Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 5, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:08:20

Ep. 77: Vaccine Mandates; John Pierce AWOL; Seattle Mayor SUED; Jurors TOSSED & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Legitimate F because the scroll button appeared over the go live button and then I couldn't go live on the exact same second late end F. Now, while we do this, I'm just going to make sure that I am simul streaming to the rumbles and we'll see if I see any questions, comments there.
	Good evening, everybody.
	Another Sunday night, another week of massive amounts of law.
	Alright, I was one second late.
	We shall live with it, but I don't think there's any other streamer out there who is so meticulously, compulsively, and neurotically punctual, as is the Viva.
	And we see Hale, or that says Hale.
	Yeah, that's close enough to Hale.
	Or Hi.
	Oh, hi, Dominic.
	Another massive week.
	Just, it's endless stuff.
	One lawsuit after another.
	Some big news, some big developments and stories we are following.
	But, let me, oh, so let's, let me just see here.
	I gotta make sure that we are simultaneously live on Rumble.
	Are we?
	Why does it not look like we are live?
	Okay, we're live.
	Good.
	Okay, standard disclaimers before any of them get in.
	Superchats, YouTube takes 30%.
	So if that miffs anybody and you don't want to support the Beast, Rumble only takes 20%.
	So it is actually better for everyone if one were to Rumble Rant on Rumble if you're so inclined to support the channel, but that is not expected.
	If you do support the channel through Rumble Rants, Super Chats, etc., if I don't get to your comment and you're going to be miffed, don't give the chat because I don't like people feeling miffed.
	We are simultaneously broadcasting on Rumble and YouTube.
	Superchats are not a right of entry into the conversation, although when I do see them and I can make sure that they are not grotesquely offensive, I will pull...
	Sorry.
	I was told I was screaming too loud during the Friday stream with a bunch of lawyers.
	If anyone hasn't seen that, LegalBytes, LegalLogic, the other one, I forget his name.
	He was in Korea.
	Legal...
	Someone's going to help me out there.
	Anyhow, so I'll keep the mic away from my face so it doesn't pop quite as much.
	If you're going to be miffed if I do not get to your super chat or do not bring it up to highlight it or do not read it, don't give the super chat because I can't do it.
	And I reserve the right if I see that it is a grotesquely inappropriate comment.
	I value your right to speak your mind, but that doesn't mean I have to highlight it.
	I like to pay for value.
	Bogus hype.
	So, with that said, Salty Legion is in the house.
	We've got to get the sidebar with Salty Cracker going one of these days.
	Legal Mindset.
	Thank you very much, Isaac.
	We had a hilarious, hilarious stream on Friday.
	And I don't want to get back into it because some of the gifs have been going around, but I genuinely thought I was talking about the ink that goes in the skin, the temporary ink tattoo things.
	All right, before Robert gets here, let's do just a little highlight for anybody who's interested in my campaign and how it's coming along.
	I am discovering, thank you very much, happy 14th anniversary.
	It was my wife's 14th, my wife and our 14th anniversary last Thursday.
	I am discovering some of the chicanery that gets played during election seasons as relates to buying advertising.
	And my anecdote, I'm not going to single out the outlet, but we contacted a print paper to say, you know, we want to run an ad.
	And the response was, what party are you running for?
	Which I already thought was a weird question to ask, because what difference does that make?
	And then when we responded, the People's Party of Canada, it went totally dead.
	Nobody responded to emails.
	Nobody responded to phone calls.
	So the person who is helping me do this is writing from a personal account.
	So I just ask her to forward me the response because I said, there's no way they asked what party you're running for because why is that relevant?
	Loan bold, they did.
	So I reply to this outlet from my own email account saying, hey guys, I thought that was kind of curious and we haven't heard back from you since.
	What's the deal?
	And they said, oh, we're just busy.
	They get back to me right away.
	Fine.
	Then they give us a quote.
	And then we confirm.
	And then there's another day delay.
	Some things come up, yada, yada.
	And then when it's time to confirm the ad, we are told we got the wrong price card.
	We got the wrong price for our advertisement, even though I saw the price card.
	And that it's not $1,500.
	It's $2,400 now.
	And I got the sneaking suspicion.
	Call me paranoid.
	Call me conspiratorial thinking.
	I got the feeling.
	This was constructive deterrence because of politics to run the ad in this outlet.
	That's my feeling.
	I may be wrong.
	That was my feeling.
	The first accident, I can forgive, forget.
	The second one, I get suspicious.
	The third one, it's not an accident anymore.
	It's a pattern.
	Did you see England?
	You have to show your papers for some venues.
	Have you seen Quebec?
	This is going to get into my rant, but we'll get there.
	So that's one thing that I found curious, and it's a learning curve.
	The politics ruins everything, even politics.
	Second thing, update.
	I printed...
	I printed...
	We printed, I should say.
	We printed 200 billboards.
	200 of those plastic...
	What are they called?
	What are they called?
	Street signs.
	I thought they were going to be bigger than they were, but they are big enough.
	And I went out and did them.
	Manually, myself.
	On the one hand, because I'm stubborn.
	On the other hand, because I don't want anyone making mistakes that they then have to...
	I don't want to have problems.
	If someone makes a mistake, I'd rather it be me.
	In terms of hanging it in a place where you're not allowed.
	But I went out and hung up 175 street signs with zip ties.
	Everywhere in Montreal.
	Sherbrooke.
	If anybody who knows it, St. Catherine.
	Green Avenue.
	DeCarrie.
	Claremont.
	Monkland.
	Summerled.
	Cavendish.
	The Boulevard.
	I went everywhere.
	And it was glorious because you get to meet people as you're doing it.
	Let me see here.
	Just say your ads are mostly political.
	They're only mostly political.
	You get to meet people as you're doing it, and it's phenomenal.
	And you get to talk to people, and you get to hear encouragement, or you get to hear critique.
	And I was very encouraged in that I didn't hear any critique.
	I'm open to critique.
	I like it.
	But I didn't get any of the heckling that I thought I would get.
	Thus far, don't want to jinx it, my signs have not been defaced or torn down.
	And I got only encouragement, people cheering, striking up conversations, even with people who don't agree with me, people who know the channel.
	They say, don't always agree with you, Viva, but I love your channel and good luck.
	I got one person who said, out of the window of her car, shouted at me, c 'est la pollution, it's pollution.
	And she's right, can't disagree with her.
	But I did say these are recyclable.
	And we will recycle them.
	And then she said in French again, mais si vous les ramassez?
	If you pick them up.
	And I will systematically pick up all of my signs if the city doesn't do it.
	Because on the one hand, I want to keep a bunch.
	And I'm responsible and I know exactly where I put them.
	So now here, let's just, before I get into the rant, that's the update.
	So the billboards have gone up.
	They're all over the city.
	I'm getting emails from lawyers saying I saw them.
	Good luck.
	Which means that the billboards or those posters actually serve a purpose.
	We ran an ad in the Westbound Independent.
	We're running an ad in the Suburban.
	I wrote a letter to the editor and sent it out to a bunch of publications.
	We'll see who has the courage to publish it.
	Which brings us in to the rant.
	And let me just stop and pause and take some Super Chats, which I see here.
	Jason Minard says, I'll send more via Locals.com.
	The best way to support YouTube.
	Thank you very much, Jason.
	Is that a Croatian?
	That's Croatian currency, I think.
	Thank you very much.
	And like I say, you know, Super Chats are great.
	The best value is Locals.com.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com because there's exclusive content for the supporters, but there's tons of free content for everybody, for members, and all of this stuff.
	Remains on YouTube and Rumble for everyone to see.
	Kal-El says, The polls in Canada are showing a possible minority win for the Conservatives.
	There's a lot of discussion online concerning who would form the government if so.
	Maybe have someone knowledgeable on the sidebar to discuss.
	Could be very interesting.
	One thing is for certain.
	It seems like Trudeau is tanking in the polls, or at the very least losing, as he darn well deserves for getting out there and saying and spewing the vitriol that he's been spewing.
	And I'm calling it vitriol.
	I don't often...
	I don't like that rhetoric.
	I don't like calling something vitriol when it's not.
	But what he is spewing is divisive vitriol of the highest order.
	And I've been tweeting it left, right, and center.
	But when he gets out there and says, those people are putting us all at risk.
	Those people.
	Don Cherry lost his job for less than that.
	And when...
	Justin Trudeau says those people, although he's not specifying a demographic, he's specifying the anti-vaxxers, the people who have vaccine hesitancy, the people who are not vaccinated.
	And when he says those people, and we know the stats and the demographics, those people that he is now talking about excluding from public transport are well-known.
	And whether or not it's targeted or just incompetence and ignorance, the result is the same.
	You care.
	All care workers need a jab before 11-11.
	What a wonderful day to commemorate 11-11-21.
	Or they lose their job.
	There are now talks for it to be rolled out to staff for NHS, which is National Health Safety.
	I'm getting emails from people who are running the risk of losing their jobs.
	And it's atrocious.
	Do you think the polls will try making voters show a vaccine passport?
	Do you think the polls will try making voters show a vaccine passport in order to vote in person?
	It's unconstitutional.
	Is it?
	Love your new signs.
	Thank you.
	I got confirmation.
	I said this on Twitter.
	Hard, clear, unequivocal confirmation from Elections Canada, our receiving officer, and a letter from Horatio Arruda, who's the provincial health minister, whomever, but no.
	Categorically, they cannot ask for...
	The vaccine passport, proof of whatever, in order to vote, it is an essential service.
	And thus far, the vaccine passport only applies to non-essential stuff.
	So categorically, no.
	If anybody tries to do it, it is unlawful.
	They are not allowed.
	It's an essential service to vote.
	And so they cannot and are not permitted to do it.
	I don't think anybody is going to try to do it.
	Some venues have been refusing to host the votes, like Dawson College up the street from where I live.
	For security reasons, they don't want to jeopardize university and an outbreak and whatever.
	So some venues are declining, but any venue hosting, any venue allowing for the vote is not allowed to require vaccination status proof or the QR code in order to vote.
	Okay, sorry, I got that one.
	So thank you for asking that, and I want everyone to know that.
	First prize...
	Oh, so I was at a protest today and it poured rain and I was wearing a white shirt.
	At the last minute, I decided to put on a white shirt.
	I saw someone carrying your sign at the march today.
	Also, the other day I was denied dine-in at a resto that knows me well.
	It is atrocious.
	And now with that said, let's get into the rant.
	I went to the protest today.
	It's massive.
	The protest is massive.
	It is a massive amount.
	I would say, I mean, I don't know how you measure these things.
	I would say 50,000 people.
	Easy.
	Because it was kilometers of full road, shoulder to shoulder, people expressing their opposition to the government, expressing themselves.
	Peaceful protests, but massive peaceful protests.
	And I'm there.
	I see who's there and I see who's not there.
	And acutely absent from being present, mainstream media.
	I saw one person from...
	TDS?
	I think it's TDS.
	Couldn't tell if he was making fun of me or not because I offered to do an interview and he seemed good-natured so maybe I was just reading too much into it.
	Didn't see any mainstream media.
	They're not there and when they are there, their sole purpose is to ignore the protests or when they have to recognize them, minimize them.
	And when they have to recognize them and they can't minimize them, demonize them.
	Demonize the people who are there.
	And it's...
	It's systematic.
	They'll ignore the protests, or they'll say a few thousand people, a large group of people gathering.
	There were tens of thousands of people with signs, some of them inflammatory signs, some of them with messages that I would not carry myself, some with messages that I don't agree with, some people promoting theories that I don't agree with, that I think are not justified or factually grounded.
	Within their rights to express their opposition to what they see going on in their world.
	Not just in the world, in their world.
	And the media does nothing but ignore, demonize, and pretend it's not happening.
	And if it is happening, it's to be disregarded because they're just fringe, unintelligent bumpkins who don't know what's good for them.
	They need the media to say what's good for them.
	They need the government to live their lives.
	It's inspiring because it's the third one I've been to.
	I never thought I would be an activist at a protest, but the forces of the world are beyond me.
	But I've been seeing the progression, the growth.
	And yes, they are unifying.
	They unify people with different messages.
	And what the media will love to do is look at a crowd of 50,000 people, pick out...
	A handful of people with messages that might be objectively objectively objectionable or might just be objectionable to some people.
	They'll pick out that one group and then pretend that the 50,000 people there are all there for that same reason in order to discredit anybody who's been there, in order to discredit any political association that is there fighting for the rights of Canadians.
	But it was a massive protest and it was inspiring.
	When you hear...
	10,000 people chanting Liberté, Liberté, Liberté, and it shakes the ground.
	You can get inspired and you can be forgiven for getting inspired.
	Oh, I need an autographed Viva Fry campaign sign.
	Those will be worth more than a Babe Ruth card one day.
	Highly doubtful.
	But I did give one campaign poster to somebody from Kelowna who I ran into walking home.
	And then as I'm walking home, drenched, soaking wet, I run into some more people.
	People are...
	We're reaching the point now where I think even the people who supported even the most draconian of these measures is now starting to say, like, we're two years in to an emergency and we've reached thresholds of, you know, we've reached thresholds that were above what was initially set out.
	In Canada, over 95% of the most vulnerable groups, 70 and over, are vaccinated.
	We've reached thresholds of first doses, double doses.
	And despite all of this, now we're getting into mandatory vaccine passports.
	It's like the further, the more we achieve, it's the carrot in front of your face.
	The more we achieve, the more they impose more restrictive measures.
	And then set up, again, call me conspiratorial.
	Call me maybe reading into it.
	The way I see it, It looks like they're setting up to blame the fourth wave on the unvaccinated and dividing a society based on a total absence of science.
	I tweeted it out today.
	Has anyone showed me or showed anyone the evidence to suggest that a vaccine passport, especially at this stage, can accomplish anything or will accomplish anything or has any basis to purport the semblance that it might possibly do anything beneficial?
	No discussion on it.
	There's no debate on it.
	There's no evidence put out there.
	And our premier, François Legault, supreme leader, sunt-deaf thief, and now destroyer of childhoods, is saying, I don't want to have a public discussion because I don't want Canadians, Quebecers, being exposed to misinformation.
	Yeah.
	One person's misinformation is another person's information.
	And for the government to say what's information and what's not is presumptuous at best and...
	Worse at worst.
	Love your work.
	I'm proud to be a pariah.
	Darken Deviant.
	It's a good name.
	Thank you very much.
	Now, I missed a bunch of Super Chats.
	I'm going to read them because I can't bring up the Super Chat.
	Kal-El says, the polls in Canada are showing a possible...
	So I saw that one.
	Hippoopy says, restaurant worker, are you vaccinated?
	Possibly me.
	When did you last...
	Play with...
	Pleasure yourself.
	Don't you want...
	I don't want crotch germs on my cutlery.
	It's a, it's, that's a, Ask them if they have any STDs.
	Because if you're going to go eat in someone's house or you're going to go eat at a restaurant, you might share cutlery.
	There's a one in a million chance.
	I don't know if it's ever happened.
	I don't even know if it's ever happened from toilet seats.
	But you can get it from a toilet seat.
	You can get it from a cutlery.
	Who knows?
	There's a one in a billion chance.
	There's still a risk.
	I deserve to know your most intimate details.
	Kal-El says...
	Kal-El says, my credit card company denied my last Super Chat purchase, claiming it was possible fraud.
	I confirmed it was me, but let me know if you don't receive payment for that one and this one.
	Don't worry about it, Kal-El.
	Thank you very much.
	Membership vote to occupy Congress starting Labor Day.
	Will the media call an insurrection?
	All right, so let's see here.
	I'm going to bring up some more.
	Yeah, Pudge wants to come downstairs.
	Pudge wanted to go upstairs.
	I heard them.
	I heard Winston and Pudge playing upstairs.
	I think they're done playing and now Winston wants to have it come down.
	Discussion is...
	The citizens can't be trusted to discuss.
	They can't be trusted with information.
	They need to be told and if they don't abide, they need to be guided.
	Let me just do one thing.
	Oh my goodness, we've been going for 18 minutes.
	Let me just make sure that Robert has the...
	Oh, he's in.
	He's in.
	Okay, good.
	This is going to end my rant, Rise Inability.
	My daughter's mom's job is on the line here in Washington State.
	If she doesn't take the jab, it is duress and coercion to threaten someone's livelihood.
	Those are what a lot of the signs said.
	It is not consent when it's coerced.
	It is not consent when it's extorted.
	It is not consent when it is thrust and imposed on you.
	And what they're doing...
	I shared the anecdote on Twitter.
	I don't like bringing in...
	Kids into politics.
	But my kid after school says that she went to a bakery, a local bakery, and not the one up the street from me, so I don't want anyone boycotting any restaurants or anything.
	Far away.
	The bakery asked for her papers.
	She's 12. The vaccine passport only applies to 13, and she so informed them.
	This is what they're doing to children's childhoods.
	And then you have to have these kids who might get kicked out of a coffee shop or a bakery or a pastry shop.
	Have to be ostracized or demonized or looked at like typhoid married by their fellow friends.
	It is inhumane.
	I mean, people might say that that's exaggerating.
	It is inhumane what they're doing to kids right now.
	On the basis of something that has not been shown to be remotely...
	There's been no evidence to show that it's anything other than draconian, divisive nonsense.
	In as much as the curfew itself, according to our own Horatio Arruda, Minister of Health...
	Or Chief Health Director.
	I forget his title.
	No scientific evidence to show the efficiency of curfews to fight a virus, as if I needed a doctor to tell me that.
	Okay, with that said, Robert is in the house.
	Holy cow, he's looking dapper.
	Robert, how you doing?
	Good, good.
	That tie is glistening with magnificence.
	That's a half Boston, right?
	Does anyone know that in the chat, the knot?
	Well, we'll see.
	We'll see who knows.
	Robert, you actually look good and you look well-rested.
	How did the trial go this week?
	It went as well as could be expected.
	Now, do I ask what that means or do I not push further?
	I mean, I can't get into it beyond that.
	Okay.
	I didn't even do what was on the menu tonight, but we've got...
	Hold on.
	Let me go to...
	Let me go to what's on...
	Well, okay.
	There's some more Biden stuff, Biden lawsuits.
	There is some big tech getting sued.
	There is Tanner Cross good news.
	There is...
	Well, there's a lot of stuff.
	There's a lot of stuff.
	Let me bring up one more chat here.
	Oh, and there's some vaccine updates, which I guess we're going to start with right now after this.
	My job requires vax even for people who...
	WFH.
	What does that mean?
	And have no patient contact.
	Oh, work from home and have no patient contact.
	I filed religious exemption.
	Their denial twisted my claims.
	They're denying anyone without a church and pastor.
	My beliefs are independent.
	Intent to file with the EEOC.
	You have to tell us what that is, Robert, for religious discrimination advice.
	Now, Robert, I'm going to go upstairs and get the dog, but give us the update on the vaccine mandate lawsuits.
	And if you can offer some advice on that, I'll be back in 30 seconds.
	Sure.
	So for that individual, I mean, my view is that violates, that's religious discrimination.
	And so if it's a state actor, then it's a constitutional claim.
	If it's not a state actor, it's a private employer or private institution, then it's a civil rights claim, Title VII claim, which makes clear you can't discriminate against someone based on their religious beliefs.
	And you can't require they have church approval.
	They are converting the vaccine mandate into a second check on whether or not someone's religious beliefs are okay or not.
	This is beyond...
	There's already issues with the vaccine mandate from those of us who are concerned with its constitutional impact and legal impact, discriminatory impact.
	But they're using it as a pretext to decide whose religious beliefs are really religious beliefs or not.
	Which ones are religiously approved by the state?
	The state of Washington has been one of the worst.
	But in my view, you don't have to go through the EEOC.
	That's the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
	You don't have to go through them at all to file suit.
	In most cases.
	So sometimes people are misled into believing that.
	The EEOC probably won't do anything one way or the other under the Biden administration because discrimination is just fine in the Biden administration in terms of how its policies have gone to date.
	But the state of Washington, I'll be breaking down in detail a good letter that was written by the Liberty Council to the governor in the state of Washington, which got their hands on some emails that made it clear the state's intentions.
	We're to find excuses to deny people their religious exemptions and religious objections.
	This is happening somewhat in the military as well.
	There's massive pressure being put on military commanders and people in the hierarchy to deny religious objections, even though the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act applies strict scrutiny to religious accommodations in the military context and to all federal employees.
	So all federal employees are protected under the...
	They have to show strict scrutiny.
	And so far...
	As happened this week in Michigan, that was a religious objection issue.
	The university refused to recognize the religious objection, and the federal court overruled the university's decision and issued an injunction against the university requiring those Students to be allowed to participate in sports because it was a clear-cut First Amendment violation and because they cannot meet strict scrutiny.
	And in fact, to my knowledge, not a single one of these public health interventions, lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, have been able to survive or sustain themselves on an evidentiary basis when strict scrutiny is applied.
	So I think all of that's discrimination.
	Now, Robert, someone had asked, are you speaking in the US specifically or at large?
	You're speaking US.
	But for those of us who don't know how this process works, for someone who's experiencing this for the first time, they have an employer, government or private, who says, show me your proof as of whatever date it's going to be required.
	Someone wants to raise a religious exemption.
	What is the process, like, administratively that they have to go through?
	Do they have to...
	Go get a letter from a religious leader, a priest, a rabbi, an imam?
	Or how does it actually work?
	Your religious objections are whatever your religious beliefs are.
	You don't have to get approval from anybody.
	It's not protection of organized religion.
	We don't have church and state in the United States for a reason.
	And that would be trying to institute a state religion.
	Like, here's the religious beliefs that are okay, and here's the ones that aren't.
	It's your own individual religious beliefs, period.
	And frankly, the end of the inquiry when someone asserts a religious objection, that's it.
	And the attempts to go beyond that almost invariably and inevitably will constitute discrimination against someone based on their religious beliefs.
	So employers are taking massive risks.
	It's because all the powerful stakeholders are on their side.
	But there have now been two federal court decisions in the last two weeks invalidating the attempts to deny people religious objections.
	So by now they should start to figure out even the courts aren't going along with this.
	But when they deny the medical exemption, sorry, not religious exemption, when the employer denies, to raise the religious exemption verbal, I mean, you don't need to fill out a form.
	And when they deny it...
	I mean, that depends by employer.
	But what I'm advising to people is first get the policy, see what the policy is.
	A lot of employers don't want to give the policy because often there isn't one.
	They're trying to get away with coercion by deception.
	Kind of like, I'll do a further breakdown on this, but there's a coming suit against the FDA.
	I'll do a detailed breakdown at vivabarneslaw.locals.com where people can also find detailed breakdowns of the Hawaii suit, Michigan suit, Louisiana suit, New York suit.
	And all the other suits that are pending across the country, as well as that Liberty Council letter to the state of Washington, that what they're doing violates a whole range of religious discrimination laws.
	The U.S. Constitution, the state of Washington, also the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which applies to states, also state laws that are often applicable in this context.
	So there's multiple suits in California that I also break down that are related to this issue.
	But basically, What I'm telling everybody, first get a copy of the actual policy.
	They should have one.
	If they don't have one, that should be a warning sign that they're not...
	What exactly are they proposing?
	What are they instituting?
	I presume a lot of employers probably don't have this codified anywhere in any conduct book because no one had ever contemplated the idea of forced vaccination in the first place.
	I presume they would find this in their terms of employment.
	They'll have an employment contract that refers to company policies.
	Almost every...
	Major employer has some human resources department and has some sort of company policies in some form.
	And even if it's a smaller scale employer, they should be able to articulate what the policy is.
	Presumably, they will have consulted with corporate counsel before they instituted the policy.
	And in many instances, I think what their corporate lawyers are advising is to not put anything in writing so that they can come up with flexible arguments after the fact, like they kind of did with that Virginia case we'll talk about.
	Where they came up with different explanations for their actions after they got caught doing something wrong.
	So that's where ask for the full policy.
	Say, okay, just watch the policy.
	Find out, are there religious exemptions?
	Are there medical exemptions?
	Are there conscientious objections?
	Are there reasonable accommodations being made as alternatives?
	Such as, I mean, all of this is about asymptomatic risk.
	None of this is about symptomatic risk.
	If somebody's symptomatic, you can have them stay at home.
	If someone's been exposed, you can have them stay at home.
	This is only dealing with people who have not been knowingly exposed who may have asymptomatic COVID, for which there is no evidence of significant...
	By my estimate, those odds are about a million to one that someone that is asymptomatic will spread COVID in a way that's going to kill somebody.
	In California, they say there's no evidence of anybody doing it.
	I'm going to drop the Eric Hundley, you know, he has a little graph that he flashes when he says demonetize.
	I'm just going to flash the graphic that says, not medical advice, not doctor's advice.
	This is Robert Barnes' own personal opinion, assessment.
	But I think the bottom line is...
	Well, in this case, I'm just recounting what's been alleged in federal court.
	And by and large, while the idea is that asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic transmission is possible, the question is, at what levels?
	To justify this type of violation of civil rights and liberties because, first of all, you're already dealing with a population that is quite vaccinated.
	I don't know what the stats are overall in the United States, but you're dealing with a population that, by and large, is already largely vaccinated.
	So you're talking about the risk that the minority or unvaccinated pose to the extent that they are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic is, yeah.
	The odds, we don't know what the odds are, but they seem astronomical, or at the very least, sufficiently unlikely to justify the measure.
	Even Fauci himself admitted that it's very, very rare to hear of asymptomatic spread.
	And definitely to hear it spread, because the concern isn't that somebody else spreads COVID, the concern is that they spread COVID that causes severe harm.
	Otherwise, we carry all kinds of viruses.
	If the goal was to prevent any virus from ever being transmitted of any kind...
	Nobody could go to work at all.
	I mean, that's not a practicable alternative.
	Or is that exactly where this is all going to go?
	I mean, the flu vaccine has never been mandatory, but there's...
	It has in some context.
	For nurses and nursing homes, occasionally it has been.
	And that's of note because federal courts have already ruled that overruling a religious objection in the context of flu vaccine mandates is illegal.
	So if it was illegal for flu vaccine mandates in the nursing and healthcare context, why wouldn't it be illegal for everybody else where you don't even have those sensitivities at issue?
	So particularly for this vaccine, for this virus.
	So there's nothing about this vaccine with this virus that would change the legal analysis under the religious discrimination laws.
	And so far, again, nobody has been able to get past strict scrutiny so far.
	On any of these issues, whether it's a vaccine mandate, mask mandate, anything else.
	The cases that have survived in court have been decided on a rational basis, review, not on strict scrutiny.
	And to my knowledge, no court has greenlit any refusal to honor a religious objection.
	The only four cases I know of, two in the COVID context, two in the flu vaccine context, all of them ruled that the employer or university or state actor was violating Religious discrimination laws by not honoring religious objections.
	And there's a long history of the Supreme Court making very clear that it does not matter if you have organized religion support.
	It does not matter if people of your same faith disagree with you.
	It does not matter any of those aspects.
	Your religious beliefs are your individual beliefs of religious conscience.
	And checking whether it's sincere or not is nothing more than a state attempting to impose its own views on what's acceptable religious practice.
	And that's precisely what's always been illegal in America.
	Now, someone had asked the chat.
	Let me just bring it back up here.
	It might be too far down the line.
	It was the question about religious exemptions.
	Aren't religious exemptions governed by the consistent with this nation's history and traditions clause?
	That might be a different...
	Are they talking about Canada?
	I don't know, actually.
	I don't know what it means, but like...
	That's something we typically use.
	I mean, for us...
	It's the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and relevant applicable state laws.
	And, I mean, on the issue of natural immunity, that's where a lot of other suits are pending.
	And a lot of medical evidence has been admitted into court, which I'll go into...
	I do go into more detail at vivabarneslaw.locals.com since the big boys here at YouTube don't like us talking about these dissident pieces of information, even when they're in court filings, even when they're affidavits and declarations under oath by...
	I mean, you're talking about Harvard doctors, Stanford doctors, Oxford doctors.
	You're not talking about just anybody.
	So, you know, these, I mean, major people are attesting to these statements about whether natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity.
	And so, but I get into the, what's the And even in Quebec, and I believe Canada, even natural immunity is not sufficient for an exemption.
	You are still required, if I'm not mistaken, to take one shot, not two, because the COVID immunity, natural immunity, has given you the equivalent of one shot of the jab.
	According to Israel, you're going to need a fourth shot pretty soon.
	And according to other people, you're going to need shots every couple of months.
	That's what's coming.
	It's good business for Pfizer, that's for sure.
	I'm going to bring this up and I'm going to leave it up, but I'm not going to read it for obvious reasons.
	It's an interesting insight.
	I have always been reluctant to anybody watching the channel.
	I don't like the analogies with Gina Carano, that issue.
	The analogies are sometimes inappropriate.
	The analogies are sometimes cliched and overused.
	I think it's very analogous to the eugenics era in America, which did lead to, was used as the legal, political, and moral pretext and justification of the Nazi regime.
	But eugenics era was bad by itself enough, and we're reinstating the same logic.
	Now, I guess that transitioned to our first case.
	In this context, a Colorado federal court ruled on a temporary restraining order that a class action group of soldiers filed on grounds that since they had natural immunity, they should not be required to take the vaccine.
	While he allowed more evidence to later be developed, he denied the temporary restraining order, in part because what exactly is happening in the military is far from clear.
	It appears they're playing lots of games.
	There will be some news stories breaking on that this week.
	There may have been internal communications by military officers where they are knowingly misleading soldiers about what's happening.
	And in fact, there'll be a suit against the FDA.
	The FDA is currently advertising something that is patently false.
	I won't get into what it is.
	Get into that at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But the federal court said, well, the CDC says something different, so I'm not going to issue any temporary restraining order.
	And, you know, I wonder why that judge should just send his paycheck back to the government, give up his robe, give up his job, quit taking taxpayers' money, because we have three branches of government for a reason.
	And if we're just going to defer to the executive branch, they get to pass the laws, so, you know, skip the legislative branch.
	They get to enforce and decide and adjudicate the laws, so skip the judicial branch.
	What use is that judge?
	If that judge is going to defer to the executive branch, his job and duty is to supervise, oversee, and allow evidence to be presented that questions and contest the executive branch, not just say, well, the executive branch told me.
	Then you're useless.
	You're a waste of space.
	The industry branch doesn't exist.
	They're there to affirm the decisions taken by the administration's appointees and administrative entities.
	I mean, that's...
	They're rubber stamps.
	That judge should quit writing opinions.
	Just get yourself a rubber stamp whenever the government says something.
	It's disgraceful, that decision.
	So hold on.
	Go into the facts of it a little bit.
	I don't know it very well.
	The soldiers are filing class action.
	They were seeking a temporary restraining order enjoining from compulsion of administration of the vaccine.
	Exactly.
	Because, I mean, the problem is there's usually an administrative exhaustion of remedies process for soldiers.
	It's not clear they're going to allow that to happen here.
	Or at least they're misleading soldiers into believing that's not going to happen.
	I'm getting emails every day of somebody who's a soldier, related to a soldier, that says, my son, my daughter, or I myself have been told I have 24 hours to get the vaccine or I'm going to get dishonorably discharged.
	And a dishonorably discharge has lots of effects.
	Stop there.
	Dishonorably discharged.
	This is not exaggeration.
	This is not misinformation.
	They're going to get dishonorably discharged and not just...
	I don't know.
	Is there honorable or just regular discharge?
	Oh, yeah.
	Big, big, big difference.
	Dishonorable discharge has a wide range of consequences.
	Some are being threatened with jail time.
	I mean, some are being told that they will be jailed if they don't get it.
	I mean, so they'll be dishonorably discharged and put in prison.
	Now, I believe a lot of these military officials that are telling them this are misleading them because I don't believe this policy has yet been affirmed in writing anywhere.
	It's like all the games they're all playing.
	Coercion by deception is taking place in mass.
	In this context.
	And you have to ask yourself, if this is such a great, safe, and effective vaccine, why do you have to rely on coercion and deception?
	As even CNN ran a story today saying major experts are saying this methodology is going to increase skepticism about vaccines, not increase confidence in it.
	I cannot disclose who I had this conversation with, but someone who's in the industry, in the sciences, in the medicines, and like...
	This entire process is going to make people who would otherwise not be skeptical of other vaccines skeptical, hesitant of all government, and exacerbate other problems where up to now there have never been other problems because once you do something like this, once the government is perceived as the threat and not a legitimate institution, you're going to not listen to the otherwise potentially justifiable things that the government is doing.
	I've had this discussion also with people in the protests.
	It turns people against everything and not just the wrong things when the government resorts to these types of tactics.
	Absolutely.
	So the Colorado case was class action for people who have already had COVID in the military who don't want to be forced to take the current vaccine or forced to choose between that and dishonorable discharge.
	To give you an example, if you're dishonorably discharged, you can't own a gun the rest of your life.
	I mean, there's all kinds of consequences that flow from it.
	And not only that, a little history lesson.
	The most experimented group, the population more experimented on than any other group in the entire American history has been soldiers.
	This goes back to mustard gas and MKUltra and Agent Orange and whatever happened in Iraq and the experimental anthrax vaccine and on and on and on.
	They love to experiment on soldiers, which is really disgraceful.
	I mean, the people that do the most and risk the most for the country are the most abused by our own government.
	And so they filed a class action saying, we have medical and scientific evidence, and they attached a declaration from a prominent doctor who also accounted for all of the other studies, all the other reviews, all the other data that shows why they believe that they are not at risk, that they present less risk than the unvaccinated, than someone who's vaccinated but has not had it before.
	And this is confirmed by the stats and the numbers and the reports coming out of Israel that natural immunity is...
	I don't know, how many times stronger and longer than...
	At least six times stronger in the Israeli study.
	So there's a lot of data to support that.
	There's a wide range of reasons for it.
	I break it down in the California lawsuit that was filed by a professor on this.
	But so they asked for a temporary restraining order to say at least, you know, hold off any mandate, hold off any consequence, any disciplinary consequence until the court can resolve this.
	Part of it was the court said, I need more detail about what's really at risk.
	And part of that is they weren't sure.
	They were just trying to get to the court before something bad could happen.
	But the most problematic aspect of the court's ruling was the court was like, well, the CDC has said you should still get it.
	So, you know, what am I doing here?
	I just have a rubber stamp.
	CDC, CDC, CDC.
	It's an embarrassment.
	A long history of the judiciary deferring.
	Becoming nothing more than clerks for the military, or clerks for the public health authorities, or clerks for abusive tyrants of any kind.
	And in our own American history, this goes way, way back.
	But it's an embarrassing aspect, and I think it's one that needs to continue to be confronted directly.
	Are you a rubber stamp if you're a federal judge?
	Is that what you're there to do?
	Just listen to what the CDC says?
	They dismissed the TRO, temporary restraining order, which is sort of like the most emergency type injunction.
	What impact does that have on the class certification?
	Have they gotten there yet?
	No.
	I mean, it's just a very preliminary stage, and it's because the Biden administration is playing games with its own soldiers.
	There's conflicting information all over the place.
	There's what's in writing.
	There's what's not in writing.
	Different soldiers are being told different things at different times.
	Like I said, it's really mass coercion by often mass deception.
	It looks like they're going to set up a different administrative appeals process that's going to be limited and restricted.
	They're being told they're getting one thing when they're actually getting something else.
	They're being told they have certain legal remedies that they don't actually have.
	Being told that they don't have legal remedies that they likely do have.
	And so it's extraordinary what's taking place.
	At the same time that they're getting blown up and killed in Afghanistan because of our incompetent administration at the top.
	Of the military, which goes beyond Biden.
	It goes to Millie and that whole crew of losers.
	It's atrocious.
	Now, I've moved my mic away from my face, so if this is too soft, everyone let me know in the chat sooner than later.
	So the TRO dismissed.
	They're going to pursue with what now?
	Do they go with...
	There's a bunch more suits being filed.
	Because people are trying to figure out...
	I mean, I'll be filing a suit this week that...
	That indirectly implicates this.
	That will challenge the FDA directly for what they're doing.
	Because it has impact on the military.
	The military is operating under the pretext that they're issuing one vaccine when they're issuing a legally distinct one.
	And that has major legal consequences, potentially.
	And that's just one aspect of what's taking place.
	And I know of other people that are looking at suit.
	It's tricky in the military because traditionally you had to exhaust administrative remedies first within the military structure before you could file suit.
	The thing here is they appear to be short-circuiting that administrative appeals process and escalating the threat level if you don't take it.
	I mean, big difference between just leaving the force and having a dishonorable discharge.
	And like I said, people are being threatened with prison time in the military for not taking the vaccine.
	And now the question I was about to ask, someone had said that you can't be dishonorably discharged without a court-martial.
	I know nothing of this.
	Yeah, so that's the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
	It has an extensive process.
	And that's where there should be certain rules put in place.
	But it's not clear that they are, and they're being told different things.
	And some of these people are stationed overseas that are doing national security work on a daily basis.
	So why they decide to use the military as their guinea pig?
	I mean, I get why historically.
	They always treat them as guinea pigs.
	They see them as disposable.
	Madeleine Albright said, what good are soldiers if we don't use them, even if that means they die?
	And Colin Powell responded, they're not play things on a risk board.
	Back when Colin Powell was a little more honorable.
	So that's the nature of what's taken place.
	And it's going to lead to, I mean, from what I've heard, some of the military is reconsidering everything, talking about delaying everything for 90 days because they didn't expect the blowback that they're getting.
	And up to 40%.
	Of Marines, according to some information, don't want to get the vaccine.
	I mean, those are some of the most hardcore military people in the world.
	And maybe we should not be worried about injecting these people with something, especially at this point in time.
	But that shows you the mindset of this current administration.
	I'm curious as to what the potential motivation, what the potential, without getting into the sinister potential theories, what is the...
	Thought process, what is the rationale to jam this down the military, knowing that it will force people out of the military, that it will cause discord and strife among what is arguably one of the most essential institutions of a country?
	What is the rationale for the panic?
	Is it incompetence?
	Is it something more sinister?
	In your humble opinion, Robert.
	There's two alternative explanations.
	One is that they sincerely believe the hysteria about the virus and sincerely believe that it poses imminent, massive risks to wide numbers of people and that if they don't vaccinate everybody fast, that walking dead will become a walking reality.
	That's one interpretation of their motivations.
	Another interpretation is that it's a governmental experimentation in power to see if they can control what they put in your body.
	That means the government really has complete control over you.
	What other rights do you really have at the end of the day?
	That's why in our own law, American law, battery is considered the most ancient and well-respected tort because it's the number one thing you have.
	If you don't control your own body, what do you control?
	And what freedoms do you have if you don't have the freedom over what goes into your own body physically?
	And that's why for the critics, the concern is that that's the motive and objection to set a precedent.
	That the government or private companies control your body, you don't.
	All right.
	And we got E. Johnson says, I'm a military lawyer about to retire and happy to help you pro bono when I'm done.
	You know where to reach, Barnes.
	You know where to find us.
	And thank you very much for the super chat.
	Now, Robert, you did say there was some good news coming out of the vaccine mandate lawsuits.
	What's the good news?
	So two pieces of good news.
	One is that there's massive litigation being filed.
	Suits, I mean, at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, I break it all down, each of the cases, but you're talking about suits in Maine, multiple suits in Michigan, suits in Florida, suits in California, suits in Washington, and suits in New York.
	Those are just the cases that I've covered.
	It doesn't include all the other cases that have been or are in the process of being brought.
	There are going to be Hundreds and more likely thousands of lawsuits over this.
	And it's something I don't think they expected.
	And some of it's about religious objection issues.
	Some of it's about medical exceptions, particularly natural immunity issues.
	Some of it's about the doctor-patient relationship because there's some states and employers that are trying to deny you your medical exemption unless a doctor that they recognize as an acceptable doctor signs off.
	While doctors are reporting in multiple places, even in places like Arkansas, that they have been threatened with losing their medical license in a medical investigation if they give exemptions, any exemptions.
	And the same thing is happening if they recommend ivermectin.
	So much so that we saw multiple fake news stories this week, including a buddy of mine, Sean Trendy, who bought into one of them, and then other people who bought into the most recent one that screamed fake news off the top of it.
	And that didn't even include the one you broke down, the person that they called very healthy, who, you know, under most definitions, unfortunately, was not.
	So for anybody who doesn't know, I don't know the third one, but I know one of the fake stories was the Rolling Stones, which said that one hospital was so overwhelmed with people ODing on a horse.
	D-wormer, that they couldn't treat gunshot wounds.
	And then the slight update they put into the article after it gets published everywhere was, oh yeah, the source that told us this apparently has some problems with the hospital, hasn't been working there in two months, has no first-hand knowledge.
	So in other words, it was total bullcrap, except the article with the headline is still up there.
	And if you had read the original, Lord knows you didn't read the update.
	And if you read the new one...
	It's arguable whether or not you even see the update because everyone skips through the article.
	Nonsense.
	The other story, I just want everyone to know no one was making fun of the kid being overweight.
	The article was depicted as a healthy 16-year-old contracts COVID pneumonia, whatever that means, in both lungs because she wasn't vaccinated.
	And she had done everything they said, the doctors.
	She stayed home for a year and a half.
	She wore a face mask all the time.
	And everyone wants to know, her mother wants to know, an ordinary, healthy 16-year-old can get COVID.
	The kid was morbidly obese by the clinical term.
	Apparently, he had been at home for a year and a half.
	Apparently, he was wearing a face mask all the time.
	From the article, when you get to the end of it, you realize the mother had diabetes, which means the child is probably at an increased risk.
	Just genetically, let alone dietary-wise.
	And the kid also had sleep apnea.
	And the journalist wants to pretend that this is an example of a healthy 16-year-old who regrets not getting vaccinated.
	It's fake news through and through.
	And is it dealing with the fact that the vaccinated, as Israel right now has the worst outbreak of COVID it ever has, even though it's one of the most vaccinated countries in the world.
	So they're also not dealing with that reality.
	But the third story...
	The mother in that story also contracted COVID despite being double vaccinated, but her symptoms were mild, apparently.
	Right.
	And the individual at issue in that case was an individual who has the various conditions that put you at risk, no matter what, in terms of COVID.
	And they were just trying to pretend that they didn't have those conditions because they've mostly hidden the fact that even the CDC acknowledges.
	95% of all deaths, people had other comorbid conditions, including pretty much a lot of the conditions that she either has or likely has.
	But another example, the story that Sean Trendy bought into, and he's a great guy, and he's very generous in responding, because I was kind of harsh in my criticism of him, or criticism of his idea.
	I wasn't being critical of him.
	But it was circulating broadly, this story, which was that at a hospital...
	There was only one bed left in the entire town, in any hospital.
	And in this one bed, there was an unvaccinated person who had taken the last available vet who was purportedly sick from from covid.
	And a veteran came in and the veteran had a severe health ailment and he couldn't get any emergency medical treatment because it's like this story screams fake news.
	Oh, everything about it screams.
	And yet people are just buying it, regurgitating it because this is what the fake media hysteria.
	They buy into all the fake news out there.
	It's disgraceful.
	You have federal courts issuing vaccine mandates.
	You know, I'm going to fight it upcoming, and this may be a good transition to what else happened in federal court this week, though there's a caveat to it, which is the judge in the Theranos trial of Elizabeth Holmes agreed to...
	Anybody who wants to get out of jury duty, now you know how.
	Robert, lead us into it.
	Excluded.
	Well, first of all...
	Apparently they asked jurors their vaccine status.
	And I'm hearing rumors of this.
	Somebody got a summons from a court that asked a bunch of medical information, which is not supposed to be happening typically.
	So I don't know whether courts are secretly doing this and what's happening.
	I'll find out in a case I have upcoming.
	I have some suspicions based on the case I was just in.
	But basically what they're doing is they're sending out medically invasive And for questionnaires with summonses.
	And what they're asking, they're asking people whether they've been vaccinated or not.
	I don't think the court's entitled to that information, personally.
	It's never been the case before that they're entitled to that scale of information.
	But in this case, in the Holmes trial, the court kicked off the jury anybody who had not been vaccinated, which to me is a violation.
	Now, it didn't matter too much in that case because both sides...
	Agreed to the exclusion of those individuals.
	So there's nobody to appeal.
	But they're not going to do it in my case without a massive fight, that's for sure.
	Because what that would be doing would be depriving you of a fair cross-section of the community based on medical status.
	I mean, are we going to start discriminating against people based on perceived disabilities and strip them of a meaningful jury, of an impartial?
	Jury that represents a fair cross-section of the community, especially given when you, because there's a second level of analysis, disproportionately this reflects people who are of particular ethnic backgrounds.
	So you're going to be racially discriminating if you do this.
	I pointed this out, and I think we have the same standards in Canada and the U.S. for disparate impact of policies on minority groups, even if it's not the intended result, if it's the incidental or accidental result.
	It's still problematic.
	We don't have the same demographic breakdown as you do in the States, but it's pretty much representative.
	Even the black population in Canada, from what I've been able to find, are 20% less vaccinated than Caucasians.
	The natives or the indigenous are at slightly over 50%, whereas...
	White people are at, like, over 70%.
	Then you get into other demographics.
	I wonder why indigenous people and African American people and soldiers and folks from, like, Appalachia and Tennessee are skeptical of the government wanting to medically experiment on them.
	You know, I wonder if there's, like, a couple of hundred years of history of bad acts.
	I mean, years ago, the Census Bureau ran into trouble on Native American areas because they didn't want to answer the door.
	And it's like, well, what do you think?
	You're not, hello, I'm from the government.
	I'm here to help.
	For people who don't know, Native Americans were subject to forced sterilizations in secret from 1970 to 1976.
	The federal government, the Bureau of Indian Health Affairs, secretly sterilized women who came in for any kind of medical treatment without them knowing it.
	I mean, we have an ugly history of this.
	And in Canada?
	Cowering like cowards when the issues come up.
	And in Canada, we have a very similar history, especially with the residential schools where they were testing medicines or deprivation of medicines on children in the residential schools to see what would happen with malnourished kids.
	I mean, it's and, you know, at the time, I'm sure the government said there's a good reason for why they're doing it in their own minds.
	But there's a history that they're currently ignoring while implementing these policies that are going to disparately impact the very minority groups that they have historically adopted.
	It's over-the-top atrocious.
	And they know it's going to happen.
	So, yeah, you're going to exclude people from jury duty.
	I think a lot of people are probably going to start saying that they are unvaccinated just to get out of jury duty because a lot of people want to.
	But some people genuinely want to serve and it's going to have that impact.
	So, yeah, sorry.
	So, back to Theranos trial.
	So, both parties agree that they will exclude unvaccinated jury members because the risk is so great that the unvaccinated jury members, should they happen to be pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic, Are going to then infect someone, and then that, in the unlikely event that happens, they're going to be one of the less than 1% who has a, you know, who died.
	I mean, in this trial I had, I mean, it's not a surprise, this trial is being held in the Bay Area, and California is California for a reason, and it's the Bay Area is why.
	But I just went through a trial, and I'm not going to do this again, or at least not without lots of protest.
	Where everybody was, one, the jurors were socially distanced.
	I'm not buying this at all.
	The idea of, we have a jury box for a reason.
	So you need to have clear access to witnesses, clear access to all of that.
	So I have problems with that part, socially distancing jurors.
	I'm not buying into it.
	We have no idea what its impact will be.
	But there's a reason we have a jury box.
	And there's a reason why it's right next to the witness stand.
	And we're scrapping that overnight for this experimentation that we're doing.
	These experimental trials of a different kind.
	And then the second part is they required not only mask wearing, but mask wearing while talking, which was also ridiculous.
	And in talking to some other...
	So, like, for example, you can't tell the facial expressions of a witness.
	You can't tell the facial expressions of a juror when you're doing jury selection.
	So, I mean, all kinds of information that's essential information for processing, for fairness, for impartiality, you can't get.
	And I'm objecting to it upcoming in this.
	I have a federal trial coming up in North Carolina.
	I'm sure the judge doesn't want to grant it.
	But I'm going to start fighting this, and more lawyers should.
	There's just no way you can conduct and impart.
	And then the big problem, you know where you get a fair cross-section of the community in this context.
	Because people are being, if they're being excluded because they're vaccinated, that's a whole group being excluded.
	That not only has disparate racial impact, but it's also discriminating against a whole part of the community.
	And I can see why the government would like that.
	I'm sure the government would love only the good, honorably double-vaxxed people to be jurors, because those are your authoritarian-type personalities that the government loves in their cases.
	I'm not sure what the logic was of Elizabeth Holmes' lawyers.
	Her whole defense looks like crap to me, but that's another story.
	Apparently, she's going to say that her boyfriend or significant other had such a hold on her, it forced her to commit fraud.
	Good luck with that defense.
	I might have tried a different defense.
	So we'll see how this, but I think it's major problems for how trials are being conducted and how courts are being conducted.
	Because this is, not only that, I talked to some other lawyers who had been through a long trial there, and they said everybody, the longer the trial goes on with all these masks and in this condition, everybody's like agitated, higher levels of angst, higher levels of frustration.
	Like, this is no way to conduct a trial.
	And I think there's major issues on that side of the aisle, too.
	I want to bring up one chat that I missed.
	It was Eric Cheramilla.
	I think it's not entirely serious, but it says, I am a deep state CIA asset.
	I have been surreptitiously listening to numerous phone calls, and it's time I blow the whistle on what I have been hearing.
	The salty army is leadier than the salty berserkers are, in fact, pissed off and crazy.
	Eric, sorry, I can't bring up the chat because I can't see it anymore, but thank you very much.
	I knew it was a joke when I started reading the first line.
	It is incredible to think that you're going to have a smooth running trial when everyone's wearing face masks, when you're imposing protocol that makes it virtually impossible to conduct a trial normally, and you're excluding a demographic or at least an ideological demographic from the jury pool,
	and you end up with, if we're going by politics and we're going by stats and whatever, Probably, based on those criteria of elimination, a very predictable jury pool.
	So it's an amazing thing, Robert, and it's fantastic that you're challenging it.
	Why aren't more people doing it?
	I mean, I'm up in Canada.
	Nobody's filing suits yet.
	Nobody's filed suit against the vaccine passport that I know of in Quebec.
	It's a different culture.
	Yeah, papers please.
	Papers please.
	What a world.
	But there's a lot of interesting theories like the Hawaii suit that I broke down, California suit, Oregon suit.
	A lot of them are taking some of what the courts have done in favor of various mandates, like mask mandates, and reversing it.
	So, for example, in Oregon, the first responders are bringing lots of suits.
	Already in Oregon and California, more coming in Washington and New York, more coming in probably every part of the country.
	It looks like some airline unions and some others are looking at filing suit as well.
	Because I think what they didn't expect, but they're bringing First Amendment claims.
	They're saying, well, papers, please.
	According to the federal court, that that could be a First Amendment, however she got there.
	But if there's any logic to that, then a vaccine passport requirement would be for speech under that logic, and that's a First Amendment violation.
	So there's that issue.
	And then they're tagging on not only religious issues and bodily integrity issues and other issues, but they're coming up with novel theories.
	For example, due process of law under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
	Arguably, that requires to honor the tripartite method of government, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches making decisions as is appropriate under the Constitution, either the states or the federal government.
	And that's not happened here.
	I mean, again, there's been no vaccine mandate passed by Congress.
	And to my knowledge, I don't think a single legislature, even California, even California, couldn't get a vaccine mandate passed through the state legislature.
	I mean, whereas what's happening, like in Washington, you have local public health authorities issuing the mandates.
	So it's not even the mayor or the governor.
	It's some local bureaucrat is sending notices out to restaurants and bars and other places saying, we will come and revoke your suspension because it's no longer a healthy business unless you impose a vaccine passport on your business.
	I mean, and it's like, what gives them that authority?
	Where did that authority come from?
	Because it doesn't seem to come from the Constitution.
	Isn't that, too, a violation of due process of law?
	So we're seeing the multiplication of lawsuits and the expansion of legal theories behind the lawsuits.
	So it's going to be one massive legal war over the next several months.
	It's fantastic.
	Everybody dumps on the U.S. for being a highly litigious society.
	You break your toe on someone's front steps and you sue them for a million dollars.
	Fine.
	There's extremes on either end.
	We in Canada have gone to the extreme end of too polite, not contesting it, but not that I think there's any chance anyhow, because our courts are even more deferential to the authority of the government and their medical political appointees than in the States.
	So, Sue, I can predict where it's going to go nine out of ten times.
	But God bless for the Americans for doing this, because someone's got to do it, and Americans love their liberty, and they appreciate their liberty, I think probably because of their shared history.
	What do we go on to now, Robert?
	Well, speaking of COVID misinformation, there was a suit filed this week by Justin Hart.
	I think it's Rational Ground is the site that he set up.
	He's just a data guy.
	He's one of the many people that came into this issue in the public arena because they have a long history of looking at things from a data perspective and found that the data wasn't supporting, in many instances, the institutional narrative.
	Well, he has been targeted by Facebook and Twitter, and he was targeted around the same time as the White House publicly admitted that they were tagging posts and asking Facebook and Twitter to remove posts.
	So he's brought a claim against both Facebook and Twitter and the Biden administration.
	And it's a great claim because I like to pretend...
	Well, I can't take credit.
	I'd like to pretend that people watch this show, and a lot of them do, and then see some of the discussion here, and then incorporate it into their lawsuit, because the plaintiff Hart, in this particular lawsuit, specifically incorporated Jen Psaki.
	Is it Psaki or Psaki?
	Now I'm forgetting which way it is.
	Is it a silent P?
	I have a different pronunciation, but it's not proper for public discussion.
	Okay, well, Jen Psaki.
	What she said and what we highlighted and what went a little bit crazy on social media, specifically incorporated into the lawsuit.
	Now, the lawsuit alleges infringement on free speech, constitutional violations, because apparently a post that this individual put up was flagged, taken down.
	He was banned from posting for three days, and he's alleging that it violates his free speech because Facebook is effectively acting in concert with the government and have therefore become...
	Government agents or government mouthpieces, however you want to describe it, and are therefore subject to constitutional requirements.
	A certain former president would benefit from having his lawyers look at that suit because it might be a much better suit than the one his lawyers brought.
	Just FYI out there.
	It's a well-drafted suit.
	They alleged violations to the Constitution, violations to the California Constitution, free speech, because Facebook is acting in concert with government officials.
	But it was the fourth aspect of their claim.
	I took notes and I forgot them upstairs, but it doesn't matter.
	The fourth aspect of their claim was basically estoppel on the basis that they induced him to come do business on the platform and then shut him down arbitrarily.
	It was called a promissory estoppel?
	Yeah, promissory estoppel.
	Explain to the world what that means.
	I think I understand what it means, but for those who don't, what does promissory estoppel mean in law?
	If I make a promise to you and you rely upon it and then I break the promise under equitable principles in American law, then I can be held liable for that.
	That's what it simply is.
	That's different than...
	False inducements or misrepresentations?
	Yeah, because equitable principles are so much broader.
	I mean, it all goes back to the king's conscience back in the old days.
	So because of that, equitable powers tended to be much more flexible.
	So you don't have to prove all the same things you'd have to prove for a civil fraud claim.
	Okay, so now, what's the threshold?
	How often is that recognized as a principle in law?
	Because that's what I'm, you know, it sounds sort of like unjust enrichment to some extent, but different, you know, a variation, where they're basically saying, you invited me, you took my money, you let me build a platform on the basis that you would, if I abide by the rules, you wouldn't do anything bad, and then you willy-nilly, in conjunction with the government, shut me down, and therefore my investment is gone?
	I brought you wealth, I spent money here, and you have no business to do it.
	But how often does that succeed as a concept?
	Oh, often as a claim.
	I mean, the hurdle he has for all of his state law claims will be Section 230.
	Because he also has a state constitutional claim.
	They've added a Pruneyard Doctrine claim to it, which I was glad to see.
	And because in California, private actors can be held responsible when they have a monopoly over the public marketplace.
	Now, the courts in California to date have dodged dealing with that issue in multiple ways.
	I had a case where it was going to go up on appeal and Twitter settled before the appeal could be heard.
	And that gives you an idea that they were concerned about their risk.
	So he's basically bringing a very good version.
	Of a big tech censorship collusion campaign with the government.
	Has sued the government as well.
	Has brought in...
	And he actually had a FOIA request to document and substantiate that they were behind part of the censorship of him and his account.
	And they refused to respond to that.
	So he's got a FOIA suit added into all of this.
	Okay.
	So the multiple aspects of the claim.
	FOIA, I think, was aspect three of his claim.
	He asked for documents that they refused to provide.
	Free speech violations under the U.S. Constitution, under the California Constitution, permissory estoppel.
	Then you had unlawful or what was it?
	Interference with contracts.
	So we've seen that.
	We've seen people allege it.
	Has never succeeded thus far as relates to big tech?
	Because of Section 230.
	Okay.
	It's a nice lawsuit.
	It certainly incorporates some of the strategies we have been discussing over the last year or more now.
	If you're going to make a call now and be held to it, likelihood of success in this lawsuit?
	The hurdle will be Section 230 on all the state claims.
	And then on the constitutional claims, he has a better version of that with joint liability and has more specifically alleged that the government could work together with Facebook and Twitter to censor him specifically.
	The allegations that were not...
	Quite done so well in the Trump suits.
	And so he has made enough allegations, in my view, to get past a motion to dismiss on those constitutional claims.
	But it'll be uphill and it will really depend heavily.
	What he does well is people underappreciate the joint liability issue, that mechanism.
	Trying to say you're definitely an agent of the state, all that can be tricky.
	Whereas joint liability, Ninth Circuit has some good law on it.
	Is to deal with circumstances like this, where there's specific collusion to obtain a specific objective to someone's specific harm in violation of the Constitution, and it's merely its administration was at the private hands, but its implementation or idea was at governmental hands.
	So it's a much better articulated claim in that respect.
	It will, I believe, depend, some of those same allegations were in Bobby Kennedy's suit against Facebook.
	And that's pending now before the Ninth Circuit.
	So most likely, whatever happens in Bobby Kennedy's case is what will ultimately happen in Justin Hart's case.
	With the small exception that the Jen Psaki statement did not exist at the time RFK filed his suit, nor at the time Trump filed his.
	I don't know if either of those two suits have ever amended to add that.
	So you have that additional factual element?
	Bobby Kennedy's suit sought amendment.
	So that will be, I believe, part of the factual record before the Ninth Circuit.
	Alright, and now I bring this up because Mr. Mike said it, John Law says it now, Facebook is practicing medicine without a license, as is YouTube.
	A lot of people have said this, but where, I mean, I believe that there's actual legitimacy to this claim.
	If they are censoring posts from actual doctors, are they not practicing medicine?
	Yeah, I mean...
	I'm not a big fan of any of the licensure requirements, so there's always that caveat to me.
	When people worry about scarcity of medical resources, okay, expand the number of people who can become doctors without these onerous restrictions meant to inflate their market value.
	That would dramatically improve the quality and less scarcity of medical care.
	Rather than kicking out people we're now going to dislike and disfavor based on...
	I mean, it was like the whole gunshot wound story.
	It was like, okay, what's the likelihood that gunshot wound person might have made a problematic choice that led to them being in that situation?
	Since if you know a lot of the people that get gunshot wounds are gang disputes, should we exclude medical care for those people?
	I mean, this logic is dangerous.
	Or diabetics.
	Unhealthy people, they want to pick on one aspect of risk and not another.
	I just want to read this because...
	I heard about the second part of the boxer who got a brain injury in Montreal.
	But did you see the college football fans cheering F Joe Biden this weekend?
	I didn't see that.
	What I did see was the clip on Twitter of a stadium going nuts for jump around House of Pain.
	That's the University of Wisconsin.
	The Badgers.
	And then Virginia Tech had their great Enter Sandman.
	I'm sure it shocked a lot of people, all these full stadiums.
	These full stadiums, nobody masked, everybody having fun.
	Shocked me.
	I was in the basement of a shopping center looking at a QR code vaccine passport to sit down and eat.
	Now, Robert, before we get into the next one, because this is a good segue into other public requests for documents that were not respected, let me just read some of the Super Chats.
	A Rumble rants that came in on Rumble because...
	You can Rumble rant.
	One of them was from T Villers, who said, YouTube sucks, go Rumble.
	And the other one was from Chris Rumble.
	Chris Pavlosky, the CEO of Rumble, says, thanks for joining us on Rumble.
	Those were two $50 Rumble rants.
	We got Yay Weekly, which is Dread Robert, which is definitely Princess Bride reference.
	Yay Weekly Sanity.
	And then we got Question Everything 1. Hey, Viva, I'm a very intuitive person.
	You are going to win.
	Trust me.
	Hey, from your mouth to the political god's ears, but now, let us get into the second request.
	It's a good segue into another file where government officials don't seem to be coming forward with the documentation that has been sought of them.
	Two employees of the city of Seattle, I forget their names, I forget the names in this file, but they're suing the city of Seattle for constructive dismissal.
	Constructive dismissal on the basis that they were asked to either falsify information, Or provide false reasons for which a public request for documents was not being respected?
	Because apparently, who's the mayor of Seattle?
	I can see her, but I'm not remembering her name at the moment.
	Someone's going to say it in the chat.
	But apparently they had asked for documents.
	As a result of what happened in Chop and Chaz, the governor of, let's see who's going to get it first, of Seattle, I can see the name too, had been asked for documents.
	I want to say Durkin for some reason, but I'm not sure that's right.
	Jenny Durkin.
	Jenny Durkin.
	You got it.
	I got it right.
	There you go.
	Right as time it came...
	I'm on Rumble.
	I'm on StreamYard, so the chat comes in a little slower than on YouTube.
	Jenny Durkin.
	They had asked her for documents, text messages, whatever, and lo and behold, I guess she pulled a Clinton, a Hillary, and had not been backing it up the way you should have, or they say they didn't back it up.
	It's not clear if they did or if it was backed up elsewhere, or if it was deleted because they didn't like it.
	What those messages might have said.
	And so they were preparing a bunch of false reasons for why they couldn't comply.
	They apparently instructed two employees.
	Their names don't matter.
	One of them was Kimberly, but I don't remember the last name.
	It doesn't matter.
	They instructed them to provide false reasons for which they couldn't comply, to reconstruct the messages, allegedly, based on the people who were involved in the threads, and in some cases to fabricate false exchanges.
	To comply with the request for public documents.
	When they refused to do it, they were apparently harassed, tormented at work, basically forced into taking temporary leave and then permanent leave.
	And they're suing for damages for constructive dismissal because for anybody who doesn't know what constructive dismissal is, it's when you change the employment contract or the conditions of employment and thus compel the person to quit.
	And then you get to say, well, I didn't fire them so I don't have to owe them whatever.
	They quit.
	It's called constructive dismissal.
	Let me know if I got it wrong.
	They're threatening that in a vaccine mandate context, too.
	A bunch of employers are telling their employees, if you don't take it, we'll consider you to have resigned.
	That's firing, folks.
	Employers can call it whatever they want.
	A firing is a firing.
	And people should know there's also benefit differences that occur depending on how you're fired.
	There's a series of distinctions between quitting and being fired.
	And some are, you know, you don't ever want to get fired for a number of reasons.
	So they sued for constructive dismissal, amount to be determined at trial.
	I wasn't blown away by the substantiation of the allegations of having created a hostile work environment.
	There were very little.
	It was abroad.
	They made my life miserable.
	I went on leave, and then I went on permanently.
	But what's going on in Seattle, Robert?
	I mean, this sounds like corruption through and through.
	Completely.
	Basically, you had the people who managed the Open Records Act part.
	The state equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act, the FOIA laws, who were just trying to do their job in response to requests.
	The mayor wanted a bunch of evidence hidden and deleted and destroyed.
	Pull a Hillary, as you pointed out.
	They didn't want to be complicit in it.
	Because they tried to do their jobs, they were retaliated against.
	Now they've had to file a whistleblower suit to deal with it.
	And this is a mayor that is already being sued for all the problems related to Chaz and CHOP and all that jazz all summer.
	Summer of love.
	It's extraordinary.
	But it shows the power of the Freedom of Information Act because that's how Hillary's missing emails got discovered in the first place.
	And the fact that she had a secret server got discovered in the first place was Judicial Watch just did a FOIA request about Benghazi.
	And stumbled into this secret that had been kept secret for almost a decade.
	We got...
	Let's see what Aloysia says.
	Seems like what you permit, you promote.
	Read the seizure of private property in Seattle.
	Chaz exposes the city.
	Hey, it's confession through projection.
	You'll allow criminality when you're criminals.
	When you don't have principles and you don't uphold the law, you will then break the law because why not?
	It is amazing.
	It's a level of in-your-face.
	So long as everyone shuts up and goes along with it, it never gets exposed.
	But the second it starts getting exposed, then the ship sinks very quickly.
	And they're not keeping records.
	Then they're deleting them.
	Then apparently, allegedly, these are all allegations, not proven facts, instructing the employees to reconstruct and fabricate responses.
	I mean, this is how you think you get away with corruption in high school, not at...
	Well, speaking of cities in trouble, the city of Baltimore is going to have to face a jury over its effective subsidizing and supporting the riots that took place after the Freddie Gray death that took place.
	Back in the early 1800s, we passed a bunch of laws in cities and states across the country that were riot laws.
	And what they basically said is if you're going to form a police force and pay for it with taxpayer dollars, then you're going to be liable as a municipal government anytime a riot occurs and damages property.
	Now, in the mid-late 60s, a bunch of states went in and amended their laws because this gives you an idea of what they really...
	To make it so they were no longer liable and could only be at risk if they cracked down on rioters rather than if they stopped rioting.
	But Maryland is not one of those states.
	Maryland still has the same law that's had in the book since 1835.
	And some folks sued because what they demonstrated was that the city...
	Now, some of those old laws used to be strict liability.
	You can go back and read the New York Times during the Civil War riots, and you can see all the money they had to pay out to a bunch of people for damage to property.
	This is not a strict liability law.
	It requires that their actions be unreasonable by the city and not taking preventative action.
	But they have documentary evidence of that because the city knew it was coming, and the instructions by the city's politicians to the police force was basically let it happen.
	It was, you know, whatever you do, don't overstep it.
	This is really just First Amendment stuff.
	You know, just, you know, what's going to happen is going to happen.
	And there's been people who's accused the governments, in big cities especially, Of being in cahoots with rioters and looters quite frequently as kind of a political street theater, political army outside of the legal process and extrajudicial violence.
	And the way that Portland is treated in TIFA, you could make that reasonable inference as an example.
	But in this case, it looks like the city of Baltimore is going to have to pay the freight.
	They're going to go to a jury trial on whether or not all the damage that happened during that riot is, they're going to have to repay those.
	Landowners and property owners.
	And the best thing about that, as you know, people say, well, it's taxpayers' money.
	It will stop cities from doing it in the future.
	And that's what we need.
	There is no chance of any personal accountability above and beyond employment status in this.
	There's no lifting of, I don't know if it's sovereign immunity, but you don't go after them personally.
	Never.
	The law only establishes the city's responsibility, not any individual politician's responsibility.
	And just asking the question out loud, what would it ever take to incur a specific politician's personal liability if their conduct was egregious over the top?
	Changing the law, just to make individuals responsible.
	I'm all in favor of that.
	I don't think any politician should have immunity.
	I never have.
	I don't think any government official should have immunity, period.
	I've always opposed all of it.
	Qualified immunity, sovereign immunity, you name it.
	I mean, this is a made-up doctrine.
	This goes back from when they thought the king could do no wrong.
	So you couldn't sue the king because he was the king, because he was God incarnate.
	I mean, and we were supposed to have overthrown that method of government, not reinstated it by a bunch of judges creating it.
	And then politicians writing their own laws.
	Oh yeah, I'm immune.
	Oh yeah, I'm immune on this too.
	And Robert, I mean, we're seeing it in real time.
	Politicians declaring themselves immune.
	Politicians then granting immunity to old persons' homes, granting immunity to vaccine manufacturers.
	Basically, everyone gets immunity.
	You get immunity, you get immunity.
	It's like Oprah Winfrey with immunity, except the citizens who are the ones paying these people and suffering the consequences.
	It's atrocious in your face.
	Everyone gets immunity who is being subsidized by the people who don't have immunity and enjoy it.
	Speaking of which, Big Pharma, the big opioid family, the Sackler family, got a judge to, under some sort of, no surprise, under bankruptcy.
	If you want them to know the most corrupt court system in America, bankruptcy court is numero uno.
	And we'll get into that in a bit on Bernie Madoff and Citibank.
	But basically what happened is...
	Somehow the Sacklers got all immunity from all future suits, from opioids, by the declaration of some kind of immunity in the bankruptcy process.
	I'm not even sure how that happened.
	I mean, how you can get immunity by a court unilaterally giving it to you as part of a bankruptcy process.
	So I had a couple of files that got very deep into bankruptcy law in Quebec and Canada.
	It's a federal law.
	It's actually kind of crazy what goes on in the commercial chambers and not in a corrupt sense.
	It's just like you're talking about restructuring.
	You're talking about bankruptcy.
	You're talking about decisions being made by a trustee that are supposed to be for the benefit of the business and the creditors.
	You have a bunch of diverging interests and you have a court basically playing big babysitter over all of this.
	So, I mean, I can see that they're going to say, well, we better give them immunity because we want the businesses to continue going on so that we can then continue to...
	Stay in business, procure benefits, or even be able to make whole creditors.
	I can see how it happens.
	But what specifically happened in this case?
	All future suits relating to opioids.
	That's what they got.
	For all the suits that could have been coming.
	So what they did is they favored one class of creditors against all the creditors who weren't before them.
	A bunch of ordinary people who hadn't filed suit yet.
	And so, in my view, bankruptcy is just so badly abused.
	We'd be better off scrapping it entirely.
	There's other ways you could have legislative remedy.
	But to give another example of that is what happened to Bernie Madoff.
	I'll summarize the facts.
	Just in case anybody doesn't know, everybody knows that Bernie Madoff made off with tons of money.
	Billions and Ponzi scheme left everyone holding an empty bag.
	The estate of Bernie Madoff was being sued in bankruptcy court.
	The creditors were basically saying, we want to go after Citibank to make ourselves whole because Citibank effectively allowed this to go on knowing or ought to have known, ignoring serious red flags of potential fraud, and therefore they should make the estate whole so the estate can then dole it out to the victims of the fraud.
	I think that's about accurate, Robert.
	And then the lower court judge said, No, that's a Citibank.
	There's a reason why the word bank is in bankruptcy court.
	Basically, everybody works for the banks before they work for anybody else.
	And like, oh, poor Citibank.
	Yeah, okay, they made hundreds of millions of dollars off of this, but they came up with a crazy interpretation of the law to say they uniquely should be exempt from any liability.
	But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned them because of how egregious their declaration was.
	And the bottom line, they said that the threshold that the judge imposed in order to absolve Citibank of any wrongdoing, saying, what did the judge basically say?
	That they can't be held liable for having ignored red flags, for having ignored obvious threats of fraud.
	They shouldn't be held liable.
	They're just a bank doing their job.
	So no, creditors, pick what you can from your one cent on the dollar of the estate.
	Now they basically said, how much is Citibank going to be on the hook potentially to reimburse to the estates?
	About half a billion dollars.
	Because, I mean, what...
	The bankruptcy court did, because there's two different things that happen in bankruptcy court.
	There's transactions that are considered voidable, and they often are very creative in how they apply this.
	They apply it consistently to favor banks.
	They don't consistently apply the rules.
	It's just whichever favors bank, it's like a version of what I used to call in torts class, the railroad rule.
	Which was whichever side the railroad is on, that's the one that wins.
	Because if you study a lot of tort law between 1870 and 1910, that seemed to happen a lot.
	It didn't seem to be the principle being applied.
	But a transaction is voidable if the person has some fraudulent intent or is trying to prefer certain creditors over others.
	That was easily established here because of Ponzi's scheme.
	Every transaction is considered voidable.
	Then the second part is whether the person who received the funds has to give them back.
	And for that, it's whether or not they took the funds in good faith and for value.
	And here, they said that the court implied such a limited version of what good faith meant that it was going to be impossible to ever sue anyone under those standards, though she was doing it, though the bankruptcy court was doing it, in order to protect Citibank.
	Because the evidence that's been alleged is extraordinary.
	Citibank knew years in advance.
	They had already figured out that Madoff was running a complete scam.
	They had researched it and they're like, nothing he's saying makes sense.
	There's all these risks.
	They're even requiring the people they were doing business with connected to Madoff to sign indemnification agreements.
	So that Citibank couldn't be on the hook from any of them because they knew something those people didn't.
	Uh, and they almost got away with a extra half a billion bucks in cash.
	Does it go to appeal?
	I mean, they still have the chance to...
	I mean, they can go to the Supreme Court, but...
	The Supremes won't take it.
	So they've got to go back and now face real discovery.
	They're just going to have to write a check because the allegations were incredible.
	You could have had a worse bad faith example of a bank knowingly.
	People want to know how Bernie Madoff got away with it so long.
	It's because a lot of institutional actors were getting really wealthy with Bernie.
	And they were kind of almost in on the Ponzi scheme, you might say.
	Well, yeah, that's it.
	If they get paid their transactional fees and their interest in whatever, it pays to turn a blind eye until...
	It's the calculation from Fight Club.
	You do the risk calculation.
	If we get caught and convicted, what's it going to cost?
	Is it going to be worth more or less than taking the risk?
	And you'll make your decisions accordingly.
	Except here, you know, it's not faulty cars.
	It's just money that is swindled from people who need it, who end up ending their own lives as a result, ruining lives.
	It's just money at the end of the day.
	Robert, let's do the one that I didn't want to venture too much into, but maybe there's new information.
	John Pierce, AWOL.
	And for anybody who doesn't know what's going on, John Pierce is representing, no longer representing Kyle Rittenhouse, representing 16 of the January 6th defendants, maybe 15, over a dozen.
	It varies because different ones are firing him every other day, so it depends on the day.
	He's representing over a dozen January 6th defendants, I don't know how effective his representation is.
	He raised a lot of money in the name of defending these people.
	We don't know how much because he's not been transparent about it.
	So he's raising money off the cases of these kids.
	Or these kids, they're not all kids, but these January 6th defendants.
	He's been defending over a dozen.
	And I don't know if things have been going bad or good, but bottom line, he goes AWOL.
	Doesn't show up to a bunch of meetings.
	They were called...
	Oh, geez.
	He ultimately doesn't show up to court hearings.
	But what was the name of what they did in the reverse proffer?
	Oh, proffer sessions.
	Yeah, so...
	Okay, so I want to explain that in a second, but I'll get the facts out.
	Doesn't show up to a bunch of proffer sessions or reverse proffer sessions.
	Doesn't show up to court.
	Has a lawyer substitute for him from his firm, apparently.
	Except apparently that lawyer is not licensed or cannot...
	And is currently under fraud indictment.
	And he cannot be licensed or is not licensed because he is under fraud indictment from stuff that he did while clerking for a judge, other issues about recording surreptitiously in court.
	Doesn't look good.
	So he had this lawyer who cannot apparently represent ethically or legally the clients sitting in on these reverse proffer proffer sessions.
	Then they ask, you know, where is John Pierce?
	It's like, where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?
	And at first they say, the guy filling in for him says, conflicted.
	Then he says...
	He's been in an accident.
	Then he says he's in court.
	He's in the hospital with COVID.
	Then someone else says, no, he's not in the hospital with COVID.
	Last we hear, he's in the hospital with COVID on a respirator, unresponsive.
	In comes the prosecution with a notice to court.
	I mean, I don't know what it is, but I know what it is.
	They're basically saying, we want to get something on the record to make evidence of the state of the file as of now.
	Notify the court that these defendants are effectively without...
	Without actual representation, because the sub cannot act.
	We don't know what to do.
	Court, tell us what to do.
	This is my theory, Robert.
	And they detailed more stuff about Pierce.
	Well, first question is this.
	I don't want to suggest it because it would imply that someone is lying about a serious health condition.
	In my practice, I have had two people at one point misrepresent diagnoses with cancer in a way that left me feeling emotionally and...
	Honestly violated.
	But I have a feeling that the prosecution knows that John Pierce is not in fact ill with COVID, wants to get this on the record so that it's out there, so that it comes out that he wasn't and then they use this against him.
	Am I wrong?
	Or is he in fact on a respirator, a ventilator, unresponsive with COVID?
	Or do we know?
	No one's been able to confirm that at all.
	The phone to his offices is apparently disconnected.
	So nobody knows where he actually is.
	There's been no confirmation of that.
	Why he's gone AWOL.
	What's happened to the money?
	And why he didn't have a substitute counsel available for these situations?
	I mean, I always have a lawyer on cue in case for some reason I can't make an appearance or can't do something.
	Particularly for the...
	I mean, him taking on this many criminal cases was always...
	Again, this is a guy that has no meaningful extensive criminal law background at all.
	You know, I mean, Kyle Rittenhouse went through a disaster dealing with him.
	He still hasn't returned the bail money.
	He's just disappeared.
	And, you know, there's rumors of this or that.
	I mean, you know, he liked some other stuff with his nose.
	And so, you know, who knows what is going on?
	But Cassandra Fairbanks, she's a sweetheart, but that apology letter is going to get longer and longer and longer the more she vouches for people like John Pierce.
	Some of them told them this is what was going to happen, but this is even worse than I imagined.
	And the only reason the government isn't demanding his pro-hoc get revoked is because they think he's a godsend, because he's so incompetent and incapable.
	But they know they can't overtly profit from this, so they're putting on the court record, hey, by the way, we told everybody that this is a complete S-show.
	So if we happen to profit from it now, well, it's not our fault.
	Well, and just so everybody also appreciates, lawyers, I suspect it's the same in the States as in Canada.
	They're ethically and basically legally required to have someone who they name to substitute for them in case they get hit by a bus, die of a heart attack.
	And it's someone who takes over their files, and it's an obligation, so you have to make sure the person is ready to do it.
	So I presume you have the same thing in the States, but reading this, when I read it, maybe confession through projection, or maybe it's the way I'm thinking, I read it as though the prosecution does not believe the explanation.
	They want to give credence and credibility to the explanation, knowing that it's going to pan out not to be true.
	And when they do, after having put this on the record, it's going to be devastating for Pierce.
	But I don't know what impact it's going to have on the other defendants.
	But am I wrong?
	Because if he's in the hospital, and I was reading some comments to the video, everyone's like, there's been no confirmation from any hospital that anyone with that name checked in.
	I don't know if this stuff is public information.
	There's been no independent confirmation.
	There's been no specific confirmation.
	And now we're like a week into this story breaking where Pierce has been AWOL for a long time, where even if it were illness, it would have been demonstrable by now.
	You also have to worry.
	This is a guy that's been chasing distaste one step ahead of all of his creditors.
	He's facing all kinds of lawsuits for tens of millions of dollars of people who have alleged fraud all over the place, kind of Avenatti style, and maybe doesn't want an Avenatti outcome, and he may not be in the country anymore.
	I mean, we have no idea.
	I mean, that was one of the implications.
	The government didn't go into detail, but that's one of the implications people drew.
	And the people who are suffering are all the people who were convinced that he was some sort of legal savior by people like Cassandra Fairbanks.
	And, I mean, Tim Pool put him on, too.
	I mean, you know, I mean, I told him at the time, big mistake.
	You don't want to be associated with this guy.
	It's like, you know, not that anyone ever looked at Brian Stelter as someone of admiration.
	But, you know, once he promotes, he will be mocked for the rest of his life for promoting Michael Avenatti.
	And, you know...
	The only reason I can give the benefit of the doubt to the, you know, and I will continue to, the Tim Pool, maybe Consolidate Fairbanks, but I don't know what she's been doing in terms of the level of promotion.
	Is you can't...
	Not everybody has your brain, Robert, and your foresight.
	And not everybody has your information.
	Like, sometimes you take a picture with someone, you don't know who they are.
	You do an interview with someone, you don't know what they've said in the past.
	And...
	Not everyone is as up-to-date and in tune with it.
	Pierce might be a bit of an outlier of an example because he's so notorious or well-known.
	Yeah, I mean, for people who didn't...
	The people I feel bad for is all these January 6th defendants because they're being completely unrepresented and they had no knowledge, no reason to know this was a problem.
	I mean, there were already warning signs within those cases because several of them were starting to demand a replacement, even saying, please give me back a federal defender.
	This guy, I can't get a hold of him.
	He never responds.
	I don't know what's happening.
	He's not filing things for me.
	There was already the warning signs with no motions being filed, trying to join other parties' motions, which you can't do.
	Join some other defendant's motions in another case, which you can't do in criminal court, in criminal cases.
	But for people out there, there were some people that I warned almost a year ago to the day about John Pierce, and they refused to listen to it and then criticized me for raising it.
	And, you know, I mean, how many bad disasters there do have to be before you wake up?
	I mean, they're damaging their own credibility.
	Who's going to take the opinions of these people about anything in the future when they vouched for?
	And I think some of these people underestimate their influence.
	There are a lot of people who really valued some of these people's ideas.
	I mean, Tim Poole, the way Poole put him on, I mean, he asked the question at the end, but don't be associated with this kind of person.
	I mean, Tim Poole is very careful about who he puts on.
	This was a mistake.
	Again, it's how you get sued.
	It's a good transition into those defendants.
	If I was Tim Pool, he obviously should win the case.
	The allegations against him are ludicrous.
	But the fact that I hired those people would make me reconsider every hiring decision I've ever done and put in new hiring protocols moving forward.
	It's a tough thing.
	This is where you have growing pains.
	The bigger you get, The more you have to hand out to others in terms of responsibility.
	And then, yeah, people don't detect the red flags the way others do.
	I had a very modest boutique litigation firm.
	There were certain things I insisted on doing myself as a rule because you cannot entrust things to other people if you can't afford them making the mistake on those things.
	But, yeah, hiring is a tough thing.
	You make one mistake.
	You get burnt once.
	You'll never make that same mistake again.
	And here, you know, his own audience told him as soon as he put them on live, they're like, you gotta get rid of these people.
	And he didn't listen to them, and I bet he wishes he did.
	Going back to those videos when Rocco, what's his name?
	I forget the name.
	Rocco and Emily.
	Do you need any further detail?
	I'm not hiring anybody named Rocco.
	God bless if your name is Rocco out there, but no.
	I don't judge on the name.
	I won't judge on the name, but the comments in that video, and you go back to the original comments and the responses, A year later, or however long later, I'm like, yeah, you probably should have listened there.
	If you want to know how not to defend yourself, look at how those two defendants are defending themselves in court.
	It's going to be a poop fest.
	I would love to be the lawyer that has to sift through that.
	Can you imagine?
	I'm in a file now in Quebec where you have to fill out a joint declaration, they call it, just to sit for trial.
	But they've made the form so complicated, you just know that no judge is going to read through the form.
	In order to understand the file, they're going to wait for the trial.
	They're going to wait for opening statements.
	But this defense is like...
	A judge is going to look at this and tune out after five minutes and say, I don't know what you're talking about.
	You think I know what you're talking about because you think you know what you're talking about and you've imputed all that knowledge onto me.
	Start from scratch.
	I wouldn't want to be the judge or the jury in that file.
	But Robert, speaking of...
	Okay, so this is a disjointed segue because I need to understand this.
	It's been in the news.
	People have been going nuts.
	The Texas...
	We might get demonetized for the words, but we can't.
	And I'm not going to say shmushmorshan the entire time.
	What movie was that?
	40-Year-Old Virgin or not?
	Texas Medical Procedure Law.
	I'll refer to it not to be the total coward, and then we're going to just refer to it as a medical procedure.
	The Texas Abortion Law, which it's an interesting thing because I've been looking into it.
	I'm trying to make sense of it.
	The bottom line now is that Texas has enacted a law, a state law.
	That would prohibit the procedure as of six weeks.
	Six weeks is the, from what I understand and from what I can see.
	As soon as a heartbeat can be detected.
	Okay, sorry.
	Which is usually translated six weeks, but not always.
	Okay, so I didn't mean to misrepresent.
	So it's the heartbeat law, which means as soon as we detect a heartbeat precluded from the procedure, typically around six weeks, which would make it, unless I'm mistaken and misinformed, the earliest prohibition in the world.
	They pass the law.
	Well, in America, there's still countries that ban abortion.
	Okay, I should rephrase that.
	Of the countries that have abortion laws, this would be the earliest because typically by the World Health...
	Usually it's the 12th week or 13th week that a lot of countries ban it.
	So the state imposes this law.
	It passes this law.
	It goes through the Legislative Assembly.
	It does it the way democratically elected governments are supposed to pass laws democratically.
	SCOTUS 5-4 says, we're not overturning it.
	Now, this is where I'm not sure I understand the rationale.
	Are they saying procedurally?
	I guess I don't understand how they say we're not overturning it, given the precedent of Roe versus Wade.
	So what's the rationale for SCOTUS not overturning this law?
	So what's unique about this law is two things.
	One aspect's not that unique in that other states have looked at passing heartbeat bills.
	Whether that's six weeks, eight weeks, ten weeks, that can vary.
	Sometimes it's considered, you know, but the earliest heartbeat can be detected typically is six weeks.
	I think the norm is more like eight to ten weeks.
	But putting that aside, the key to this law is that it is only enforceable by private lawsuit.
	No government actor can enforce the law.
	So it doesn't make it a crime.
	You can't be suspended from medical practice.
	You can't be fined.
	None of that.
	The only people who can enforce it is private citizens bringing a civil suit on the grounds that you did an abortion when the fetus had a heartbeat.
	Okay, and then let me stop you there, because that's the part that I didn't understand, is that this gives a legal interest to a private citizen.
	It gives a legal interest...
	It creates a new cause of action.
	But how do you...
	Cause of action being that the plaintiff, in theory, could have no relation whatsoever but knowledge of the fact that a defendant is seeking the procedure, and they now have locus standee to file suit.
	I don't know how that, how is that legally tenable, even if you agree?
	It's kind of like, it's like private attorney general actions, it's just removing the state actor role.
	So, citizens, for example, can sue key tam cases against various fraudulent actors and profit from it as if they're a private attorney general.
	A lot of civil rights suits are considered de facto private attorney generals.
	So what they've done is effectively created a civil rights suit where any individual can file suit against anyone else who does this procedure and has given them broad standing to obtain that.
	And so that was a smart way of creating the suit, in my theory, in my view, because...
	The problem was, then the people who sued, the various abortion care providers and pro-choice groups, they sued the state actors.
	And the state's point was, we don't enforce this law, so you can't sue us.
	You can raise this as an affirmative defense, which the law allows for.
	You can raise this as an affirmative defense if anybody sues you.
	But that's the only way you can resolve this.
	They didn't like that.
	So they asked the district court to declare the law illegal and to enjoin it.
	The declaration action is still pending.
	They do have a right to declaratory relief.
	But they wanted to stop it from even being enforced while the declaration of relief was pending.
	The district court said there's nobody to enjoin because this is a private cause of action law.
	It's not a state actor law.
	Fifth Circuit said the same thing.
	So it goes with the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court splits 5-4 on the injunction aspect.
	And they don't say that the substance of the law is good or bad.
	All they say is, here, we don't have a power to enjoin anybody when nobody has the power to enact this.
	And you have the option of, other than private citizens, how are we supposed to enjoin the governor when he has no enforcement power?
	This is why the law was written the way it was.
	It was written so that you could not enjoin it.
	And what they really want to do is force it through the Texas state court system and have the Texas state court rule on whether or not it's constitutional and then get up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	So they've designed a system to create a new procedural remedy that creates a legal hurdle for the people suing.
	And I think the Supreme Court was right.
	I mean, to me, it should have been nothing.
	Because what is it, the three Democratic justices, and unsurprisingly, Roberts.
	Would have enjoined it, even though there was nothing to enjoin.
	I mean, that's the problem.
	You don't enjoin a law.
	You enjoin somebody enforcing the law.
	That's how federal courts have jurisdiction over state government actors.
	Otherwise, they're immune from sooth.
	And now, that's one immunity in the federal courts, I think, is correct, because I think they should be suable in the states, but not the federal courts under the Constitution, given the balance of power between the two.
	And so, to me, it was like a no-brainer decision.
	I get why it was controversial.
	It's because the pro-choice people are enraged that the state legislature came up with a smart mechanism that made it tough to sue outside of Texas state court.
	But that's how what they did.
	That was the right legal constitutional consequence to it.
	Now, some of the panicked reaction by some people was a little bit overstated because, yes, you can be sued in state court, but the federal declaratory relief action is still pending.
	And the state court action, you can raise it as a defense in state court.
	So really what they're mad at is having to face a lawsuit.
	But they don't have any problem filing lots of lawsuits against people.
	So it seemed to me a logical extension.
	I think the other thing that's going to surprise some people, the underlying issue, which will be first dealt with in the Mississippi case, is whether the standard should be viability or heartbeat or whether it's up to the states to decide that standard.
	So right now, the standard has typically been whether or not the baby can survive outside of the womb.
	There's a lot of reasons why that never made a lot of sense from a legal perspective, making that the medical standard and said that you could not prohibit abortions for the most part prior to that.
	The Mississippi case is challenging that.
	The Mississippi case is saying that it should be up to the states to determine viability shouldn't be the sole basis, given the increased medical information we now know.
	And so there's also another aspect of the Texas case that's being challenged that's about partial birth abortion and other things.
	That's also going through the court system as well.
	But I think what the Supreme Court did...
	To me, legally, it was the correct decision.
	If they want to challenge the law on the basis that...
	Well, if they want to challenge, I don't know if the word is constitutionality.
	They can still seek declaratory relief.
	There's nobody to enjoin, but they can.
	Their suit against the state government is sufficient for them to get declaratory relief.
	The court can declare whether that law is constitutional or not.
	Really, there's a lot of cases where you're forced to defend yourself in court to assert your constitutional remedies.
	They do this all the time in criminal cases, so I don't see why there's any problem with doing it this way in this context, in my view.
	And if they were to do that, it would go through the state courts and not through the federal courts to SCOTUS.
	So they start at the state level, see what the state level says, appeals court, and then I guess there's the Supreme Court of Texas?
	Yep.
	Yep.
	That's exactly right.
	And what is the Supreme Court of Texas is 7-0 Republican conservatives.
	So, I mean, that's why pro-choice people are unhappy.
	They would prefer federal courts have control than the Texas state Supreme Court have control.
	Now, they said this overturns Roe v.
	Wade at all.
	It has no impact on Roe v.
	Wade in terms of the court's decisions.
	I mean, the law is attempting to revise Roe v.
	Wade to apply a heartbeat standard rather than a viability standard, or at least any alternative to give states the power to make that choice.
	Because abortion laws are really two issues.
	One is, when is there a human life that you have to consider under the 14th Amendment in terms of the fetus?
	Or baby, whatever terminology you want to use.
	And then secondly, who gets to choose?
	Who has the power to choose?
	Is that a court decision to declare that?
	To say, here's when it is and isn't?
	Or is that a state government decision to make?
	So, I mean, either way, the court, what it does show is that on this issue, there is not, other than Roberts, there is not hyper, there is a five-member majority willing to revisit that question.
	Of Roe v.
	Wade and how it should be construed.
	So that's going to happen probably next year in the Mississippi case.
	But all people saying Roe v.
	Wade's been overturned, that's not true.
	And Roe v.
	Wade was, the principle of Roe v.
	Wade was that nationally women can choose to have abortions.
	Yeah, I mean, that's how it's been interpreted.
	I mean, originally it was about doctors.
	It was about doctors should get to choose whether an abortion occurs rather than the state.
	They didn't, the court, it was almost quasi-eugenics.
	It was a logic that deferred to the medical establishment.
	It became a decision that was reinterpreted to mean the right of bodily integrity, which apparently is gone.
	I mean, people like Bob Reich said, unironically, he says, how could people believe that you don't have a right for bodily, that you do have a right of bodily integrity?
	Against the vaccine, but that you don't for an abortion.
	And it's like, the logic should go the other way.
	How is it you don't, you have a right to take another life, whatever you call that life, as part of bodily integrity, but you don't have a right to stop the state from injecting something into you?
	So, I mean, the fact is happening at the same time.
	The cognitive dissonance is off the charts on the left.
	That is what's difficult to reconcile.
	The distinction is going to be, well...
	The procedure is not contagious.
	The procedure only affects the woman.
	Robert, when I was doing my homework last night and I tweeted the image out, there were people unironically saying abortion saves lives.
	Now, in a metaphoric sense, I can understand how someone's going to make the argument that it will save the life of the person who does it because they won't be...
	Bog down with either raising a child or putting a child up for adoption.
	In the rare circumstances I can understand where it actually physically does save a life if there's a medical condition for the delivering mum.
	But this is where we're entering unironic levels of irony in terms of language.
	I forget where I was going with that actually.
	My body, my choice.
	Seeing the people on the front steps of the Texas courthouse chanting, we want control over our bodies.
	When you know darn well, by and large, same people saying you do not have the right to refuse a vaccine and if you want to, you're shunned from society.
	There is cognitive dissonance.
	There is inconsistent application of reason because reason cannot possibly explain away those two mutually incompatible positions as taken.
	There is a middle ground which is totally compatible, which is choice up to a certain point and then choice not past a certain point and choice under certain circumstances but not under the others when you can meet a certain evidentiary burden.
	But here it's willy-nilly.
	I want the choice here, I don't want the choice there, and you don't get to have that choice.
	So it goes back down.
	So this lawsuit basically, it doesn't go back down anywhere.
	It was always at the federal district court level for declaratory relief.
	So it just goes back to the declaratory relief stage of the case.
	And there'll probably be a ruling.
	I mean, there'll be some evidence and whatnot, but within a few months.
	So it's going to go back up on appeal, and it may be decided around the same time as the Mississippi case.
	Either way, the issue of what Roe v.
	Wade means or doesn't mean going forward will likely get some constitutional adjudication with the new court next year.
	All right.
	We've got Jessica Cora with a very interesting avatar.
	Looks like a Care Bear with something.
	The reason abortion is such a divisive issue is we are the only country that abortion was settled by the courts instead of the legislature.
	Correct.
	And that was always a problem.
	And its real origins was deference to the medical establishment, not because they cared one iota about bodily integrity or privacy.
	It became that over time, but that's not what it was when it was first written.
	We got this in Canada.
	It's true.
	It's not as much of a divisive issue up here because it does not become a political litmus test every election.
	But it's true enough.
	Great.
	So look, we'll see where that goes.
	On the issue, because there's a few subjects broaching this and we are running short on time, Robert.
	Tanner Cross, if we're going to end on good news, I guess.
	Tanner Cross, the teacher at, I forget the school now, who lost his job because he went to a parent-teacher association public event that was called specifically so that parents and people can express their voices and opinions on what the school was floating as a transgender He's
	then terminated, sanctioned, kicked out of school on the basis that he caused such a disruption, his presence is going to be disrupted for the school.
	He sues.
	Lower court says no evidence of disruption.
	Free speech, First Amendment protected speech.
	You guys called the meeting to invite people to explain and expose their positions.
	You then sanction a teacher.
	There was also no evidence that he ever intended to or did in fact follow through on his stated opinion that he would not if given the opportunity.
	And the Court of Appeal, it's Virginia, Robert?
	It's Virginia, right?
	Yep, all Virginia.
	They say, affirmed.
	What I loved about the decision, they basically confirmed all of the aspects of the lower court, but they basically said the evidence that he caused a disruption, for lack of a better word, they didn't say it, but it basically fabricated.
	There was no evidence he caused a disruption.
	In fact, only the school did it.
	And other than a few parents here and there complaining, there was no evidence of disruption.
	But more important than that, there was no transgender students with whom this...
	Teacher could have even come in contact in order to put into effect what he stated his opinion would be at this PTA meeting or whatever it was.
	I mean, it's a great decision.
	It's a judicial spanking, if we can use that terminology?
	Absolutely.
	And a unanimous decision by the Virginia Supreme Court.
	And it reaffirmed in particular that the right of free speech applies broadly and robustly.
	And can only be restricted for the most compelling reasons, even in the teacher context.
	And the unpopularity of a teacher's opinions can't even really be a factor.
	It's got to be truly disruptive conduct.
	You don't get what's called a heckler's veto, whereby the state can punish speech that is unpopular.
	And they pointed out that the whole point of free speech is for teachers to go to public events that are debating these precise policies that are going to be mostly impactful on them.
	So it would make no sense that the people most impacted wouldn't be allowed speech at a public arena for public discussion of that legislation.
	So it was a good case, and it's part of the broader issues in the trans context.
	A bunch of states are suing the Biden administration over the attempts to redefine various education laws to require certain gender identity principles, which basically would institutionalize what Virginia was trying to talk about doing in terms of referring to people by their preferred pronoun, allowing boys to compete in girls' sports as girls, allowing boys access to girls' locker rooms, boys to restrooms.
	And there's also a lawsuit that's been brought by doctors because the Biden administration is trying to compel them and force them to do gender transition surgeries that they oppose both medically and morally.
	And that's on top of that one suit that they allowed to stand where the person who was biologically one gender wanted to go into a different bathroom.
	And the school system had ended up paying like $1.3 million or something for this.
	To every school everywhere, and on those grounds, this was a very important victory for those who support free speech and don't want these forced speech standards.
	I mean, this is the issue that launched Jordan Peterson into fame, and now we're seeing it in line.
	Everybody mocked him and said, oh, that's never going to happen.
	That's never going to be required.
	And here we are.
	And I'll cover my own butt.
	I never mocked him.
	I just said, you know, the examples that we had in Canada, they always had extenuating circumstances or details that were not being widely reported that it wasn't the police being sanctioned just for misgendering someone once.
	They did it multiple times, among other things, while arresting an individual.
	But it's these bad cases that then become bad precedent for lesser cases in the future.
	And you have not a slippery slope, but just like...
	You know, like it's a diluting effect.
	The extreme case becomes precedent for a less extreme case.
	The less extreme case becomes precedent for a less extreme case.
	And then you've gone from the extreme case with exceptional circumstances to, yeah, you misgendered someone once, so you're going to get fined however much by a human rights tribunal.
	What I love about the Tanner Cross situation is it almost looks like ideological entrapment.
	They call the meeting.
	They hear what people have to say.
	Then they create the stink to invoke the stink.
	To terminate the person who was ideologically different than what they wanted as ideology in their university.
	Ideological entrapment, and I think I love the term.
	And I'm glad, because it was, you know, the guy seems good faith, seems genuine.
	You may disagree with his views, but he is entitled to have them, and he's entitled to retain his position as a teacher until such time.
	Is there any meaningful question as to a real disruption that's not being caused by the people that want to fire him?
	But bringing this over now to the settlement, because I don't know any of the details of this, but the university, or was it a high school, that settled with the students who they prohibited from using the other bathroom from their designated sex at birth, paid out at $1.3 million.
	What's the fact pattern, and how does it get there?
	I mean, they sued because they were demanding to, well, the person sued.
	How, whatever.
	He, well, that's, you know.
	We live in a South Park world.
	You don't even know what to do.
	It's like Principal Skinner in the episode where he's talking to the crowd.
	He's like, just tell me what to say, people.
	Neither of us have any ill will, any malice.
	But I think the schools have the right to have gender-specific bathrooms and locker rooms.
	So on policy grounds, I'm not in favor of all this.
	But to be able to get...
	The suit was just on those grounds.
	Wanted access to the bathroom and the locker room.
	Different based on that being...
	And the theory was it was gender...
	It's extending.
	It's what all these other lawsuits are about.
	Whether or not the Bostock decision, which I thought was an okay decision in the employment context, but they're trying to extend that and...
	Gorsuch made clear he wasn't extending it to a wide range of other contexts, but the Biden administration is forcing that on everybody to basically treat self-gender identity as equal to any form of gender discrimination.
	So you can imagine the ramifications of that across the educational space and the employment space and medical care space, and we're seeing lots of lawsuits related to it pop up.
	But speaking of Virginia, for the last topic, The Robert E. Lee statute that set off that whole Charlottesville nonsense, the people that originally deeded the land and the statute to the state back in the end of the 1890s, the ancestors sued because the governor was now moving the Robert E. Lee statute away.
	And they said, look, our great-granddaddies cut a deal, great-grandmother cut a deal.
	That said, you would make sure that we would build that statute, we would provide you the land, and in exchange, you would make sure that's what was always there.
	And the Virginia Supreme Court decided that those restrictive covenants are unenforceable because public policy has changed.
	Now, part of their argument I agree with, which is that the state has its own free speech rights and it shouldn't be compelled, even under a restrictive covenant, To have to speak in a particular manner and its statutes are a form of governmental speech.
	That being said, there should have been some consequences because clearly the state induced people to give them something and never intended to honor it.
	And according to the Supreme Court, never had to honor it.
	The Virginia Supreme Court.
	But that finally got wrapped up this week as well in Virginia.
	So no remedy for the folks who donated that land.
	Now there was...
	Some history there that the court goes into that I think is pertinent for people.
	A lot of these statutes weren't built right after the Civil War.
	They were built right at the same time racist legislation was being passed.
	So I had this fight in Ocala where they put up a statute to Nathan Bedford Forrest.
	Ocala, Florida.
	What were they doing building a statute to a Confederate general from Tennessee?
	But of course, the good folks in Ocala, they built that statute in the early 1960s.
	Gives you a cue, you know, what was going on around then.
	But they misspelled the statute, which was my favorite thing, because they thought his name was spelled like a forced.
	And then when I raised the issue in the Snipes case, they tried to hide the statute out back.
	They moved the statute some way.
	They're like, what statute?
	There's no statute here.
	And they hid it behind the courthouse under some brush and had some people find it.
	But interesting case either way.
	Fantastic.
	We might have missed a couple of subjects for the evening.
	Oh, someone had posted.
	I know you're not going to be able to answer the question, Robert.
	I think it might have disappeared now.
	It had to do with Kyle Rittenhouse.
	It says, Robert, can you please discuss this new video purporting to show Kyle Rittenhouse saying he was hoping to do something to someone?
	Is it legit?
	What's the real story?
	Massive smear campaigns against that kid because the trial's coming up in November.
	So don't believe anything you hear negative at all over the next several months.
	Because every crazy, wait until the actual trial to see the actual evidence.
	For all you really need to see is the video of that night of the incident.
	And as even the New York Times showed, that's a straight and clean case of self-defense you could possibly have.
	Everything else is a sideshow.
	But there's going to be people coming out of the woodwork with every crazy claim known to man.
	The smear campaign by the prosecution will continue unabated.
	It's their strategy to contaminate and taint the jury pool.
	And that's their goal and objective.
	But we'll fight back in court.
	And continue to fight back in the court of public opinion.
	But don't believe any of those things.
	I've received no confirmation that any of that stuff is true.
	And my guess is there's going to be tons of stuff, but it's just going to be the beginning.
	And I'm not going to answer all of them because the amount of lies that are coming is just going to be massive.
	I mean, I can only imagine.
	Now, you said the trial starts in November.
	Yep, very first week in November.
	Will you be attending it in person?
	I'll be up in Wisconsin this week to work out those details.
	All right.
	And now, when would jury selection, I guess, would be the first step?
	So that's what would begin in November?
	Yep.
	Yep.
	There's already been written questionnaires, and I'm looking to be part of that process.
	And some other people that people may know as a famous group of people out there may be helping out on that part of the case, too.
	If we get everything finalized this week, then that may be moving forward.
	That's going to be...
	Now, do you think or do you know, are they going to air this the way they aired the Chauvin trial?
	I believe there's already been a request to do it.
	And so, yes, to my knowledge, that will be the case.
	Wow.
	Well, that's going to be phenomenally interesting.
	Self-defense is at trial.
	It's not really Kyle Rittenhouse.
	He's the front of it.
	He takes the brunt of it.
	But this is about whether self-defense is a real defense.
	And it's still allowed in America.
	All right.
	Amazing.
	Okay, so let's do it.
	Look, whatever we missed this week, we're going to get to next week.
	What do we have on this week?
	We'll talk about Siri eavesdropping on people and Google getting sued again for sneaking into people's messages and copying their data against their will.
	There's some other fun suits that we'll be able to talk about next week.
	And there'll be more vaccine mandate suits and my suit against the FDA with Bobby Kennedy is probably going to be filed this week.
	Fantastic.
	And I'll do a breakdown of the e-dropping suit.
	I'll do a breakdown of at least two of them for next Sunday so people have the lowdown of the proceedings.
	And I'll be breaking it down in detail at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	That's where we get into all the detail about the things we can't talk about here on YouTube.
	Magnificent.
	I'm going to try to tune in for the stream.
	I was going to say, who do we have on for the sidebar this Wednesday?
	Do we know?
	It's not clear.
	I may be in transit.
	On Wednesday.
	So that's up in the air at the moment.
	There's people that would be available, but I'm not sure if we'll be able to have one.
	I mean, yours with Marion was great.
	Well, I won't do another one with my wife.
	Happy anniversary, by the way.
	Thank you very much.
	Maybe I'll do one with my dad again.
	We'll see.
	We'll do something Wednesday.
	If you're in transit, I'll go solo.
	We'll find something good.
	But we will not leave everyone alone on a Wednesday evening.
	But that is it.
	Oh, hold on.
	Someone said Winston.
	People want to see Winston.
	Oh, my back.
	My back hurts me.
	My back hurts so much.
	People, look at this dog.
	What do you say?
	No, he's tired.
	I gotta go walk.
	Two dogs.
	I heard one dog upstairs doing something that is undoubtedly gonna leave a mess.
	I can hear it through the floor.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone on Rumble and on YouTube, thank you very much, as always, for the chats, the super chats, the comments, the insight, the participation.
	Share this away.
	Post highlights and whatever.
	And we will all see you...
	Wait, hold on.
	Look at this.
	Just came in here.
	Thank you, gents.
	That is a good way to end it.
	Thank you all for the support and for attending this wonderful two hours of law on a Sunday evening.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone else, enjoy what's left of the weekend.

▲