envision it in your worst nightmares.
	Sores on his head, emaciated on the corner of the street, making repetitive motions of his body, talking to himself.
	It was depressing.
	And I'm walking through this, and in the meantime, you know, we walk through downtown.
	Our mayor, Valérie Plante, has turned the main thoroughfare into pedestrian walks.
	Now, no cars, really, for the most part, of downtown St. Catherine Corps.
	It's depressing.
	The city is...
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	Maybe I'm not seeing it properly.
	The city seems to be falling apart at the seams where the bustling downtown core is now bankrupt, out of business.
	Turning it into a nice pedestrian street is wonderful.
	But the people who have been needing support for the last two years have not been getting it.
	And the impact now is as obvious as the nose on my face.
	It's depressing.
	And I don't know what people are doing to actually address these problems as opposed to create other problems like divide society through these vaccine mandates, the vaccine passport, which I came back to Quebec to find out that François Legault is now talking about a vaccine passport and those who are fully vaxxed will get privileges because there's no reason why they should be denied privileges.
	Because they've made the effort to go get vaccinated.
	Privileges.
	When the government takes your rights away, they're rights.
	And when it comes time to give them back to you, they're privileges.
	They've transformed them.
	It's a chemical change.
	It's like boiling an egg.
	When it goes into the hot water, it's liquid.
	When it comes out, it's solid.
	And you can never make it liquid again.
	When the government takes them away, they're rights.
	When you ask for them back, they're privileges that you're not entitled to.
	I don't know if you hear a kid screaming upstairs, but it seems that someone is not having a good evening.
	Is there any chance of a Third Amendment argument having any form of success in regard to the eviction moratoriums?
	We're going to get there.
	We're going to get there because we have to talk about this.
	From a legal perspective, I don't understand how the CDC does this, given the SCOTUS decision that Robert and I talked about a couple of weeks ago.
	So let me see here.
	Wish family court was out of business.
	Let's get some chats before Robert gets in the house.
	No isolate, but...
	Okay, sorry.
	I don't know what that might be a typo in there.
	Can you cover how Oregon is trying to ban hunting and fishing?
	I don't know anything about it.
	That's news to me.
	But what's going on is truly, truly depressing.
	And it's like the old expression, how does a company go bankrupt slowly then overnight?
	And that applies to society.
	That applies to a country.
	This is, you know, I go into tech stores now, half of the items are out of stock, and you're like, okay, well, these are first world problems, until things actually fall apart to a point where, you know, you get into the event horizon and you can't pull yourself out of the black hole.
	I fear that's where society is going, economically, socially, spiritually, constitutionally, and it's like we need a force of reason to pull us out of this, and we need a force of reason to tell people we are all collectively.
	Going to have to live with the risks of life at some point, because the two certainties, I made this joke on Twitter for anybody who follows me, two certainties in life, taxes and death.
	And what the government is doing right now is ensuring that both of those go up exponentially and increase in likelihood, probability, and the time frame in which they occur.
	Because when they talk about the lifespan decreasing, this is not to undermine the stats of what's going on, but it's not because...
	The elderly long-term healthcare facility patients have been dying of COVID.
	It's because younger people are dying earlier and not only and probably not mostly because of COVID.
	And we're going to see the impacts of this sooner than later if we're not already seeing it, but we're already seeing it.
	All right.
	So with that said, let me plug a few things.
	My other YouTube channel, which I've created, which were over 11,000 subs now, Viva PPC, because I'm putting up dedicated stuff there for the political stuff.
	I don't want to bog everyone down with politics.
	I don't want to be the Evangelical who turns my Viva Fry channel into a vote for Viva.
	First of all, it's never even going to turn into that, even on Viva PPC.
	People are going to vote their consciences.
	They're going to vote what they think is important.
	My only purpose on that channel is to say politically what I think is important.
	This channel is going to stay with the vlog, stay with exposing what is going on in the world and explaining what is going on in the world.
	What else?
	So Viva PPC, you can sub there.
	Viva family for the non-law stuff for anybody who wants to remember that life can still be beautiful.
	Let's see what we got here.
	Mandatory or coerced jabs.
	I hate that word.
	I hate the word jabs.
	I hate the word needles in arms.
	I hate the way the government is...
	What's the word when you equate humans to animals or vermin?
	Like needles in arms, jabs.
	Sorry, I took your chat out.
	I hate that word.
	I'm not judging you.
	They're using it.
	I hate it.
	It dehumanizes humans.
	Seems to me to violate the Nuremberg Code as long as they are still classified as experimental.
	There's no end to this because the case law in the United States that you could not mandate vaccines for federal employees unless they were FDA approved, well, heck, that seems to be going out the window as well, too.
	In Canada, they're talking about making it mandatory for federal employees.
	And you see it in the States now.
	People are resigning en masse when it's becoming a condition of employment.
	It's an amazing thing.
	I don't venture into the areas where I know I have limited or not full knowledge, that I can't even purport to have full knowledge, or I couldn't even purport to have enough knowledge to cross-examine an expert.
	So I make sure to know the limits of my own knowledge.
	As far as the constitutionality and human rights aspect of this goes, it's a realm that I never thought we would be in.
	Where Philip DeFranco, speaking of toxic politics and the toxicity of Twitter, Philip DeFranco puts out a tweet.
	Imagine living in a world where you have access to a vaccine and refuse it.
	And for the pearl clutches out there, if you have an effing problem with this, F yourselves, UF faces.
	It's so funny.
	It's so hilarious.
	Fundamentally refuse to understand the legitimate position of someone who you might disagree with.
	It's fun.
	It's so catchy.
	You get the nice clickbaits and you get the nice endorphin rush.
	Or what is it called?
	The chemical in the brain.
	When people start retweeting and engaging with your stupid tweet.
	Fundamentally intolerant tweets coming from the blue checkmark tolerant left.
	I hate it.
	But, okay.
	Cranky pants is over.
	Your enthusiasm is infectious.
	Thanks for pushing for the truth, Jeff Houston.
	I love your avatar.
	Thank you very much.
	The difficulty is in not getting cynical and not getting angry.
	And that is what we all collectively have to avoid.
	Directed anger, reasonable anger can be productive.
	The destructive, self-destructive anger is what everyone has to avoid.
	Not becoming the monster you seek to slay is what we all have to avoid.
	Should I text Robert and see that he's coming?
	Let me just text Robert and make sure that he's in the house because we've got a good one.
	So we're going to talk about the moratorium.
	We're going to talk about Cuomo.
	We're going to talk about Biden.
	A number of issues relating to the Biden administration.
	Willingness or unwillingness to follow the law?
	We're going to talk about Patrick King.
	That is probably going to be the first thing we talk about because it's going to lead into other issues.
	Patrick King, the news piece that made the rounds in Canada and even into the US, Reuters did a fact check on it.
	I was getting email after email after email to talk about it.
	We're going to get into...
	Someone correct the Latin.
	It is ergo post hoc.
	It's...
	Something happens after something happens, therefore you think it's causally related.
	It's the Latin thing.
	I don't know what it is.
	It seems to be a fine case of what we have there, coupled with potentially inaccurate descriptions of substance.
	Titles and descriptions.
	Let's see what we got here.
	I'll bring in some chats.
	I'm not taking any chats that engage in, that promote.
	Okay, let's try this one.
	Be excellent to each other.
	Parting is subjective and optional.
	Not bad.
	Not bad.
	Let me see.
	I missed some super chats, but we got this.
	The last part of Ergo Propter Hawk.
	There we go.
	Thank you.
	And we got Hydra.
	A person who is angry is of Satan.
	You can't be godly and have anger.
	I will not disagree with that.
	I think anger is a consuming force that ends up consuming the host, but reasonable anger can be productive.
	I hear a dog coming down the stairs.
	Kyle Rittenhouse for president.
	That's probably not going to happen.
	Okay, let's see what we got here.
	Have you looked into or heard about Apple?
	It is going to start scanning people's phones for...
	It is a little more complicated, but it is a serious breach of privacy.
	This is not a joke.
	This is why I tell people you shouldn't even take certain pictures of your own kids on your iPhone because for those very reasons, people think I'm neurotic and crazy and I might very well be, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong.
	I hadn't heard about that anyhow, but there's no...
	Surprise.
	Okay, Winston is in the house.
	Pudge is alive and well.
	Let's see what we got.
	Well, if Robert doesn't get here, I hope everything's good.
	I want to talk about the Patrick King, but I don't want to do it without him.
	Okay, we'll give Robert another two minutes, and then I'm going to talk about Patrick King, and then we'll see what we can get into tonight.
	Let me see here.
	Do we have...
	Oh, speaking of John F. Kennedy, do you have more than two bowling videos?
	You had no gray hair four years ago.
	The weight of the world has a way of making you shrink and making you grow gray hairs.
	No, I had some gray hair, but I certainly went gray at 42. I'm 42 now.
	It was at 40. It certainly started coming out at 40. Oh, Pudge is alive and well.
	Everyone should know that.
	I could not take her on the trip because she would not sit in the car for seven and a half hours without pooping and peeing all over the place, and it would have been a disaster.
	What happens to the stream if you win?
	I don't know.
	I haven't thought about that.
	I don't think I'll have to quit the stream.
	I don't know.
	But we will deal with that glorious upset of a political victory when it happens.
	Because I've been talking to people.
	I think everyone's pissed.
	I think everyone has had enough of this government, but people are too afraid to say that they are not liberal because of the political, social ramifications of saying that.
	Super Chat is a serious drug I've been going through withdrawals.
	Keep up the good fight.
	Thank you very much, Cameron.
	Cameron is out of Washington, if I'm not mistaken.
	Ran for office out of Washington.
	Thank you very much for the support, Cameron.
	All right, I see Robert's in the house.
	Who is my favorite philosopher?
	Okay, right before I bring Robert in, I'm listening to a book called Winning Minds.
	Eric Hunley, who also has Locals and YouTube, told me to read it.
	It's a very good book.
	I always feel guilty thinking I'm...
	What's the word?
	What does Scott Adams do?
	Persuading.
	Persuading to me just feels like manipulation.
	I don't like feeling like I'm employing tactics to convince people.
	I just want to do it myself with my own thoughts and my own reasons.
	Reasoning as well.
	In the book, the one thing I've got, it's Aristotle or Socrates.
	I forget which.
	The three principles of persuasion, which are credibility, passion, and reason.
	CPR is how I'm remembering it.
	I forget what the Latin is, but that's how I do it.
	Credibility.
	Passion and reason.
	When someone says something, if they have credibility, passion, and reason is in logic when they say it, they will be persuasive.
	Someone who has no credibility could say the exact same thing.
	No one's going to believe him because the person has no credibility.
	So that is where one's credibility is primordial, fundamental.
	Once you lose your credibility, you have compromised a great portion of your ability to convey a message meaningfully.
	Okay.
	My favorite philosopher, that being said, John Stuart Mill, if I'm going to say that one.
	Okay.
	With that said.
	Barnes is in the house.
	Let's bring him in.
	Robert, how you doing?
	Good, good.
	Okay, that's my volume, which is low, so I can hear you.
	My goodness, Robert, it is nice to be back to the original settings.
	I've got my good shirt on.
	It's not buttoned up.
	I'm going to leave it unbuttoned.
	We did good on the road trip.
	I'll tell you, three streams on the road.
	It was difficult, it was funny, but it was great.
	And the Richard Barris live stream, I was listening to it again.
	Understanding the...
	This corrupted industry that is pollsters will have you looking at the world in a way that you cannot undo afterwards.
	So anybody who has not seen the Richard Barris livestream, go check it out.
	Robert, any news on your end that you want to say before we get started?
	We should do the book before we get into the stream.
	The book.
	Oh, no, just what books do you recommend for this week?
	Oh, sorry.
	Confessions of a Tax Collector by Richard Yancey is good.
	It's kind of like going to the heart of the jungle or taking that trip down that long river, as Lord Conrad did.
	And the other one is Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips.
	And I was going to have Robert Kennedy to a newer world book because it looks like we'll be able to have...
	Bobby Kennedy Jr. on this Wednesday for Sidebar.
	That is going to be a big one.
	People were asking because it got postponed twice now.
	When you're talking with three people and Robert's schedule, the two Robert's schedules are tough.
	It happens, but it's this Wednesday, so it's going to be a big one.
	What else was there?
	Any updates in the Kyle Rittenhouse?
	No updates of particularity, though it was interesting to note that apparently Black Rifle Coffee promoted a neo-Nazi supporting deep state activist in Ukraine on their website, but they're taking pot shots at Kyle Rittenhouse and his supporters.
	Tells you a little bit about Black Rifle Coffee, and remember everybody, I hear their coffee tastes a lot like cow dung.
	So, if anybody doesn't follow Robert on Twitter, he has been relatively remorseless on Black Rifle Coffee for obvious reasons, maybe call it bias reasons, personal reasons for sure.
	And it's an interesting thing, like, people just feel the political pressure to make such a lapse in judgment that will alienate, it's not even a question of alienating their base, it's a question of not being respectful to their prior conduct.
	Black Rifle Coffee had painted itself to be a certain product to endorse certain People who other mainstream products wouldn't.
	You get mainstream enough and then all of a sudden you have to start bowing to the social pressures not to associate with...
	I can understand why they would not want to associate with Kyle, but you don't have to go out and do something which you know is going to irk and upset and some will say even violate the trust that you had established with your base core clientele.
	So we'll see how it works out for them.
	Don't think it's going to work out well.
	Let's see here.
	From McKellen, Texas, just FYI, COVID-positive refugees are being released into my city in record numbers.
	A COVID-positive tent camp was almost created for these illegal immigrants refugees, but was moved due to our protests.
	Any info about this from Barnes?
	That's because Biden's attorney general sued the state of Texas to prevent them from enforcing their own COVID protections as it related to illegal immigrants or people who are not...
	Legally here, present in the country.
	And a federal court said that the governor can't interfere with the federal government.
	And so they are now being released all around the country, even when they are COVID-infected, according to the information that locals are seeing.
	All right.
	It's unbelievable.
	All right.
	Well, with that said, I mean, let's get into the first COVID subject matter of the evening.
	And full disclaimer for the YouTube overlords, no medical advice.
	No, nothing advice.
	This is discussing an event that happened in Canada earlier this week, which made the rounds, and it made the rounds proper to the point where Reuters had done a fact check on it.
	So, for those of you who don't know, an Alberta man, Red Deer Alberta man named Patrick King, had been protesting government measures as relates to the oil and gas industry for 200 weeks.
	December 5th, I think it was of this year, which would be 2020.
	December of this year, got a ticket for violating the Public Health Act as relates to public gatherings.
	More than 10 people got a ticket.
	Got a $1,200 ticket and contested the fine.
	Self-represented litigant, which is where I think a lot of this is going to go south in terms of understanding and explaining what's going on in the system.
	He contests the ticket.
	He goes to court.
	Basically, the judge who he says is directing him because the judge is required to, which is not necessarily the case.
	I don't actually think it's the case.
	In fact, the problem that happens when the judges do this is that the self-represented litigant then thinks that they're taking instructions from the judge, which is totally backwards.
	But apparently the judge said you can subpoena the chief medical officer of Alberta, Dina Hinshaw, which this individual does, and he's seeking information, seeking...
	Evidence, white papers, evidence of the isolation of the COVID-19 SARS virus, not in a lab setting isolation.
	Now, I recognize, I know what I understand of this, but I know that I don't understand enough to say that I understand more.
	He asked for certain information in a subpoena.
	Apparently, the government comes in and quashes the subpoena or does not provide the documents requested in the subpoena because the guy...
	They procedurally had a flaw in the subpoena in that it was issued by a public officer.
	I don't know what that means in their jurisdiction and not by a judge where subpoenas have to be signed off by a judge, I guess, in this context.
	So the subpoena was invalid.
	Sounds like the government quashed the subpoena.
	Whatever.
	They did not provide the information that he had asked for and they said, we're not providing the evidence.
	We don't have the evidence.
	However, we want to interpret the way they said it.
	Patrick King goes on a show called The Stu Peters Show.
	Stu Peters frames it as though all of the measures in Alberta, which had been contemporaneously or simultaneously lifted, coincidentally, post-ergo-hawk, whatever, frames it as though Alberta lifted the measures because the government did not comply with the subpoena, because they did not have the evidence requesting the subpoena, because the evidence does not exist.
	This is the end of COVID.
	It never existed.
	And the government has admitted it never existed, lifted all the measures, is going to treat it as a minor flu, which is...
	Also false, because that's not even what Dina Hinshaw said.
	And the video goes viral.
	Patrick King, who's in the interview, doesn't do much to taper the direction that it was taken.
	And in the interview might suggest things which were inaccurate in terms of the extent of the victory, which actually there was no victory because he was ordered to pay the fine anyhow.
	So that's it.
	I mean, I did a video on it.
	I said, this doesn't sound like what it sounds like, because first of all, on its face, it doesn't make sense.
	I thought that the Crown dropped the ticket based on the framing and the discussion in the original interview.
	It turns out they didn't even drop the ticket.
	He had to pay the ticket.
	The Crown said the evidence that you're looking for, we don't think it's relevant to the defense that you're raising on this, so we're not providing it.
	And the subpoena was deficient anyhow.
	And that's where it stands.
	And so, you know, a lot of people wanted to believe that this was something that it wasn't.
	And we've seen the emotion, Robert.
	You've seen it with the Q movement, where people want to believe certain things.
	And when you tell them it's not what you think it is.
	They then sort of turn on you.
	You were following it as well to some extent.
	What did you think of it?
	As soon as I saw it, I thought the headline was almost guaranteed not to be accurate.
	And I get why people desperately want Some legal relief or remedy from these extraordinary actions by state actors or now more corporate employers than the rest.
	I get that entirely.
	But it's critical of being part...
	Where I get a little annoyed is I'll get an email that says, what's wrong with you?
	You're an idiot.
	You just have to do what this guy did and it will magically vanish.
	And it's like, okay, I understand where your motivation comes from, but chances are that story's not true.
	And as soon as you tell them that, then they just get madder at you.
	It's like, I get you really want something to be true.
	I understand why you want it to be true.
	I may share a lot of those beliefs with you.
	But the idea that somebody pro se got the government to completely capitulate and say, actually, everything's not there, probably not going to be accurate.
	And so it was, I know you took a lot of crap for just pointing out, probably not accurate, but that's reality.
	I got crap for...
	Making one factual mistake.
	Or even in the video, I said I didn't understand why he said he was protesting for 200 weeks.
	And then in editing, I realized that I misunderstood what he said in the interview.
	So I played the clip from the interview to explain where my mistake was.
	What an immaterial mistake.
	The bottom line, and people don't appreciate this, and neither does Patrick King.
	People say the government admitted they have no evidence.
	There was no evidentiary hearing.
	I mean, that's what people don't understand.
	It's not on the record because someone says something in court and you go and ask to transcribe the hearing.
	It's on the record when something is admitted as evidence before a judge.
	The judge says, here is the evidence, and it's in the record formally.
	There was no evidentiary hearing, period.
	So no evidence was made of anything, the existence or the non-existence of anything.
	What you had was a government saying, we're not providing that evidence, or we don't have that evidence, because your subpoena was deficient.
	And this individual taking that to be an admission on the record that the government is admitting they have no evidence on the merits, they didn't get there.
	And so it never said what everyone thought it said in the first place.
	But you have people who want to believe.
	And I got the, you know, it's funny because you could go with two ways.
	You have people who want to believe it.
	You have people who know it's false but want to discredit the people who are on a different side.
	So they push this story so that everybody repeating it looks foolish and looks wrong.
	But all that motivation and intention aside, there was no evidentiary hearing, period.
	So there was no evidence made of anything.
	It was merely a procedural.
	They issued a subpoena.
	We're not giving you that information.
	We don't have that information.
	And it's never going to get to trial anyhow in this case because call it whatever you want, judicial corruption, call it the judges working with the government.
	Ultimately, the judge said or believed the argument that what he was seeking was not relevant to his defense, which was he wanted to call into question the legitimacy of the Public Health Act, but apparently he was too late to do that, didn't apply the proper procedure.
	So he admitted to being guilty of the infraction.
	And that was the end of it.
	And then people are going to say, well, do what this guy did, and then you're going to solve the world's problems.
	No.
	And we've seen this in the JCCF cases.
	You need to get to the hearing on the merits, evidentiary hearings, and it's not on these procedural debates on the legitimacy of subpoenas that it happened.
	So, yeah, I took a little flack, made a little mistake on an immaterial issue, but, you know, it's not because we want to believe something that we should just shut our eyes and, you know.
	And start sharing this stuff.
	It makes everyone look less credible for having done it, and we want to try to maintain credibility.
	So, on the issue of not complying with subpoenas, Robert, my understanding, if we're shifting it to Maricopa County, but it's another subpoena issue, apparently, from what I understand, neither the county nor Dominion are respecting the subpoenas that were issued by the GOP Senate.
	Is that the right way of saying it?
	The state legislature, the state Senate of Arizona.
	So what's the context of that audit right now?
	What are they looking for with those subpoenas?
	What's the basis for not complying with them?
	And what's the sanction, potentially, for not complying with them?
	So some of the election details I'll only be discussing at vivabarneslaw.locals.com because YouTube will freak out if we talk about certain information.
	After all, one of the state Senate hearings...
	That concerned the information leading to the subpoena request was removed by YouTube.
	That's how insane this is getting.
	What was it removed for?
	Was it removed for the basis of violating their new 2020 rule that you cannot question certain things?
	Or was that the rationale?
	It was a classic YouTube removal, which Alison Morrow can attest to, which Eric Hundley can attest to, which is, you violated something, and we'll let you know in the future what it was.
	Okay, so we have to limit the discussion, and anybody who wants more complete discussion, Robert has been doing amazing, what are you calling it now?
	It's with rum or bourbon, I forget which.
	Doing those Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays at 9 p.m. Eastern time.
	And also throughout the week, I'm going to be doing further breakdowns on the factual aspects of these election cases, as well as what medical evidence is in controversy.
	In the vaccine cases, we're not going to discuss that here because that too, for example, somebody's had, big tech has been taking down people's posts for quoting the CDC saying it's misinformation because the fact sheets in the CDC say something very different about the vaccines than employers and government people are telling their employees right now.
	So, but rather than risk, you know, anything with YouTube, all of that, I'll be breaking down.
	There's a North Carolina suit.
	A California suit, a Tennessee suit, an Indiana Supreme Court petition.
	All of that we'll be discussing in the medical part, the factual details, at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	The legal stuff we'll discuss here.
	Okay, so I know what they're asking for in the subpoena, but for those who may not be up to date with it, what are they asking for in the subpoena?
	What's the relevance of what they could be asking for?
	And so help me goodness, what is the rationale for refusing and what could be the sanction for refusing to comply with the subpoena?
	So, so far, my understanding is the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, and they're the ones who have all the election-related information, as well as their contractor, Vendor, Dominion.
	This is where Phoenix is.
	This is where Maricopa County is.
	The Arizona State Senate has a Republican majority, and they have issued a range of subpoenas throughout this process in order to conduct a full audit of what took place in the November 2020 election.
	Throughout this process, my understanding is Maricopa County has tried to refuse pretty much every subpoena that they've been issued, and they've lost in court.
	To my knowledge, every single time.
	Mostly what they've bought is time itself.
	The length it takes to litigate the subpoena buys them a month, two months, three months before they get the information in order to audit it.
	After the initial round of all the audit information has been done, they realize there's certain information they still need to complete the audit.
	Some of that relates to information in Dominion's control, routers, certain IT history to make sure there was no illegal access, to make sure that it wasn't capable of being illegally accessed, all of that in terms of their machines.
	And then for Maricopa County, a range of materials, including in particular the mail-in ballots that got sent back, which would allow them to do signature match checks against existing signatures.
	And all of that is what Maricopa County has refused to turn over and Dominion has refused to turn over.
	Dominion's excuse has been that this is confidential IP information that endanger them if they turn it over.
	Maricopa County has a different excuse every other day.
	Well, let me stop on that one.
	Just on the confidential nature of the information, you have a private company which is granted, I presume, granted the government, granted authority or...
	Granted by the government certain powers to conduct a public function, how do they then get to claim that the information which they use to conduct this public function is confidential to the point where it cannot be disclosed to the very people for whom they are rendering the service?
	Well, that's part of the argument that the state senate has, that this information was information that would be accessible to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, so it should be available to them.
	Their excuse is that somehow impair their abilities to...
	Essentially, they're saying this information shouldn't be public and should be limited to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors rather than any other political actor or the public at large.
	I don't understand quite their argument because, for the reasons you note...
	As well as there's ways to make it confidential, that they can do things so that the people who need to do the audit can look at it, but not anybody else look at it.
	They can file it under seal.
	I guess that's the term you have in the States as well.
	Just file it under seal so that only the parties and the judge involved can see it and not, you know, hackers or people on the street.
	I just sound like there's no cooperation, but there's no sanction for not cooperating.
	Yeah, that's part of the problem.
	I mean, the court hasn't whacked him for this continuous refusal to provide information or documentation.
	You can contrast it to the election suits, where every little thing, you know, the lawyers are put under microscopic review.
	Even for, you know, in Rudy's case, things he didn't even say in court.
	And yet here you have Maricopa County or Dominion refusing to honor a legitimately issued subpoena by the state legislature and making them go through the whole judicial process over and over and over again.
	And even though they lose, they face no consequence for it and they get time delay.
	So it's like, why not?
	It's this two-tiered system of justice people are seeing everywhere that leads to less credibility and confidence in our judicial institutions, frankly.
	I think they can only buy time.
	Most of this will be turned over.
	I also think they increase suspicion.
	I get they didn't like the audit, but if their goal was to increase confidence in the election, fighting transparency and hiding information is not a good way to go about it.
	Yeah, well, there's no question.
	And then it only causes people who might believe things that the media wants to prove not true to believe them even more.
	But I cut you off after the first reason as to why they're not communicating it, but I think we might have gotten to the second anyhow.
	The sanctions.
	In theory, this is in court, right?
	So they could be held in contempt of court, not just contempt of...
	Well, kind of.
	Because the subpoenas are issued.
	The legislature has power to issue subpoenas, but they're not court-issued subpoenas.
	You can enforce them in court.
	So that's why this two-pronged process allows them to resist in ways so that it's not technically contempt of court until they refuse to obey the court.
	And there they always obey the court once the court affirms the legislative subpoena.
	All right.
	Interesting.
	As of now, has there been anything of interest that we can discuss here revealed by the Maricopa County audits?
	I think the factual details, that's what the Senate hearing was about that led to this next round of subpoenas, and that's the Senate hearing that got taken down by YouTube.
	So that will have to be at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	All right.
	Now, is there anything that fits better into this than the one that's fresh on my head because it's the newest scandal, Andrew Cuomo?
	I mean, we'll get to everything in due course.
	Let's go to Andrew Cuomo.
	The scandal, it's just a sign of the times, I guess.
	It's a sign of the politics that you could be responsible.
	Arguably responsible, but I don't think it's arguable anymore.
	You can be responsible for the excess deaths of thousands of people, still get a Grammy Award, Still publish a book that nobody seems to be clamoring.
	I don't know how you undo those things once done.
	You can't unring those bells.
	But you can do all that.
	That's not the end of your political career.
	Behave inappropriately with people, and that will be the end of your political career.
	Cuomo has been notorious in his misbehavior with women, and we've seen it.
	I mean, we've seen it on video.
	The time I did that video, the sausage video.
	People were saying, Viva, he's done worse things.
	Why are you making a big deal about this?
	And I said, well, first of all, I'm covering the worst things as well.
	But this, I think, is an indicative of a pattern, of a mentality.
	And so the poo-poo hit the fan.
	A bunch of people, one after the other, are coming out now saying that he did these very bad things.
	The Attorney General, Leticia James, who no one can accuse of being politically biased in the overt sense of Republican versus Democrat in this, but there might be some politics playing.
	Leticia James, Attorney General just did a report, an investigation.
	They conducted, I don't know, I forget how many.
	They issued 70 subpoenas, interviewed hundreds of witnesses or 100 witnesses, thousands and thousands of pages of documents.
	They issue a report, a final report, that concludes that Andrew Cuomo broke state and federal law and committed sexual harassment, created a hostile work environment, yada, yada, yada.
	I guess the first question that I have as an outsider Canadian who doesn't necessarily appreciate the extent of this, what is the probative value of this report for anybody who says they wanted to sue Cuomo beforehand but didn't have the support that they thought they needed?
	Well, in defense of Cuomo, he just has a different way of saying, good, good.
	Good old Andrew.
	Kyle Dunnigan has a great little, I think that's his name, great comedian.
	He has a fresh president of D.C. comedian, but he has a whole comedic routine with Cuomo that's just great.
	Everyone has to watch it if you haven't seen it.
	I think Joe Rogan shouted him out.
	It's horrifying because it's like sort of the face-over stuff, like the deep fake stuff.
	It's hilarious.
	Kyle Dunningham, but yeah, sorry, Robert, keep going.
	Exactly, because he had his whole chart.
	You know, he started off as a sex symbol amongst all the Democrats.
	Then, you know, all the killing old people turned out to be unpopular, but it turned out that the sex scandal has replaced that, so people are forgetting he killed all the old people.
	So the utility to the report will be twofold.
	One is they will initiate impeachment proceedings against him.
	And this is a prediction that we had going all the way back, which was that the likely outcome was that, one, they were going to force him out one way or the other, but two, you would have to drag him out of there because that's who a Cuomo is.
	So that's just the nature of the animal.
	And so he and his brother Frito.
	So the whole nature of that, that's what's going to likely happen.
	So it can be used in the impeachment proceedings against him.
	It also is a whole bunch of evidence.
	So they have a bunch of sworn evidence.
	So it's not so much the report.
	It's the sworn evidence that they have that a plaintiff can say, based on this, they have new claims, or that they have a bunch of evidence available to them based on this to file suits.
	Now, it's the taxpayers of New York who will be paying that bill.
	So it's always a little bit interesting the way that works.
	But I think he's going to have an uphill battle with the impeachment cause, unless he knows something I don't.
	And both the Attorney General wants to be Governor.
	So Dershowitz was critical of a report, and I understand that.
	But Cuomo's still as guilty as guilty gets, in my view.
	Guilty not just based on the accusations.
	I put the video out yesterday.
	He's not guilty just based on the accusations.
	He's guilty based on his own statements.
	I mean, he says at one point in response to the accusation that he touched one of the executive assistant number one at his mansion.
	He says, first of all, his denial did not actually contain the denial.
	He says that I would have to have lost my mind to do something like that.
	Touch her in front of 10 employees in my mansion in plain view of everyone.
	And I didn't mention it in the video, but in the report it says, we found that that answer was totally misleading because A, there's not 10 employees working at the mansion.
	B, the allegation was that this was on the second floor, not in view of other employees.
	And the explanation that he gave made no sense.
	On another occasion, with respect to, I think it's executive assistant number one as well, he says, I don't remember kissing her.
	I kiss a lot of people.
	I do this with everybody.
	I kiss them on the forehead.
	Sometimes I kiss them on the lips, as if that's normal.
	With anyone but your wife, spouse, partner, or maybe your kids, if you don't mind kissing filthy animals on the mouth.
	Maybe.
	And I always remember growing up, I was grossed out when parents kissed my friends on the lips.
	Like a little Beck.
	I thought it was weird, but whatever.
	I became a parent and it's not so weird.
	But he says that casually.
	Yeah, I kissed some employees on the lips.
	But I don't remember doing it to this person.
	I mean, that in my mind, you're done for.
	There's no backing out of that.
	So it's not just based on the allegations or the accusations.
	It's based on his own admissions.
	I kissed some people on the lips, but not her, as it relates to that accusation.
	But the Attorney General finds that he broke the law.
	I mean, as the report concludes, he broke the law, state and federal law.
	Does that hold weight if you go in front of a judge with him?
	I mean, there's been no judge, there's been no trial, there's been an adversarial hearing, but nothing before a judge.
	Does that finding carry legal weight?
	No, no, not legally binding at all.
	It's helpful in the court of public opinion.
	It gives you a roadmap to a range of evidence.
	So it's very helpful, but you'd have to get that evidence independently yourself.
	And it's the number of accusers within the time frame of those accusers and the fact they're all Democrats that, you know, with my knowledge, are accusing them.
	That there's multiple witnesses that, as you know, issued non-denial denials.
	So the aggregate of it points towards guilt on this.
	The fact that they're not willing to take any other action is interesting.
	That they're not willing to, you know, back it up.
	They're just forcing, they're hoping, they first thought they could get him to resign.
	Now they're hoping to impeach him.
	They hope to push him out without any consequences that could flow towards anybody else.
	So stayed away from the deaths because that implicates other Democrats in other states.
	Stayed away from official action because they don't want to have a formal action themselves.
	But they don't understand they're going to have to drag him out of there.
	Maybe he'll have the Boston legal defense, William Shatner's character, who his defense was, it was an attractive nuisance.
	So maybe that will be the excuse.
	We'll see what else he comes up with.
	I think, I don't know, I didn't know whether this was a meme or his actual defense, that he purportedly showed photos of Bill Clinton and Joe Biden doing similar conduct.
	I don't know.
	I was like, that would be classic, but I didn't see if that was just a meme or he really wasn't.
	We've all seen the montage of Joe Biden being...
	Exquisitely inappropriate with young people.
	Jill was like, get the girl away from him.
	Get the little kid away from him.
	The thing is, everybody wants to say, well, what about Joe Biden?
	Well, let's deal with one pervert at a time.
	Because we've all seen the montage.
	The montage went viral before Joe Biden got elected.
	I'm trying not to say that in a way that will trigger any algorithmic things.
	We all knew that Joe Biden video.
	I mean, it makes me uncomfortable to watch.
	But I guess people wanted that more than somebody who makes angry tweets.
	Some people did.
	But no, the idea of kissing somebody who's not your family or partner on the lips, you're the freaking governor of New York.
	You have no business.
	Keep your hands to yourself.
	Keep your schmeckle in your pants and don't put your lips on anybody.
	Period.
	Ever.
	Forehead, cheek, whatever.
	But now people are saying, Robert, because people are cynical and rightly so.
	He's a Democrat.
	Nothing's going to happen to him.
	I think it's different now.
	He's been DOA all along.
	My interpretation was that this was Kamala Harris.
	You could see the writing on the wall.
	Both him and Newsom were going to face serious consequences.
	Newsom might dodge it yet, but Cuomo was not.
	I mean, Newsom's taking a lot of hits just by having a recall happen, and Cuomo's taking certain hits.
	He lost certain political allies he didn't understand, and certain people were adversaries, and he didn't understand how they operated.
	He's so accustomed to getting away with it, he thought he always would.
	And the problem here, this was an easy, personal way to take him out, and he likely will be impeached.
	You know, when Biden came out right away and called for his resignation, that was it.
	You know, that's like Bill Clinton calling for your resignation for sexual harassment.
	Can you imagine?
	Oh, that's terrible.
	You shouldn't do that behavior.
	And not to be cynical, but Joe Biden has every interest in the world to make someone else the villain when it comes to being a creepy pervert.
	Focus.
	Look at him.
	Look at him.
	Don't look at me and forget about that video.
	I don't remember doing it.
	Yeah, no, I don't think like when people say he's going to walk, he's a Democrat.
	I don't think so.
	I think this is it.
	I think he's done.
	I think even internally when we say like.
	You know, this is a political thing at its core.
	It's not Republican versus Democrat right now.
	It's power jostling within the Democratic Party.
	I didn't know Leticia James wants to be governor of New York.
	It makes perfect sense.
	You know, we've been talking about the Kamala Harris sort of angle eliminating potential competition.
	It seems to be playing out, but I don't think Cuomo's surviving this.
	This is impeachment on its face because you now have an attorney general saying he committed a crime.
	We know.
	While he was governor, using his power of governor to do it.
	Oh, and it's the reprisals as well.
	It's not just the inappropriate conduct.
	It's that the report finds reprisals for those who came out.
	So, for people being, you know, I can understand everyone's traumatized into, you know, outright cynicism.
	I don't think Cuomo's surviving this.
	It's just a matter of time.
	And yeah, Robert, I think we're on the same page.
	And that's where your, Sasha's video was very revelatory because he did, anybody watching that knows exactly what he's doing.
	And he did it in front of his daughter.
	So that gives you an idea of who the guy is.
	And that's what everyone's...
	I'm not sure if I knew that when I made the video at the time, the first time.
	I think I did, but I don't want to bring family into it.
	Yeah.
	When you do things like that, it shows the level of comfort, the level of contempt.
	For normalcy, or the fact that that's his new normal.
	I get to make sausage jokes to an attractive reporter in front of my daughter with my entire executive team around me, and no one's going to do anything about it.
	And Lord knows what he's gotten away with in the past.
	One of the things, not to get into too much of the nitty-gritty detail, apparently when he propositioned one of, I think it was the state trooper, whom he broke the rules to get her closer to him because I guess he liked her physically.
	Asked her if she could find a friend for him and said that the friend would have to be able to tolerate pain.
	Something...
	I have no judgment for people's sexual preferences and sexual practices, but to be in an unemployment position and think that this is appropriate, you have to have a screw loose.
	And remember those very unbecoming photos of him in a shirt that seemed to suggest...
	You know, things consistent with that.
	I was just about to ask, does he have nipple rings?
	It sure looked like he did.
	Okay.
	Nothing against it, people.
	Nothing against it.
	With great power comes great responsibility and the desire to pull out your schmackle.
	So, it's so hard to be a responsible leader.
	Keep your hands to yourself.
	Period.
	Okay, what do we got here?
	Cuomo's a lot like Santa Claus.
	He knows he's been naughty.
	He knows who's been naughty, who's been nice in New York politics.
	It happens to be everybody, but Cuomo might yet twist the arm of the state senate.
	That's the only...
	I just think there's so much public pressure, they don't have a choice but to take him out.
	All right, enough with Cuomo.
	I mean, the next steps in this, we're going to presumably see impeachment proceedings and civil lawsuits flying.
	Oh, yes.
	Civil lawsuits are already pending, are about to be filing, and impeachment proceedings are already commencing.
	All right, and yeah, the question I asked over Twitter, the criminal complaint that the media has been reporting on, not a public criminal complaint yet?
	Oh, there's no criminal complaint.
	No, it was just a report by the Attorney General.
	Okay, because I thought I read something...
	There's a civil lawsuit that's about to be filed.
	Okay, I thought I'd read something somewhere of a criminal complaint that was filed by one of his accusers, but...
	Oh, there may have been someone filed something with a local police office.
	But that's not, you know, if the Attorney General is not going to take criminal action, nobody else is.
	All right.
	2.1000 live on Rumble.
	Booyah, people.
	That's fantastic.
	I'm glad we're live on Rumble.
	I think I must have made a mistake last week on the RMTP code.
	I don't know what that stands for, but apparently I might have screwed it up last week.
	All right, Robert, what do we move on to now?
	So, I mean, I think a...
	Well, there's a good short transition on election-related issues.
	A Colorado magistrate sanctioned a couple of lawyers who brought election-related cases.
	They were cases I was not fond of because they were pursuing legal theories that weren't really well-founded, in my view, and alleged a lot of things I didn't think they could prove.
	It seemed more like political grandstanding than an actual...
	I don't think that guy did it deliberately, but the way the case was misinterpreted in Canada...
	This seemed to be deliberate, in my view, in this case.
	So, you know, I could see how they would get sanctioned.
	However, the magistrate judge made a lot of statements that by the magistrate's own standards, that magistrate judge should be sanctioned because the judge made some claims that are just not backed up if the judge had done their due diligence.
	They were instead obsessed with attacking any question about the elections, attacking anything related to Trump, related to any case.
	Quoted some court cases in ways that are not accurate at all.
	And yet here she was sanctioning, or maybe it was a he, the magistrate was here sanctioning two lawyers for doing what the judge themselves did.
	And the judge should be able to do a higher standard than lawyers.
	So, you know, that's my only comment on it.
	Not a surprise they got sanctioned.
	However, the sanctions order goes way past what I thought would be appropriate.
	But look for more of that.
	It was always intended to...
	It's kind of like the Canadian COVID case being misinterpreted.
	The goal was to use these cases not only as a red herring, but to discredit all the legitimate cases that are pending.
	And we're already seeing that happen in the judiciary.
	What was the sanction, if you know offhand?
	My recollection, it was just money.
	Money to pay fees and some other aspects.
	Not referral for disbarment and the rest.
	And my guess is the reason why the judge didn't want to go that far, the judge didn't want anybody else reviewing their work.
	So I think that's where that is.
	Whereas I think some of the other cases will likely lead to bar referrals.
	But some of that legitimate or understandable, I should say, and some of it totally illegitimate in my view.
	But this is an example of problematic aspects of what's already happening.
	All right.
	Now, I guess one thing that we've been getting, I get messages to this all the time on locals.
	People want the template for anybody who needs the letter if their employers are requiring vaccination.
	That is, I forget, I don't know where that is on Locals, but it's on Locals somewhere, so you just have to ask the community.
	It's pinned at the top of the board at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And yeah, this is a good bridge.
	There's a bunch of different potential vaccine mandate-related lawsuits either pending or coming.
	And here's what sort of the legal scope looks like.
	So the first thing is that there will be people challenging the FDA.
	You get to file what's called a citizen petition.
	Part of the whole process of the way the FDA works is they want to make sure informed consent and your right to petition the government or the First Amendment.
	That's the right that Amy Coney Barrett couldn't remember in her own Senate hearing, by the way.
	But that both of those rights are enforced.
	Through the FDA drug approval process, whereby you as a citizen get to file a petition with them identifying any concerns that you have, or you can comment on an existing petition.
	And so, for example, the Children's Health Defense and Robert Kennedy and others have filed a petition back in May.
	There's over 30,000 comments on that.
	Children's Health Defense may be filing a challenge.
	Other organizations and other individuals may be filing a challenge to the FDA's authorization, looking for limitations on its existing authorization, revocation.
	What you can do is you can ask under the Administrative Procedures Act.
	You can say the government's unreasonable delay in answering my petition, or they've answered it, but their answer is unsatisfactory, or they've exhausted their time limit to answer, and so it's taken as a constructive denial.
	And you're challenging an agency action, which can include getting a declaratory relief or injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedures Act.
	And it's whether or not they were arbitrary or capricious.
	And mostly what that's about...
	Did the FDA follow its own rules, follow its own procedures before taking any particular agency action, whether that's issuance of a notice like their fact sheets, whether that's an issuance of approval of a vaccine as emergency use or for a full actual FDA approval, and all of those components.
	So that's one area we're going to see litigation.
	Another area we're going to see litigation and already is pending.
	Are where various state actors have imposed mandates on vaccines.
	So the Indiana University case, there's an emergency injunction request pending before the United States Supreme Court.
	Here's what's kind of shocking.
	Indiana University argued in the lower courts, the Seventh Circuit and the District Court, argued that Buck v.
	Bell is still governing precedent in the United States.
	Explain to the crowd who may not know what Buck v.
	Bell is, what it is.
	Because I know, but I think people don't.
	Buck v.
	Bell was the favorite decision of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.
	Buck v.
	Bell was the decision in the 1920s by the U.S. Supreme Court that said you could forcibly sterilize people against their will.
	It targeted poor women in particular.
	Poor white women and poor African American women in the South.
	Especially.
	And my view, a lot of other views, people can go back and watch the debate with Alan Dershowitz on this, on the vaccine mandates, and Dershowitz recognized that was a morally offensive, horrifying decision.
	It was the peak eugenics decision anywhere in the world.
	It was the, you know, of any court anywhere.
	And it was the foundation of the Nazis' eugenics experiments.
	They cited that decision.
	As the moral and legal authority for what they were doing in Germany.
	And so most people had assumed that that decision was dead.
	I mean, there's not a law student that will stand up for that decision, at least not until now.
	But here you have Indiana University's lawyers arguing overtly that Buck v.
	Bell is still good law, and the Seventh Circuit almost taking a wink and saying, yeah, maybe it is.
	So that would give the Supreme Court an opportunity to get involved.
	Now, of note, the real reason the suit was effectively quasi-mooted is because after the suit was filed, the University of Indiana completely changed its list of exemptions.
	And it went from having very narrow interpretation of its exemptions to very broad interpretations.
	Now, at the University of Indiana, you can object to the vaccine on religious grounds.
	Ethical grounds, medical grounds, want to do remote learning, where agreed to testing and masks mandates, things of that nature, which dramatically removed almost all the plaintiffs from the case.
	That's the real backstory of how they took the sting out of the case.
	And it shows the utility to filing suit.
	Given another example of that, I believe it's Loyola University in Chicago was going to do the mandate, wasn't going to allow religious exemptions.
	And the lawyer said, well, I'm going to sue over that.
	And they reversed course almost right away.
	So that's the sort of constitutional issue is going to be, part of it's the Nuremberg Code of 1947, which we had a eugenics era of courts in America from 1905 to 1945 that said they could do forced vaccinations, forced sterilizations, and forced detention camps in the name of an emergency.
	The same emergency exception was built into the Weimar Constitution explicitly, which is what the Nazis used to seize power.
	The combination of what happened there led to the United States saying, that's wrong.
	We'll never do medical experimentation again without informed consent.
	Both parts, informed and consent.
	And the Nuremberg Code of 1947 was passed.
	It was incorporated in a wide range of other declarations and treaties.
	It has been recognized in the United States courts as governing the medical profession and the state use of medicine in the United States.
	It is part of the Emergency Use Authorization Statute explicitly, which the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department this past week under Biden came up with an interpretation.
	That, in my view, was ludicrous, but contradicted everything every government and court had said before then.
	They said informed consent only means informed.
	It means if we're coming to rape you, as long as we tell you about it in advance, it doesn't matter whether you consent.
	Informed consent, we're going to tell you about it, and if you don't do it, we're going to strip you of your rights and then grant privileges to others so that you'll consent, and that's consent.
	And that's not...
	I won't say extortion or coercion.
	That is typically what vitiates consent, not what constitutes consent.
	And it's over the top.
	People have sort of now come to the acceptance that consent is just subduing and being compelled to do something under threat of having rights taken away, when that is actually what vitiates consent, typically, at least in contracts and negotiation in general.
	Sorry.
	In fact, exactly.
	So they have constitutional allegations of First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment violations because of all the different ways bodily integrity, bodily autonomy, medical choice, religious exemptions are all implicated at one level or another by one of those constitutional amendments.
	The Ninth Amendment...
	It has been interpreted in the past as effectively protecting any common law right you had at the time of the Constitution, and that that couldn't be taken away.
	So that's where the right against battery, because the failure to informed consent originates from a doctor cannot do something to your body, and no one else can conspire to do something to your body as a medical excuse unless they have your informed consent.
	Otherwise, it's conspiracy to commit battery, which is not only a recognized tort, but arguably is protected from state action by the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	On top of that, the other constitutional claim they're bringing, and this only applies to state actors, and that is unconstitutional conditions.
	The government can't do exactly what you're talking about.
	Unconstitutional conditions is a way of getting around something like informed consent where you say, well, I'm not going to take away your right.
	I'm just going to punish you for the exercise of it.
	I was going to say, I pulled up a chat that said that Indiana U was giving an award to Fauci.
	It was in caps and I became immediately nervous that might be false information.
	This is from news at IU Bloomington.
	Dr. Anthony Fauci to receive Ryan White Award, take part in virtual ceremony, July 20th, 2021.
	Bloomington, Indiana.
	The Indiana University School of Public Health Bloomington will honor Dr. Anthony Fauci for his work in HIV-AIDS prevention as a leading expert during the COVID-19 pandemic by naming him the 2021 recipient of the school's Ryan White Distinguished Leadership Award.
	Okay, in this episode of Bizarro's Universe, what else, Robert?
	No doubt.
	So that's all the constitutional aspects as to state actors or federal employees, federal actors.
	For the military, and this, by the way, is what exposed the Office of Legal Counsel's bogus interpretation by the Department of Justice under Biden.
	Originally, they tried to force an experimental anthrax vaccine on soldiers back at the time of going into the Iraqi war.
	They filed suit and won on the grounds the FDA didn't keep its promises and word in a citizen petition context, didn't honor its own obligations, didn't follow its own restrictions, but also because the court found informed consent was a critical factor to examine.
	And so the Congress came in and passed an amendment that said, well, if the president says under certain limited circumstances that soldiers need to take it regardless of informed consent, then even an emergency use authorized vaccine can be required of soldiers in anticipation was military theater.
	By the way, all these emergency use authorization statutes.
	We're passed to deal with a bioweapon released by terrorists or foreign governments.
	It was not anticipated that it would be just any kind of pandemic would come along.
	Because if emergency use authorization suffices, why even have an FDA approval process at all?
	I mean, it's an emergency decree.
	To respond to one of the other super chats, now they're going to go rush FDA approval.
	Typically, what's required in FDA approval in the first place?
	My understanding is it requires three to five years of study to prove safety over a prolonged period of time.
	Whereas if you rush that, you sort of don't have the very assurances that you were giving in the first place through FDA approval.
	Is that relatively accurate?
	I mean, the reason why the FDA prevents you from getting access to a large number of medicines is because they say it hasn't met our very rigorous...
	Methodology for approval and acceptance.
	And I think last I checked, the average drug took 12 years for approval in the FDA.
	That gives you an idea for a length of time.
	I remember being invested in some medical stocks.
	This is back in 2010.
	Waiting for the FDA approval.
	When FDA gave its approval, they would shoot up 1,000% from one night to the next morning.
	And now it's like, they're going to FDA approve these vaccines.
	Without commenting on the underlying technology, because yes, the mRNA technology has been around for years, but when you're talking about specific approval for specific drugs, they need a reasonable period of time to determine and prove safety.
	Efficacy might be less of a concern than safety, and that's part and parcel of why it's so valuable to get FDA approval.
	Are they going to rush it through with this, and are they discussing rushing FDA approval through for these vaccines?
	Public leaked reports that they're going to try to rush it through by Labor Day.
	And there has been a massive, what looks frankly like a coordinated effort, of major employers and state institutions to compel it quickly.
	Like people are being given one week notice.
	You have one week to get the vaccine and you're fired.
	You know what I mean?
	Things like that.
	Just out of the blue.
	And again, this has never happened before.
	So, you know, I'll get now to the employment context.
	I get a lot of lawyers out there.
	Harmeet Dillon and some others.
	Who think this is an uphill battle, not worth the fight.
	I understand why they think that.
	It is an uphill battle.
	But they're forgetting a couple of things.
	One is this is all novel.
	This has never been tried before.
	We have never done national mandates of a vaccine in our history.
	We have never had employers doing it across the board.
	Least of all for a vaccine that is being rushed to market.
	And even least of all for a virus like this one.
	The Jacobson decision was only about smallpox, where the vaccine had been approved for more than a century, where the disease killed one-third of the people that it infected.
	And, I mean, primarily had a disastrous effect on young people, if I'm not mistaken.
	Yes, that's absolutely right.
	And this is where we sort of lose...
	To be respectful to Dershowitz, because he is still a great mind, when Dershowitz says this is worse than smallpox...
	You know what you disagree with, in fact.
	He's got to quit reading the New York Times.
	What happened was the New York Times talked about it being more transmissible than smallpox.
	So people not reading between the lines didn't realize what that really meant or didn't mean.
	And there's been a lot of that.
	Now, for the details of the debate about that, again, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, I'll be getting into all the medical debate.
	Arguments and evidentiary arguments.
	But just on the legal side, Dershowitz agreed with me in that debate.
	These courts are applying rational basis review, the lowest possible level.
	That's one of the issues in the Indiana University petition for an emergency injunction.
	Both the district court and the court of appeals didn't even give us the right legal standard.
	They put the burden on us to prove.
	That it's not reasonable what they've done.
	And they've said as long as there could be any reason for it, it was okay.
	And they cited, in my view, miscited Jacobson for that.
	Though Jacobson is a decision that belongs in the grave with Buck and Korematsu, the trilogy of infamy, as I like to call it, from the eugenics era of courts.
	And if your liberal friends want to get on a high horse about this, just remind, they're back to preaching eugenics, and they're back to cheering masks, and they're back to...
	Pushing segregation.
	I mean, I thought the 1870s Ku Klux Klan was dead, but they're back today in the Liberal Democratic Party.
	We are literally not far off Nutanus Nutanus from Korematsu as relates to the unvaccinated.
	They pose such an immediate existential threat.
	They are the ones driving the variants, yada, yada, yada.
	We've got to...
	We've got to put them in...
	I don't want to use hyperbolic language, but we've got to Korematsu, that group of people who is putting the rest of the nation at risk.
	And they don't even see it because they are so enveloped within the moment, enveloped within the fear.
	They cannot take the required step back to say, this smells exactly like Korematsu.
	Just fill in the blanks with different descriptions of the people you want to intern.
	And assess accordingly.
	They can't see it because, like Dershowitz, he's been, I'll say, isolated for so long, fed the same news for so long, has whipped himself up into this frenzy that it's an existential threat to go on a plane and not know that everyone on the plane has been vaccinated, that it can justify these atrocities in his own mind.
	And I would refer to Korematsu as an atrocity as I would Buck.
	Jacobson less so because it was only a monetary fine for not getting...
	The vaccine.
	If there was any more compelling argument, the problem with Jacobson was using any rational basis language.
	But Jacobson is the best case for that because it was a $5 fine worth about $150- $200 today.
	That's all you had to pay if you chose not to get vaccinated.
	It was smallpox during a pandemic of smallpox, undisputed, uncontroverted pandemic of smallpox.
	And third, it killed one third of the people.
	With a vaccine that had a century of history behind it.
	So you couldn't have a better argument for vaccines than the factual pattern of Jacobson.
	You couldn't have a weaker one than what we have now.
	Now, there's one additional constitutional argument I believe will be made down the road, which is there is an equal protection claim because the way racial discrimination claims work is you don't have to show someone intended to target a certain group.
	You just have to show there's a disparate impact on a certain group, and then it's up to the government to say why that policy is still justified.
	But you have a prima facie discrimination claim if a government policy has a known disparate impact on a racial minority group.
	The city of New York imposing vaccine mandates, segregating their stores, segregating their restaurants, segregating their bars.
	There's going to be one group primarily excluded from those bars, from those restaurants, from those stores, and it's the black citizens of the city.
	Now, I have read, and I have not verified it on my own, so collective knowledge of our chat, let me know.
	I read some stats that 70% of the black community is not vaccinated or is reluctant to get vaccinated.
	Is that the right thing?
	It varies where the location is, but the number varies anywhere from 50 to 70%.
	But there is a statistically significant gap, especially in New York City, based on race.
	And so the mayor of New York is reimposing racial segregation and racial discrimination that will disparately impact the black community of the city of New York.
	That's a constitutional violation, and he's going to have to prove it's medically necessary to do so.
	And I don't think...
	Well, then we'll get to the evidence, which, like I said, we'll be discussing more this week at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	But that transitions into the...
	Claims against employers.
	Now, if your employer is a state government actor, you have both the constitutional claims and the claims I'm going to talk about.
	If they're a federal government employer, they're not covered by the statute I'm going to talk about.
	And that is Americans with Disabilities Act.
	People are assuming that because nobody has ever sued before under the ADA for a vaccine mandate, that that means the ADA could not apply.
	But that's because employers have never done this on this scale before.
	The closest analogy is requiring nurses to get flu shots.
	And there, the lawyers did not raise the claim as to whether or not the The vaccine or being unvaccinated was itself a perceived disability.
	They said, hey, this person will have medical consequences or this person has anxiety that will intensify if they take that shot.
	And the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said that is, in fact, a credible ADA claim.
	The other part of that, however, is you just look at the law.
	The ADA law was designed to not just cover disabilities.
	It was really health status.
	And if you understand the whole policy, the ADA was amended multiple times in part to deal with one particular problem, which was the perception that somebody had a physical limitation.
	And courts were interpreting it in a narrow way, and so Congress would go back in and expand it again, and they would repeat it.
	In all these statutes, they would say, please, courts, interpret this as broad as possible.
	All you have to prove to prove an ADA claim is that your employer...
	You don't even have to prove it substantially impairs your abilities.
	You don't have to prove you have an actual disability.
	You just have to prove your employer thinks that you have some physical limitation.
	And even the EEOC has recognized that perceptions that a person has any deficiency in their immunity is a physical disability.
	So clearly it's a perception of a physical disability.
	They may be wrong about that, but that goes to the Their justification for the ADA claim, not your right to bring one.
	So while I know it's new and it's novel, and I'll be the first lawyer to bring these claims, people that just assume they can't bring them have not really understood the policy of the law or the purpose of it.
	Now, so Harmeet Dillard, from what I understand, is not bringing a specific suit.
	What was the suit that she's not bringing?
	And I guess one question is, how does it not come to you for you to bring it if Harmeet won't?
	I mean, her reaction, one of her associates earlier in the week was tweeting out that there's no ADA claim.
	And I was like, just think about this for a second.
	Just think about it logically.
	What is the employer's reason for requiring it?
	Does it have nothing to do with your health status?
	Does it have nothing to do with your physical limitations?
	Because then they're just discriminating against you for no reason at all.
	And then they may have a racial disparate impact suit.
	Those that are African-American and Latino, particularly African-American, because then you're using as a pretext discriminating against disproportionately Black potential employees or existing employees without having any basis for it.
	No, their basis is they believe that not having that immunity or that vaccine makes you physically deficient, just like anybody who has any other vaccine deficiency or immunity compromise or immunity limitation.
	They believe you're uniquely susceptible.
	To getting and transmitting a disease, and that has always been recognized as an actual disability, least of all, perception of a disability.
	So that's where we disagree.
	And what it is, is people are panicking because the EEOC, in very careful language, said that it's not a medical exam to ask whether somebody is vaccinated.
	Because they said being vaccinated is not a disability.
	They didn't say...
	Whether being unvaccinated is a disability.
	And they didn't say whether being unvaccinated could be the perception of a disability.
	They deliberately played games with the language because they're reversing and going against 20 years of history at the EEOC, which said merely believing someone could get a disease, the official position of the EEOC until last month, was itself perception of a disability you could sue for under the ADA.
	And that's what's triggering their concern.
	EEOC acronym?
	Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
	Okay.
	Which enforces the ADA and other discrimination bills.
	And they have brought suit multiple times within the last three years on the grounds that merely an employer who thinks you could get a disease or be more susceptible to getting it, in that case, things like travel or other things, that itself is a protected disability.
	It's definitely the perception of a disability.
	So they're trying to be careful and hide some things.
	And by the way, their opinion, just like the OLC opinion, no legal effect whatsoever.
	It has no legal effect.
	People that are just deferring to the government.
	I get that the courts might have a lot of political bias on this issue and be tough to get through, but it isn't because of what the law substantively says or what its policy is there for.
	On top of that, if there's no religious exemption law protected, there's multiple statutes that limit employers' abilities, either state law or federal law, and in most cases both, that says an employer cannot prohibit you.
	Or force you to take a vaccine where you have a religious exemption.
	And the religious exemption doesn't require you go to church, doesn't require your priest or pastor or anyone else to sign off on it.
	And there are many people can go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And I just gave an example of what other people are asserting.
	Very legitimate concerns many people have religiously about this particular vaccine because of how it was made.
	That's another lawsuit they may have.
	And then the third category, briefly, conspiracy to commit battery.
	Because this is a conspiracy to force you.
	If your employer said, before you get employed, you've got to go down to Joe's bar and get beat up.
	And then I'll employ you.
	You know, like Soprano-style employment standards.
	That would be conspiracy to commit battery, in my view.
	And so isn't this just the same when there's no informed consent taking place?
	I'm going to be looking at all of those claims, I believe.
	And I understand the political process, the stakeholders, the powers that be.
	A lot of judges don't want people to have this protection.
	But we have to stand.
	The idea that Buck v.
	Bell and eugenics is going to come back to America and legal precedent is morally horrendous.
	And somebody has to stand up.
	And by golly, some of us will.
	Someone had asked before.
	People often confound the ADA claims with HIPAA claims.
	I know we've discussed it before, but just elucidate the distinction between ADA and HIPAA for those who are asking that same question.
	So what HIPAA does is HIPAA prevents your employer from sharing your medical information.
	And it looks like a lot of employers are violating that, by the way.
	There also may be employer fraud claims.
	I'll get into more detail of the employer fraud claims.
	I'll just say this.
	Employers are saying things about these vaccines.
	That are directly contradicted by the CDC's own fact sheets about these vaccines.
	I won't get into what they're saying because one guy said what the CDC said and got suspended from Twitter.
	We are talking about Dave Rubin here, right?
	No, there was a Rubin one, but this is a separate guy.
	And it took him 48 hours finally to get him reinstated.
	But employers are saying things about these vaccines that are directly contradicted by the CDC.
	That may be a potential employment fraud claim.
	Joe Biden is saying things that are directly contradicted by the CDC.
	Once the president says it, who gives a crap if some low employer says it?
	It's a world of double standards that leaves no standards at all.
	Write that down.
	That's beautiful, actually.
	Okay, sorry.
	Now I just cut you off and I forgot what you were going to say.
	So that's what covers all the different employment possible claims.
	Also, it's important to remember the ADA covers public accommodations and it covers state employers, state governments.
	Oh, and there's the one last set of claims that can be brought while this is an emergency use authorized drug.
	Is whether or not it's violating the informed consent principles.
	That goes to where the OLC has its ludicrous interpretation, in my view.
	And that too can be a claim because the whole point was to make sure this vaccine was always had informed consent and you didn't run any risk of people being forced to take it or being subject to medical experimentation.
	That's also a Nuremberg Code claim.
	And in my view, the Nuremberg Code is enforceable.
	As a Jess Cogan's recognized norm of law around the world, America was the one that came up with the idea of the Nuremberg Code of 1947.
	Multiple courts have said it's enforceable in court.
	So I see that also as a potential claim that's available depending on the circumstances.
	But there's a multiple range of claims.
	Employers that are gambling on this.
	One of the things people can ask their employer is, have they confirmed that their insurance company We'll cover any health consequences or costs associated with getting the vaccine.
	Because it appears there's government actors saying they're not going to give unemployment compensation if you're laid off because of this.
	And there's lots of reports of health insurers saying they're not covering this.
	And of course, one last component, the immunity for vaccine companies is broad and complete.
	So if you're a vaccine distributor, vaccine manufacturer, vaccine producer, vaccine marketer, vaccine doctor, vaccine administrator, you are completely immune from suit.
	There's a little tiny caveat that allows for suing for criminal willful misconduct.
	That is brutally hard to prove, and courts are extremely reluctant to allow you to get there.
	And there is a limited federal government program that might help you out.
	But of note, they have different causation standards than maybe some other causation standards.
	They basically impose a strict causation standard on you, and you have to file your claim within one year of getting the vaccine.
	There doesn't even appear to be a discovery exception.
	So if the injury happens a year and a day later, it's not clear you have any right to even limited remedy under the federal government program.
	So that's basically the full scope of legal issues with the vaccine mandates.
	And thus far, There has not been a major challenge to compelled vaccination by a private employer?
	No.
	There are a couple of suits pending.
	Mostly they're universities.
	Many of them are public universities or public actors.
	So there's a North Carolina case that was involved as sheriff.
	There's a Tennessee case against MTSU.
	There's the Indiana University case.
	There's the case against George Mason University that was just filed.
	Case in LA.
	I'll be discussing the details of those, the evidentiary components and the other legal theories of those cases at vivabarneslaw.locals.com and I'm talking to people about looking at bringing a half dozen or so cases myself over the next couple of weeks.
	All right, fantastic.
	So I hope that answers everyone's questions and queries out there and you know where to go for additional info that we are not, we don't want to walk a line that's too thin on YouTube.
	But Robert, now speaking of the federal government, Exceeding its potential authority.
	Let's get to the eviction moratorium because people are asking a lot of questions.
	Okay, hold on.
	What happened?
	Recently, the CDC now has extended the moratorium on evictions until I think it's the end of October.
	And for the life of me, it's not because I don't want to understand it.
	I don't understand how they're doing it given the decision that we just discussed from SCOTUS.
	What was it?
	A month ago, at most, where SCOTUS basically said, this is beyond the authority of the CDC.
	They cannot unilaterally.
	They're a freaking government commission.
	They don't have the power to legislate.
	If they wanted to provide a moratorium on eviction, it had to go through Congress.
	So, invalid.
	You don't have the authority.
	Send it to Congress.
	Congress passes a law, and if it passes as law, then it's no longer a question of the CDC doing it.
	It has passed the legislative process.
	From what I understand, this went back to the Biden government.
	And they said it didn't go through Congress.
	They just passed the buck back to the CDC.
	And the CDC just said, we are suspending or we are putting a moratorium on evictions until for two more months in high coronavirus or high COVID contagion areas.
	I don't know how they determine that.
	We'll get to that maybe.
	How and why?
	How?
	I mean, how does it happen?
	It seems that it's on its face, just a violation of the Supreme Court decision that came out two months ago.
	The Biden administration or the government, I don't want to blame Biden, I'll just blame Congress, are not assuming their responsibility to either make the law or not make the law.
	They send it back to the CDC.
	CDC exceeds its authority and it'll get overturned in two months, but the damage is done.
	What have I misunderstood?
	No, that's basically it.
	The only thing is that the Supreme Court decision was not a binding decision, because Kavanaugh wouldn't make it so.
	So what happened was it came up on an emergency injunction relief to sustain the injunction and lift the stay on the injunction that the lower courts had already issued.
	Multiple courts have looked at this, and almost every court that looked at it said this is clearly outside of the CDC's authority.
	The CDC is taking this, just like emergency use authorization, taking what's supposed to be real limited, deal with a bioweapon outbreak in a particular town where you've got to rush something in because it's their only chance, and you don't worry about it being mandated because informed consent is required, and your assumption is everybody's dying or suffering from severe disease and will take any remedy at the time.
	And now it's all of a sudden become this massive loophole that swallowed the entire process for approving drugs in America.
	That was intended to solve, in particular, the problem of rushed vaccines in particular.
	Going back to the Belgian Congo in the late 1950s, reporters and journalists have looked at this, have tied that to the later AIDS outbreak, was an attempt to rush a polio vaccine there.
	And then, of course, famously in the United States in 1976, we rushed a swine flu vaccine out there.
	Jerry Ford was using it to try to get reelected.
	And instead, it caused more damage than benefit.
	And so all of these rules were designed to...
	Stop that from happening again.
	And we're supposed to have killed off with the Nuremberg Code and everything else, killed off the eugenics era legal precedents, and they're coming right back, roaring back again.
	In that same capacity, they've taken something that was supposed to be the CDC's approval, authority to quarantine and fumigate buildings into, we can just be everybody's landlord.
	And so it never made sense legally.
	But it's beyond that.
	It's that the CDC is...
	There's no better word for it.
	They are misappropriating or they are appropriating private property.
	And they're telling landlords what they can and cannot do with their property under the pretext that somehow evicting tenants who don't pay.
	I mean, somehow there's a direct correlation between eviction and spreading of the virus.
	I mean, first of all...
	Do we know what the criteria is for the areas in which there's high communication of COVID?
	Is there any threshold, any objective metric for that?
	That there is, or at least is going to be, but that's probably going to stay a flexible number and it's probably going to be very broad, like their emergency use authorization in the first place.
	The emergency use authorization is only supposed to last a certain time period, supposed to end when the risk is down or known information is present, and yet it doesn't.
	It just keeps going, keeps going, keeps going, keeps going, like a bad Energizer bunny.
	And so the reason why they're able to get away with it at all is because Kavanaugh...
	The four justices said this is clearly unconstitutional.
	Justice Robert, sadly, was on the opposite side, apparently, which just shows what a joke he is.
	The big commerce clause judge is going to restrict federal government control over things.
	Yeah, how'd that turn out, folks?
	Another Federalist Society champion.
	Just like the Seventh Circuit judge, who was the chief judge who issued the opinion on the Indiana University case, where he said getting a mandatory vaccine...
	Is just like having to pay tuition or have to do a history assignment.
	I mean, what a preposterous claim.
	But he's loved by the Federalist Society.
	He's their number one favorite judge in America.
	That's what people wonder why I rant against him.
	People like Easterbrook.
	I've won many cases in front of him, but I'm not a fan.
	For many good reasons.
	So the CDC basically, because Kavanaugh said, well, you know, I won't...
	I won't lift the stay on the injunction because it's just about to end anyway.
	I agree it's clearly not legal what they're doing.
	So he was the fifth vote.
	And so even though it was clear where they were going, what did they do?
	They're like, ah, you know, that nitwit Kavanaugh gave us another life, so we'll just file it again, knowing that it may take weeks or months.
	Even Biden said that.
	He said, yeah, maybe it's unconstitutional, but it'll probably be two months before they get around to ruling on it.
	So, I mean, it made Kavanaugh look like a joke.
	And, you know, we'll see if he takes any remedial action now.
	But, I mean, by the way, the FDA and the CDC are infamous for this.
	Years ago, the FDA said, they're suing to stop us from issuing this new drug.
	They have no evidence we're about to issue it.
	And the judge is like, you're absolutely right.
	No standing.
	This case isn't right.
	The very next day, the FDA approved the drug.
	That's who they are.
	So the good news is they've given the opportunity to make sure this never comes back again because now the Supreme Court will have maximum pressure to make it clear that the authority to quarantine or fumigate is not the authority to steal every landlord's property in the United States of America.
	And just so people appreciate now.
	Landlords in the United States, some of them it's not by no means all of them, but the ones who are governed by this have not been paid rent in, is it 12 months or 10 months, or virtually a year?
	Yeah, exactly.
	And finally Fox did something useful, had some people on to show that most, your big institutional landlords aren't that impacted by this because of various, you know...
	Bailouts and protection and other things.
	The people that are most impacted by this are your small landlords, your people that only have one other home, or your people that maybe they have five little properties and it's their entire livelihood.
	And these people are watching the person not pay rent and then go buy a boat with their stimulus money or whatever else when they're out on the lake.
	Say, hey, how you doing, George?
	And so people also appreciate this.
	So let's just say it's been a year.
	We'll round it up or round it down, whatever.
	A year, some landlords have not been getting paid rent.
	The tenants, this is not rent-free.
	The tenants are going to owe this back rent at some point in time with interest and whatever.
	So this is creating a situation where you are suffocating the landlords in real time because they have to carry the cost of this property, the cost of the mortgage, maintenance, utilities, whatever.
	And then you're going to crush them in real time.
	But in theory, these tenants are still going to owe a year's worth of back rent, which they're never going to have.
	Because Lord knows, you give someone a check and this is no judgment.
	They don't save the money that is the check that they're receiving.
	That check is gone pretty much as soon as you got it on current needs and capricious desires.
	It reminds me of a prank call that was done on a...
	Talk radio station in LA, not long after Obamacare, where people would call up local health clinics and say, hey, Obamacare just passed.
	I'm going to be coming in.
	All the health care is free now.
	They're like, no, no, no, you still get it.
	They're like, no, no, no, I saw Obama.
	It's all free.
	Basically, people have been under the illusion of free rent and free checks for no work.
	And what's going to happen?
	Sooner or later, the piper's going to be coming due.
	Now, some portion of them will never be able to pay it back, so the landlords will get stiff permanently.
	Others will be saddled with debt they can't repay, or to the degree they can repay, is going to be very punitive for them.
	So all we're doing is postponing something that needs to come to consequence sooner rather than later to resolve it without long-term institutional harm.
	Well, and speaking of the long-term institutional harm, this is going to segue into something we should have discussed, I think, last week.
	Prescient is not the word, rather, but it's something that's relevant in both the United States and Canada.
	Causing people harm by not compelling people to get back to real productive life.
	In Florida, DeSantis' government is being sued because they are cutting unemployment benefits that were promised under...
	I'm going to mess up.
	I don't remember the acronym, but...
	The Supplemental Unemployment Compensation.
	Yeah, I forgot.
	Okay, so Supplemental Unemployment, SUE, whatever.
	Unemployment insurance that was provided by the federal government to states, DeSantis government cuts it short early because they say we need to get people back to work because there's an employment shortage.
	We want to reopen.
	We want to get back to a productive society.
	But employers cannot find employees because the ones who want to work have found work.
	They've moved on.
	The ones who don't want to work have no incentive to go back to work.
	Because they're getting government subsidies to stay at home.
	And why go work for $500 a week when the government's going to give you $300?
	The numbers are way off, but you understand the point.
	And we have the exact same problem in Quebec and Canada, but more so in Quebec, from what I've been discussing, New Brunswick as well.
	I'm driving through Quebec and New Brunswick, and you see Help Wanted ads everywhere.
	And I go to these restaurants, and they're open these wonky hours, like noon to five, Tuesday to Friday.
	And I say, guys, why aren't you open on the weekends?
	And they say, we can't find employees.
	I went to one place in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, and I talked to the waitress who was not an owner, but she was working basically six days a week, 12 hours a day, because they can't find employees because the ones who they had who wanted to work, you know, workers will find work.
	They found work elsewhere.
	The ones who don't want to work are getting good government subsidies to not work, and it's crippling the ability to come back.
	Which is what's happening in Florida.
	That was DeSantis' rationale for limiting the benefit or the surplus to unemployment insurance that was being provided under the federal plan.
	But Robert, I need you to explain this lawsuit because I know what I don't know enough to even make a vlog on.
	The federal government passed, I forget what the name is, but the CARES Act.
	I think it was called CARES, right?
	Okay.
	And that gave to the states funds with which to supplement unemployment insurance within those states.
	I guess the question is, how does the state opt out of it?
	Can they opt out of it?
	And is what DeSantis ultimately did, is it legal or is it not legal to say the federal government passed this supplemental unemployment insurance plan and we're going to refuse it because we want to get people back to work right away?
	Is there any legal argument to support DeSantis' position?
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, I think that's the better argument.
	Even Biden acknowledged it at the time, that states have a right to opt out.
	And people started suing, saying, no, they don't have a right to opt out.
	And they had interesting theories for why that was.
	They got a few courts to bite, but most courts have said, no, the state clearly has the right to opt out and can't be forced to issue these checks.
	Because what you've noted is what their concern is, is that certain parts of the economy...
	Are not meeting their job needs because people are like, I would just rather sit at home, play video games, live with my free rent and keep getting my government checks.
	And they're like, well, you know, maybe we should balance out.
	Maybe unemployment insurance should go back to being unemployment insurance, not I want to stay at home and play video games insurance.
	And so that was the nature of it.
	And a lot of these millennials, they're like, man, this is the best.
	It created a certain mindset.
	You even had articles written about employers are going to have to learn to accommodate me, the employee.
	Not you, the employer, evil boss man.
	I mean, it's fascinating mindsets.
	They didn't grow up in my era.
	I mean, I was working from the time I was 10. My grandfather was thrilled when he found out child labor laws didn't apply to family.
	He was like, this is great.
	I'll say one thing.
	I grew up a very, very fortunate existence, but I never lived a summer as after...
	14 years old where I didn't work.
	I went to school during the year and I worked during the summer and I loved it.
	I worked at a rock climbing store.
	I worked at a bike shop.
	I worked at a coffee shop.
	I worked selling door-to-door stuff for recycled house products.
	I loved the work, but it was never a thought that I just sit around and not work.
	And now it's like the government has made it so alluring or at least de-incentivized the will to work.
	Because you're going to make not much more to work than you would to sit home, but we don't appreciate collectively the damage this is doing to the economy.
	And they've done it both ways.
	Because let's say you're a good worker in the service industry.
	You've learned over the last year you could be laid off at any time when the government just feels like it.
	And so you realize, oh, I've got to find work somewhere else.
	So a lot of the good workers in the service industry were like...
	I'm out of here.
	This isn't going to work.
	I can't afford to just be laid off for four months, five months, six months, not knowing whether I have a job next week or the week after or on any given week.
	And then we're seeing that again.
	So these constant recurrent threats of lockdowns that just keep coming back and coming back or other restrictions like mask mandates and other things are now requiring vaccines to even enter.
	That's going to create problems, particularly for the small business enterprise.
	Now, it helps big tech because a lot of people go to big tech to buy products rather than their local stores.
	That's why so many local stores still haven't come back.
	So they've created problems where the reliable labor source doesn't have a reliable source of employment, so they've had to look elsewhere.
	And the more marginal employee, who only works because, oh, I got to pay my rent this week, okay, that employee is the one staying out of the employment process because the government's giving him financial incentives to do so.
	So that's where the governor's position, in my view, was understandable under these circumstances, especially as people saw it.
	People kept saying this would never happen.
	And yet that's exactly what happened over the last three months.
	I've talked to people.
	I mean, they made some other crude comments of what they were offering for job employment that I won't reproduce.
	But he was like, I'm offering this, this, and this, and I still can't get them in.
	So it's been a real problem for a particular part of the employment market.
	We still have 6 million fewer jobs than we did when this all started.
	We should be at 10 million more jobs than then, comparatively.
	So it's a core problem.
	But so legally, the governor's in the right position, and most of the governors are winning these lawsuits.
	They're in the right position in that...
	But how does it work procedurally?
	The federal government passes this Subsidy Act, which grants benefits to the states.
	First of all, for the states who opt in and receive those benefits, what obligations do they have towards the state in the long run?
	Do they have to reimburse this?
	Do they have to do anything vis-a-vis the state?
	It's the federal government writing checks to the states to supplement their unemployment.
	And what it is, is the states don't have to take the money.
	There are certain circumstances where they do, but this is not one of those.
	Alright, so basically, DeSantis is saying it's a free carrot.
	I mean, I guess it's a carrot on a stick, but it's a free carrot.
	You get it.
	You owe us nothing except for the damage it does in terms of national debt or whatever.
	And so DeSantis says, I don't want it.
	I want to jumpstart, kickstart the economy by cutting these benefits and pushing people back to work.
	And the beneficiaries are saying, but the government, the federal promised us something that you're refusing and we think we're entitled to it.
	So we want to compel you.
	I think they're going by the mandamus vehicle, if I'm not mistaken, to accept the federal subsidies to then give to us.
	I guess, I mean, that's the argument.
	Yeah, I mean, it reminds me of the South Park episode where Cartman tries to keep the hippies out of South Park.
	And the politicians get the bad idea that it would be easy money to bring in all the hippies.
	And of course, it brings an epidemic of hippies that requires extraordinary remedy in the end.
	So it has aspects of that from a cultural, political standpoint.
	But the governor should win because it's not been required.
	That you take the money and issue it in a way that the feds may want.
	That's interesting.
	I mean, even to compel the state to accept federal money would be sort of a usurpation or an encroachment on state independence, which is primordial in the United States under the system, as it is kind of in Canada under the provincial system.
	Yep.
	I mean, it's why the states can do sanctuary cities and sanctuary counties.
	They can't be usurped to do the federal government's job for it.
	And if they want to opt out, they can opt out.
	And there's only a few circumstances where they can't, that are inapplicable here.
	All right.
	Speaking of governments, nothing beats what the Mexican government did this week.
	Robert, okay, so, look, I didn't read the lawsuit.
	I read a few articles.
	I had to try to catch up early.
	Mexican government...
	Yeah, exactly.
	They're suing every big gun manufacturer in the United States, blaming them for the Mexican drug cartels killing people in Mexico.
	I'm going to ask the first question.
	I don't know what stage of the proceedings we're at.
	How does this pass the jurisdiction stage?
	Because...
	It's a foreign plaintiff suing, let's just say, an American defendant for damages which occurred in a foreign country, ultimately.
	They're not suing for damages which occurred in the United States.
	Are they even going to pass it?
	Oh, sorry, go ahead.
	Yeah, deliberately so.
	Because there's a federal law that immunizes gun manufacturers in the United States for anybody using their gun in a criminal, unlawful manner.
	Unless the gun manufacturer themselves violated federal or state law in the process of distributing the gun or making the gun.
	And so their specific claim is that they're not requesting any relief at all for any harm that's ever happened in the United States, nor would theoretically the government of Mexico have standing for that basis.
	What it is, is you can, as a foreign government, you can sue in United States courts, U.S. corporations that have caused...
	Harm by their actions in the United States that had bad consequences in a foreign country.
	Now, whether or not this was intended to be a huge loophole in the federal statute, well, first, they sued in Massachusetts.
	I don't know why gun manufacturers, I get historically why, but why they still have operations of any substance in any state, democratic state.
	They're foolish to do it because they'll just be sued into oblivion.
	And that's why Mexico sued.
	Because almost all of these guns have been distributed along the border at U.S. gun stores.
	So what happens is people go into U.S. gun stores, buy the guns, and then at various levels either sell them to someone else or smuggle them across the border.
	And somehow this is all the U.S. gun manufacturers' fault.
	When you look into what they're wanting the U.S. government...
	I'm sorry, the U.S. gun manufacturers.
	What they want the U.S. gun manufacturers to do, they want them to make all of these kind of weapons, any kind of assault weapon, but ultimately probably every gun, they want them to make them smart guns so that your fingerprint would be connected to a government database and only someone with that fingerprint or other biometric identification could ever use that gun.
	It's an attempt at massive gun control by subterfuge.
	They want to force U.S. gun manufacturers to limit who they sell to, to put traces on all the guns, to put biometric smart identification on all their guns, to restrict what guns they can even sell in the first place.
	Under the guide, they're like, this has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
	It has everything to do with the Second Amendment.
	They're trying to find another way.
	To circumvent and circumnavigate the constitutional and statutory limitations on the ability of people to sue gun manufacturers by just saying we're a foreign government, so we're outside of all of it.
	I have to say Theophrastus 3.0 says, without a doubt, Biden encouraged Mexico to do this.
	I guess the one question is, why sue now over this in particular, whereas no lawsuit was filed over?
	Just thinking Fast and the Furious, which would probably be an easier claim to make, I assume.
	Oh, they go out of their way to praise the U.S. government, to praise ATF, to say, we have no criticism of U.S. government policies, no criticism of any U.S. government agencies.
	They're just not able to do things that the gun manufacturers can do and legally must do.
	The theory is that the U.S. gun manufacturers...
	By not taking these extreme actions of surveilling, tracing, tracking all of their guns, who uses them, who can use them, how they can be used, limiting dramatically where they can be sold, removing entirely the ability, for the most part, what looks like they're calling for, is removing almost all these gun sales come along gun shops along the border.
	Notably, they didn't sue in any of those states.
	They didn't sue in Arizona.
	They didn't sue in New Mexico.
	They sure didn't.
	Didn't sue in Texas.
	That's where almost all these guns come from.
	Instead, their claim is that Massachusetts is the appropriate court and appropriate venue.
	But their goal is basically imposing solely on the gun manufacturers because they think only they are the appropriate people to be held responsible and somehow to regulate the whole industry.
	As if the Mexican drug cartels...
	We'll just give up trying to get guns if U.S. manufacturers weren't making the guns.
	But I'm just even trying to figure out how the evidence is going to be made that what the Mexican cartels are using for weapons are in fact of a specific...
	There's been a bunch of tracing that has occurred.
	They definitely weren't going to talk about Fast and Furious.
	And that tells you the politics of who's bringing the claims and why they're bringing the claims and who's kind of supporting the claims behind the scenes.
	It's similar to some of the lawsuits against Alex Jones.
	They appear to be about one thing.
	They're really about something else, in my view.
	The nature of the animal...
	Sorry.
	I was going to say, one question.
	Out-of-country, out-of-state plaintiffs, do they...
	Have to put up something of a security for costs, for the cost of this lawsuit, or no?
	Oh, no.
	Not at all.
	Not at all.
	Just like anybody else.
	What's amazing, though, is if you're the foreign victim of slavery, you can't sue a U.S. corporation in the United States, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.
	But if you're a foreign government playing politics, wanting to blame your drug cartels...
	For the problem, if we only need to blame U.S. gun manufacturers for the problem of your drug cartels, then yeah, you can sue without a problem.
	And almost every judge in Massachusetts is liberal, so it may get further than it should get.
	Now, the idea that they have an affirmative duty, that it's somehow a tort for them to not prevent any illegal use of their gun, strikes me as rather ludicrous, especially when there's a federal statute immunizing it.
	They're trying to pretend.
	They're suing based on U.S.-based conduct, but they're claiming because the consequences in Mexico, they're magically outside of the federal law that says you can't sue U.S. gun manufacturers who have complied with federal and state law for the actions of criminals.
	Yet that's exactly what they're doing because they're saying, but these criminals are Mexican, so we're outside of those rules.
	But just the idea of suing the U.S. gun manufacturer.
	For the criminality and the violence of Mexican drug cartels really takes something.
	Now, discovery in some of those cases might be interesting.
	And what Mexico does emphasize, by the way, is they have strict gun control.
	I think they've only licensed 50 gun sales in the last year, they say, in the lawsuit.
	They only have one place you can buy guns.
	My question for Mexico would be, how is Mexican gun control working in Mexico?
	Doesn't seem to be working very well.
	But somehow it's U.S. gun manufacturers' fault?
	I mean, it's incredible.
	That is phenomenal.
	It's at the infant stage of a lawsuit.
	There has not yet been a motion to dismiss.
	Are we likely to see a motion to dismiss?
	Oh, I'm sure there will be.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it'll be a big fight.
	Right now, it's just at the complaint stage.
	It's a 139-page complaint.
	And so it says, look, if you would basically not make a lot of guns, not let a lot of people sell your guns, put smart technology so that only the person who buys the gun can ever use the gun, and trace them all so that we can have mass surveillance and biometric identification of every gun owner in the United States and where they are and where their gun is, then this would limit the effect of using U.S. guns, which of course, by the way, would only replace U.S. gun manufacturers with other gun manufacturers.
	Mexican drug cartels have been rather resourceful.
	All right, amazing.
	And now you had brought it up.
	There's news in the Sandy Hook case.
	What's the latest development there?
	So that was a case the U.S. Supreme Court took a snooze on, didn't get involved and interfere at the preliminary stage when I think they should have, because it's a clear violation of the federal law.
	But the same Connecticut courts presiding over the Alex Jones cases.
	Ultimately determined that the Connecticut Supreme Court determined that somehow the people related to the Sandy Hook shooting could sue the manufacturer of the gun the person used.
	And for a lot of people, it was so problematic.
	I think it was Remington.
	Effectively helped drive him into bankruptcy.
	And as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, where bankruptcy trustees take over and you no longer have control over your own legal cases nine times out of ten.
	Have recommended paying over $3 million each to each of the plaintiffs in those cases, which is an extraordinary amount to blame a gun manufacturer, but also sets a perilous precedent for the desire to blame.
	They want to limit lawful gun owners' access to guns by blaming gun manufacturers for the illegal conduct of some criminals.
	And even though there's a federal statute that says that wasn't supposed to happen, The U.S. Supreme Court snoozed, probably thinking they could rule on it down the road, maybe not realizing it would drive Remington into bankruptcy, and now they're going to write a real big check.
	Though apparently the Sandy Hook plaintiffs aren't sure if that's enough yet.
	I have difficulty understanding this.
	There's a federal statute that immunizes gun manufacturers, so how do we get here?
	Period.
	Agreed.
	The Connecticut Supreme Court had all these unique arguments for how somehow this statute didn't apply.
	They basically interpreted the statute in a very narrow way that was contrary to the way everyone else had previously interpreted it.
	And basically, Remington couldn't wait for the final jury to get resolved without it having to go into bankruptcy.
	And now, you know, it'll work for the plaintiffs.
	The plaintiff's lawyer in that firm are the same plaintiff's lawyers that sue Alex Jones.
	Very politically connected firm.
	Family members may be in the United States Senate, for example.
	But, I mean, is there any recourse to, in theory, give meaning to that federal statute?
	Or, I mean, if this is the precedent now and there's no next level of appeal...
	At least in Connecticut, it's the precedent.
	It's a precedent a lot of other people are going to set because it transitions into a San Diego case where a San Diego court found another mass shooter case.
	Where they're going to allow the lawsuit against the gun manufacturer to go forward.
	Now, there, at least, it was more consistent with the statute.
	The interpretation was, if the legal claim is correct that the manufacturer violated federal law and that violation of the federal law allowed the individual to get the gun, then they still can be held liable.
	But there was some loose language and aspects of that decision.
	The best way to go after the Second Amendment...
	Is to just take away the ability of anyone to make guns profitably in the United States.
	And that's what they're doing.
	Someone said, you know, can you sue Jack Daniels if someone drinks too much and gets into a car accident?
	I mean, we're not far off from there.
	It's just that politically there's no incentive to do that.
	The political war now is on firearms.
	Is there any defense or any, let's say, economic workaround?
	Say, okay, well, they'll all shut down business in...
	Connecticut, Massachusetts, wherever.
	They'll shut down in states which are likely to grant these types of lawsuits and just go move to Texas, Florida, wherever.
	I'm not trying to be stereotypical on states.
	Would that resolve the problem?
	It will only partially resolve it, though.
	It won't fully resolve it because a lot of these are federal cases.
	A lot of these states allow them to sue wherever their gun is used.
	So it would reduce some of their risk, like the NRA being in New York and allowing the Attorney General to harass them.
	That was not the wisest thing to do.
	These other companies, being Democratic states, got to wake up to the reality of where it is.
	Make the local state lose jobs because of what they're doing.
	But it would only provide one layer of protection because of these other problems.
	In an individual state, two of foreign government, in select circumstances, yes.
	And individuals can sue foreign governments in select circumstances, too.
	It's much easier for a foreign government to sue an American than it is for an American to sue a foreign government in our own courts.
	Robert, we covered it a while back.
	Whatever happened with the lawsuit against China for COVID?
	That was a case I had to look up because I don't know yet.
	We'll put it off for next week because I'll do a follow-up.
	It'll be interesting what to follow up.
	Speaking of foreigners, it turns out Carter Page had his lawsuit against Perkins Co.
	dismissed because it turns out if you're a law partnership, as long as you make sure you have a foreign partner, you can no longer be sued in federal court under diversity jurisdiction in the United States.
	Isn't that incredible?
	So Perkins Co.
	has these three partners that live in China, and so by that definition, they're not a member of another U.S. state, so they're a stateless citizen.
	And on that basis, the Seventh Circuit says, oh, then you have no diversity, so you can't sue in federal court under diversity jurisdiction.
	So unless you have a federal law claim, you no longer have the ability.
	Now, the only upside is that means they can't remove a case to federal court either.
	But it means that you have to sue them only in state courts.
	So I'm looking right now at getting a partner in Canada, and boom, I'll be good.
	You can't sue me in federal court anymore.
	I thought there would be limitations to whether or not a U.S. law firm could have foreign partners in the first place.
	I have to check Canadian partnership law, but there are definitely rules in terms of ownership or limitations on the number of partners who can be foreigners.
	Most big American corporate law firms have foreign partners.
	None of them can be sued in federal court.
	They just provided full protection for them from federal court.
	Now, it also removed them being able to go to federal court to beg for protection, but I'm going to be cynical.
	If a federal court wants to grant itself jurisdiction to be favorable to a plaintiff or defendant, they'll find a way to grant diversity jurisdiction or they'll find a way to grant jurisdiction so they can hear the case if they want to.
	If they don't, they'll send it to state court and just use this as a precedent.
	It's just a game.
	It's a game that makes people fundamentally nauseous and for good reason.
	And speaking of the game, Robert...
	He who has the gold rules.
	Now, I've got to ask this one because this one we didn't get to, but Kim Gardner.
	Sorry if you covered this already.
	This is from Alex Ambrose.
	I came in late.
	What do you think about the St. Louis judge dismissing a murder case because prosecutors failed to show up in court?
	I only read briefly about it, Robert.
	What happened and what do we make of it?
	A lot of interesting news out of Missouri.
	So one is the St. Louis prosecutor who's under substantial investigation for a range of misconduct by the state bar had prosecutors not show up in court and that means the charges get dismissed.
	There's no remedy for that.
	That's it.
	The only remedy is to take some ethical professional action against the prosecutor but she's already under ethical review and still keeps going.
	The second thing is the Missouri Attorney General had to sue a couple of counties, including St. Louis and Kansas City, in order to stop them from enforcing mask mandates that violated their own various procedural rules and other issues.
	He won already in St. Louis.
	I don't know if he's won yet in Kansas City, but credit to the Attorney General for trying to limit these mask mandates not being passed in the proper manner and not meeting legal standards.
	And then the McCloskeys did get their pardon from the governor in Missouri.
	So now they have been convicted of nada.
	But honestly, Kim, the prosecutor does not show up to a murder.
	What hearing is it that they do not show up to?
	Is it a procedural hearing or is it the trial and they don't show up?
	I mean, what does that even look like to someone like me who can't envision that?
	The defendant shows up and the prosecutors don't show up and they say...
	Identify yourselves.
	No prosecutor.
	Case dismissed.
	Is that what it looks like?
	It's state criminal court.
	So state criminal court, you will often have status conferences.
	And you'll show up.
	And sometimes the trial could be scheduled that day.
	You may have a preliminary hearing that could happen that day.
	So like people that fight their tickets, for example, in the States.
	And in other proceedings, minor proceedings.
	If you just keep showing up to court.
	Frequently, the police don't show up for traffic citations, things like that.
	Case dismissed, case dismissed.
	Because most people don't fight it.
	And so what's unusual is in the murder case for the prosecutor to not show up.
	That's a little unusual.
	But if you play it right, like sometimes if you're a defendant or defense lawyer, you keep waiting for the witness, the key witness not to show up.
	And you go, oh, let's put this off for another six weeks.
	But a famous line in the movie, Lincoln Lawyer.
	Where he says, Your Honor, we have to move this trial because an indispensable witness is unavailable, Mr. Green.
	And what he meant was, my client hasn't paid yet.
	So the judge is like, oh yes, Mr. Green, we'll put this off a little while.
	So it's the way the game is played in state court, unfortunately, but it reflects very poorly.
	On what is increasingly a dysfunctional district attorney's office in St. Louis.
	And there's a good number of these George Soros-backed prosecutors causing a lot of controversy happening in San Francisco, happening in L.A., happening in Philadelphia.
	So the controversies just keep mounting because they're trying to do things in a very unconventional manner.
	And some of the things they're trying to do, I think, are good in terms of not allowing certain misconduct to happen.
	But a lot of their other agenda is very political in ways that raise real questions.
	For the St. Louis prosecutor to go after the McCloskeys but let murderers go kind of says it all.
	Robert, I'm going to go upstairs and get the dog for one second, but let everyone know what you think of Cori Bush's meltdown following the McCloskeys' acquittal.
	And I'll be back in 30 seconds.
	She deserves...
	What Viva's referencing is she says that she deserves private security for herself.
	But if I'm recalling correctly, same person.
	But she also supports defunding the police.
	So, oh, that's the same.
	Am I thinking of the same person?
	I'm thinking of Cori Bush is the one who said, private security, yes, for me, but no police for you.
	That's what I remember her saying.
	I think that, well, there's been a lot.
	So it is, we may be overlapping or, you know.
	Not talking about the same incident, but yes, rules for thee.
	Security for me, but not for thee.
	Best example of that was this weekend.
	Somebody leaked out the photos and video of Barack Obama's party.
	So while all these mask mandates are going in, while Cape Cod was the place for this Delta variant breakthrough, Barack Obama hosts a massive party where ain't nobody wearing no masks.
	And not just that, if we, look, you can take it for what it's worth.
	Candace Owens tweeted out that she personally knows two people who were not vaccinated, so therefore the conclusion is either they lied or vaccination proof was not required.
	I gotta tell you one thing.
	I could be president of the world.
	I would not want to celebrate a birthday that way, period.
	All the money in the world, I would want to play maybe a round of golf, but probably go fishing, have a barbecue with the family, and a martini.
	That's all I would want to do.
	This is...
	I said this is government thinking they're replacing gods and the government treating themselves like they're gods.
	It's a Roman amphitheater.
	It's just like opulent self-idolatry.
	While the people are literally suffering, while landlords aren't getting paid, you're enacting legislation to prevent people from getting evicted.
	People are out of work.
	People are stressed.
	People are being forced to submit to medical interventions that they don't want.
	And the former president of the United States, $600,000 an hour for speaking fees, bought a $15 million mansion, yada, yada, yada, is throwing himself a birthday party for a god.
	And then you see him dancing on stage with people, mingling.
	You got singers singing.
	Shocking, offensive is not the word.
	It's just in your face.
	This is who we are.
	This is who you are.
	And this is the way it's going to be.
	But yeah, I saw those pictures.
	It confirms a lot of the anger that we feel with people.
	But I don't even know what to say from there.
	It's disgusting.
	Bottom line.
	It is something to behold.
	The other big suit was, in Rhode Island, a parent requested a whole bunch of information about teachers related to critical race theory being taught in classes, and asked for all the documentation that could concern various aspects of where they have taught critical race theory in classes, including their internal conversation on emails and other aspects.
	So the response of the teachers...
	Was to sue the parent to stop the parent from being able to get the teacher's own records concerning the teacher's own conduct.
	Saying that, get this, teacher's disciplinary records are now magically private.
	Teacher's records of what they've done in their own classrooms, private.
	Teacher's records of what they've sent on their teacher emails about teaching issues.
	Private.
	And that none of it should be accessible, which tells you there must be a lot of dirt buried there in what teachers have been saying and doing and acting.
	But the theory of the suit is that the court should enjoin this person from being able to use their version of the Freedom of Information Act from finding out what teachers have really been up to in critical race theory.
	Now, hopefully the teacher's suit loses, but it is Rhode Island.
	And, you know, I got family going back to the 1700s in Rhode Island.
	But, yeah, these days, very democratic state.
	And let's just say not known for lack of corruption.
	All right.
	Well, we've surpassed our two-hour limit.
	But, Robert, for those who might be frustrated at the hypocrisy, double standards, in-your-face rules for thee but not for me, you know, I've never skipped a paycheck.
	I'm essential.
	And you are a sacrificial pawn in the game of chess.
	What do you have to reinstall some faith for people for the week to come, for the months to come, and to basically start Monday without being terribly, terribly depressed?
	Well, basically, five words.
	The fight has just begun.
	All right, people, with that said, let me just see here.
	Who was the Obama party organizer?
	Larry Flint?
	I don't know.
	Was Larry Flint actually the organizer?
	I don't think so.
	Larry Flynn's not alive anymore.
	Okay, people, with that said, for further, more detailed discussion on subjects we can't discuss here, you can find us on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Wednesday night, RFK Jr.
	We're going to be talking about what we can talk about on this channel, on this platform.
	Lawsuits.
	It's going to be fascinating.
	Thank you all for the support.
	Thank you for tuning in.
	Share these things around.
	If anybody wants to cut certain highlights, clips, and share it on Twitter, social media.
	Please do.
	It's great.
	But above all else, Robert has said it before more eloquently than me.
	When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back, but do not become the monster in fighting the monster.
	Saner times are ahead of us, but it is always darkest before the dawn.
	I think that's it.
	Anyways, with that said, Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everybody, this is going to come out on podcast.
	It's going to be on Locals.
	And I'm going to remember to do this going forward.
	So, everyone, enjoy what's left of the weekend.

▲