Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 26, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

01:59:48

Ep. 80: Flaccid Insurrection? 1st Amendment Victory! Trump v. NYT & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Second early, people.
	And we're live.
	I am not late, people.
	I am not late.
	This is defamatory.
	This is slanderous.
	And speaking of which, we have a defamation lawsuit on the menu for tonight.
	Good evening.
	Another Sunday.
	Another stream.
	We're at episode 80. And I just realized we're going to hit episode 100 in...
	If we do one a week, it's going to be 20 weeks.
	It's going to be five months.
	That's a long time.
	We're going to be at episode 100 pretty soon, but crazy.
	Crazy that we are already there, and tonight is going to be another big one.
	Every week has been getting bigger and bigger.
	What are we going to talk about?
	We're going to go over the Maricopa audits because there's been an update.
	There has been arguably some inaccurate news reporting on the results of that audit.
	For anyone who has not seen it, I would recommend going to watch.
	Razor Fist did a video that I think is only...
	It was either on Bitchute or Rumble that I saw it.
	Where did I see it?
	It was on one or the other.
	Because I suspect it goes into language and rhetoric that cannot be spoken on the YouTubes.
	Oh, let me just get that off.
	So, yeah, Razor Fist.
	I mean, it's hilarious.
	I love the delivery.
	There are swear words, but sometimes it's not so bad to hear swear words.
	It's not going to burn your ears and melt your brain and have it drip out of your nose.
	But yeah, so there's an update on that.
	Facebook defamation.
	What I call now the flaccid insurrection because it's getting more and more flaccid as time goes on.
	Some updates on January 6th.
	What else?
	Free speech wins.
	Vaccine mandate.
	I believe there has been some good news, but we're going to see when we get there.
	There were some other interesting lawsuits.
	It doesn't matter.
	We're going to get there in a second.
	For now, good evening.
	Welcome to the show.
	We are simul-streaming on Rumble.
	So for anybody who does not like the YouTube beast and does not like the fact that Alison Morrow, apparently journalist Morrow, got a video taken down from YouTube and got a strike and a suspension, I believe, because I think it was her second strike or maybe it's her first strike and therefore it comes with a suspension.
	So, in addition to supporting Alison Morrow, and I encourage everyone to check her out if you don't already know who she is, she's on Locals.
	Alison with one L, two Rs, has now felt the brunt of apparently you can't even have certain discussions on YouTube without it resulting in a strike, a takedown, and a suspension.
	And as I tweeted out to Team YouTube, because, you know, it's not everybody that you would feel comfortable backing.
	And operating on the basis that until proof to the contrary, they did nothing wrong.
	Allison is one of those people.
	So I tweeted out to Team YouTube that it doesn't sound like it makes sense.
	And from what I understand, it doesn't make sense, except it does make sense.
	So all that to say, parentheses closed, we're on Rumble.
	Simul streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has a thing called Rumble Rants, which is like YouTube Super Chats, except Rumble only takes 20%.
	So it's better for the content creator.
	And it's also better for anybody who wants to support a company that they feel good supporting.
	A company that supports and promotes free speech.
	Unbridled free speech.
	Not just the free speech that someone likes.
	So, we're there.
	Perfect time for this segue.
	Is it true that, to this day, there are no rats in Alberta due to an aggressive...
	Oh, I don't know if that's a joke, actually.
	I don't know if that's intended to be a political joke.
	And I don't know the answer to that question.
	If there's no rats in Alberta, it might just be because of the weather, but there's nowhere on earth that there are no rats.
	So I think that had to have been a joke that I didn't get.
	Let's see this.
	How do Canadians pronounce voivode?
	Voivode?
	Voivode?
	I don't know.
	Don't even know what that is.
	But segue.
	Superchats on YouTube.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	If that's going to miff people, you know where an alternative is.
	And...
	As my name indicates today, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're going to see if that overlaps with Robert, so then I may have to go back to my Viva Fry afterwards.
	But YouTube takes 30%.
	I will do my best to get to everybody's super chat.
	I do not get to everybody's super chat, just a matter of bandwidth.
	If you're going to be miffed, if I do not pull up your super chat, don't give a super chat.
	I don't want anyone feeling miffed.
	It is not...
	A carte blanche to enter the conversation.
	And if it's a rude or offensive super chat, as I'm thinking maybe that other one was, I reserve the right not to bring them up because I'm not looking for fights.
	And I'm not looking to encourage bad behavior.
	Viva, is it pronounced?
	What is Voivod?
	Voivod?
	Okay.
	New term for YouTubers.
	YouTube serfs.
	Punished by the master at their whim.
	People have worked out their alternatives.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com is what has been, for Robert and I, the best alternative.
	But you don't shut down YouTube just because they have some rules you don't like.
	YouTube is still the biggest playground, and if you want to get your message out there, you don't shut down your biggest platform just to prove a point.
	That's great.
	You would just limit the people who get your message.
	Fed employee here.
	Just want to thank you both for what you do and inspire me to take a legal stand.
	Third eternal truth, medical.
	We all know the first two eternal truths.
	Epstein.
	That other one.
	Sally Yates.
	And I don't know what the third one is, but yeah.
	A channel did a live a few weeks ago that was manual reviewed and monetized, but she posted a clip from it and got a strike at a suspension.
	Yeah, that was Karen Boryshenko.
	And incidentally, people.
	That happened to me as well on YouTube.
	The entire live stream was manually confirmed, approved, monetized.
	An unedited highlight that I posted a day after was demonetized.
	I didn't get a strike and it didn't get taken down.
	It was just demonetized.
	And I said, that makes no sense.
	The entire stream was manually reviewed and monetized.
	To which they said, oh, we made a mistake.
	We shouldn't have monetized that stream either.
	That's it.
	It's a broken system.
	We know it.
	Or at least it's a system that is deliberately broken so that it can be broken based on the whims of the day.
	I have one of your campaign's posters signed, Viva.
	You gave it to a friend of mine in your writing when you were putting your posters up.
	I think I know who I gave that to.
	I'm fairly certain I passed that.
	If you're from Alberta, Captain Yolo, that'll make even more sense because I'm fairly certain I passed that person at a Tim Hortons as I was walking back in the rain from a protest.
	Jason Miner says, my recommendations for this week, 1000 Stories Zinfandel, Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir, Wait for the Moment, Wolfpack, and subscribe to your community on Locals.
	Thank you very much.
	Well, before I get into the rant of the day, let's just get into the rant of the day.
	All right.
	So first of all, nobody likes hearing people People complain, I guess.
	Maybe sometimes they do like hearing people complain.
	People come to these streams for good vibes, good energy, good information.
	And I will tell you, I say this publicly, not as a call for any sort of cry for help, and there's no but.
	There are days when it's even difficult, even for me, the eternal optimist, to remain optimistic and to remain positive energy.
	And this weekend was probably one of those weekends.
	This entire week probably has been one of those weeks.
	And, you know, it makes it difficult sometimes to actually, you know, hope for anything better in the future and maintain that perspective.
	Because when you see what's going on, it becomes increasingly difficult.
	A friend of mine is going through, and I always think back to the Princess Bride, the sound of infinite suffering.
	And I'm not saying that to be glib or humorous.
	It's just that was what struck me from that scene was the sound of eternal suffering.
	And someone I know is going through that right now.
	What I have been saying for a while, these lockdown measures with a certain demographic are doing objectively more harm than good.
	And I said it and I've tweeted it out before and I'll say it again.
	Francois Legault's lockdowns have killed more young people than COVID.
	And we're seeing it.
	And the truly soul-crushing thing is when you hear these incidents which are soul-crushing in and of themselves.
	But then you have the discussions with people.
	And then they say, well, these people, you know, they obviously had underlying mental issues to begin with.
	And that irritates me to a point where I'm at a loss for words, where if that's the rationale, then you look at every COVID person, you know, or the vast majority of COVID deaths and say, well, they had underlying conditions, so we don't care about it.
	That is the exact opposite of the issue, is that even if people do have underlying issues, you look to protect those people, not to crush them into despair.
	And that is the reality of what we're seeing.
	And we're seeing it's getting increasingly worse for young people of all ages.
	And the impacts are going to be felt for the years to come.
	And when it comes to certain types of self-harm, there's a lagging effect.
	But to write it off and say, well, there are other things going on.
	Yeah, fine.
	Let's adopt that reasoning for COVID issues.
	And if you don't adopt it for one, then you don't adopt it for the other.
	And if you adopt it for one, you adopt it for both.
	But when it comes to people who are vulnerable, developing psychologically, spiritually, emotionally, and you are creating a world that is suffocating, you have to answer for what you're doing.
	And it brings me to, let me just see if I can bring up, I'm going to do screen share, and I'm going to hope I don't screw this up.
	Share screen, Chrome tab, because you got to watch this.
	You've got to watch this.
	I don't know what this is going to look like when I'm going live, so I think everyone is...
	I've done something wrong here.
	I don't know what people are seeing right now.
	I hope you're seeing this.
	This is Dina Hinshaw, the chief medical officer of Alberta.
	Disinfected her hands prior to a press conference, took off her mask, disinfected her hands again, and now she's going to speak.
	Good morning, everyone, and thank you for coming today.
	She speaks.
	And I will now turn the podium over.
	And before leaving the stage, disinfects her hands.
	This was a 45-minute press conference.
	I hope everybody has seen me right now because I don't see my screen.
	This was a 45-minute press conference.
	This is what Dina Hinshaw, the chief medical officer who is in charge of medical decisions for the province of Alberta, did.
	This other person comes on.
	And I'm sitting there thinking.
	Thank you, Dr. Hinshaw.
	That the only way this could make sense is if Dina Hinshaw is ill.
	Good morning, Dr. Hinshaw.
	Hinshaw's called back to stage now.
	Look at this.
	Eight times more children were hospitalized for anxiety disorders than for COVID during these past 18 months.
	Was this as a result of the lockdown, their health measures?
	And how does this differ from previous pre-COVID years?
	Do you have any hard numbers on that?
	Thank you for the question.
	Hold on.
	Let me get out of here.
	I don't know how to get back to my screen.
	Where's my screen?
	No, I'm going to close this.
	This is not right.
	What did I just do?
	I hope I just didn't.
	StreamYard.
	Am I still here?
	Have you guys seen everything that was going on for the last five, two minutes?
	It's...
	No, and I'm looking...
	I can tell you a little something about OCD.
	That's not OCD because I've been watching Dina Hinshaw for the last year.
	She never did this.
	Maybe her OCD got worse.
	If she were about to perform surgery, that might be understandable.
	If she were ill, it might be understandable.
	But if she's ill, and I mean sick, like physically sick, don't do the press conference.
	Have someone else.
	That is infusing anxiety.
	That is projecting anxiety.
	And that is...
	I mean, it's beyond the pale.
	You wonder.
	And ironically enough, the question was about anxiety in young people as a result of these lockdown measures.
	And by the way, it was a 45-minute press conference.
	She did that at least every time she left the stage and came back up.
	I don't know what she was doing with her fingers while she was off stage, off the podium.
	And like her face is so radioactive that the second she takes off her face mask, she has to re-disinfect her hands.
	It is intended to promote fear.
	There's no other explanation.
	It is intended to make people deranged.
	There's no other way around it.
	Okay, that's my rant.
	And so this weekend was a little difficult for me to remain positive because it just was.
	There's news and there's stuff and there's people going through infinite suffering right now.
	Okay, I'll bring in Robert.
	I'll bring in Robert here.
	Robert, how you doing?
	Let me do some OCD stuff.
	The counter OCD kind of thing.
	It is a crazy, crazy world, but I'm still good, good.
	As Alex Jones would always ask me, why aren't you more nervous or anxious?
	And I would say, not dead yet, not broke yet.
	All good.
	And that's still my mantra.
	Well, you see, the not dead yet part is the part where I have the issue because I die a thousand times a day.
	I'm in perpetual fear of death.
	It was like my original existential crisis as an eight-year-old.
	The broke part...
	That's not such a concern once you've been sufficiently in debt in your life, but it's madness.
	Robert, I like to think we're having an impact for good and nobody wants to see cynical Dave or genuinely sad Dave, but this week has been a tough one.
	I think the last two years has been tough for a lot of people.
	It's kind of insanity, but on the positive side, the number of people who fought back is a lot more than fought back in generations past.
	There's a good book there, The Crowd, about the nature of the popular mind and how it can go AWOL as well as collapse.
	Jared Diamond, about how society's failure to handle viruses effectively, such as the whole world for the last two years, has led often to the complete collapse of those societies, and you end up living in some kind of dystopic future.
	But we've had a lot more pushback and fightback than those past societies and civilizations have.
	So yeah, for the person who asked about Alex, we had Alex on.
	You can go back and find the sidebar with Alex Jones.
	And we have a...
	The sidebar this week is with a good professor talking about some of these topics, not so much from a political perspective, but how to have certain conversations and discussions, how to still have belief when it's contested, how to deal with conflict in the world of ideas and politics and philosophy and whatnot.
	He has a new book out on that topic, and it's a professor.
	Gordon Prescott Barnes, my older brother.
	So he'll be on.
	He'll be talking about what he does to relax and whatnot, which is he shares your passion.
	He loves to fish.
	I used to watch him do it as a kid.
	This is going to be amazing because we will have now had on my dad, my wife, and now it's your brother.
	And is he older or younger than you?
	Older, older.
	In fact, when I was a kid, I was quite convinced that I was a dominant young future basketball player because as five years old, I whooped him all the time.
	It didn't dawn on me until 20 years later that that didn't make logical sense and that maybe he had been letting me win.
	But at the time, I thought I was awesome.
	Oh, and someone says, speaking of dystopian futures, Australia, Avi Yamini, we're going to have Avi Yamini back on, Robert.
	It's only a question of whether or not it's a sidebar or just a standalone, given the time difference.
	But yeah, man, Australia, speaking of responding to a virus in a way that actually destroys everything that made a life worth living, we've seen it now.
	And, you know, the states are amazing because they're litigious.
	I say you're litigious.
	You're freedom-loving people.
	And you will fight for your freedoms.
	And Canada, America's hat, does not seem to have that same fighting spirit a little bit, but maybe like, you know, 10% of it.
	And then Australia is do as we're told and it'll be fine.
	And we're seeing where that's going.
	I guess, I mean, that's a good segue.
	If we just do, we need to do the Viva, the Viva, the vaccine mandate lawsuits updates for the week.
	From what I understand, there have been some good news coming out of the States.
	Do you want to start it?
	Absolutely.
	So I break down all of the suits and the cases and the decisions at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	You can go to the Vaccine Mandate Playlist and find it all so we can discuss all the details that YouTube won't get into.
	We'll give an overview here.
	Allison Morrow was again suspended off of YouTube simply for interviewing a doctor, citing CDC and other medically reported literature.
	I mean, this is striking.
	The state of New York has discovered that a lot of nurses are interested in this particular vaccine mandate, so they're going to try to replace them with either foreign workers or call up the National Guard, which should have been a warning sign to the state of New York that maybe this is not the most rational policy in the world.
	But instead, they're going to double down and then try to deny them unemployment compensation.
	But in the interim...
	In two cases out of New York, an upstate New York ruled that the failure to do religious accommodation for nurses violated their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and enjoined it.
	Two other New York courts, a state court in New York, enjoined the city of New York's mandate for the time being, as applied to a range of employees, and the Second Circuit temporarily enjoined.
	A single judge, so it's waiting for a whole panel to rule on it, which will happen this week.
	But a single judge also issued a temporary restraining order in that case.
	There were a couple of losses in some cases in Massachusetts and in Covington, in Cincinnati, Ohio, but I think the case was actually brought in Covington, Kentucky, and then in Louisiana, based on different competing grounds.
	One was a union case, one was an employee case, another one was an employee case, and those are going to go up through the appellate food chain.
	But there are multiple wins across the country as well.
	And so far, almost all the religious accommodation suits have won.
	So far, the employers are losing and the states are losing on their ability to contest people's religious accommodations.
	This week, we will file against Tyson Foods for denying people meaningful religious accommodations.
	They're granting the religious accommodation and then saying you are on an unpaid leave of absence for a year.
	So that's constructive termination.
	It's other cases.
	United Airlines, a big class action filed in Texas.
	And after the hearing, it was clear to United Airlines they were likely to lose because they did something similar to Tyson Foods, kind of doing an unpaid leave routine.
	And they agreed to withdraw their vaccine mandate for the time being until the court can have a preliminary injunction hearing on the case.
	So there are multiple big, big wins in the employment context and in the state context.
	There are a couple of setbacks, but more wins than setbacks and definitely more wins than anybody anticipated.
	Now, the ones out of New York, they were struck down because they didn't provide for religious exemptions.
	But the question is, practically speaking, how are they going to enforce the religious exemptions anyhow?
	What proof?
	Or is it strictly a question of attesting religious reasons?
	No further questions.
	How does that play out in reality once the court says, Well, by an internal memo that was leaked actually on our board at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com, the federal government is acknowledging that the appropriate protocol is if someone asserts a religious accommodation, that ends the conversation legally.
	That your employer is not your priest, nor is your employer your physician, and them trying to pretend they can be is against the law.
	And if employers should start to wake up, all these efforts to deny religious accommodations are losing.
	And I think there's now seven cases in a row going back to 2018, the flu vaccine mandate.
	Where every single time a religious accommodation issue has gone to court, the employer has lost.
	When they've tried to deny it, when they've tried to superimpose it, when they've tried to do a constructive termination, when they've failed to provide for a reasonable accommodation.
	So they should start to wake up that they're not winning these cases, and they're not likely to win these cases.
	And now you're even seeing City of Gainesville in Florida.
	Couldn't defend.
	Just like every other lockdown intervention, when it goes to court, and when it goes to an evidentiary hearing, and when strict scrutiny is applied, these public health interventions lose.
	And they lost again in Gainesville.
	They couldn't defend their vaccine mandate, and the court struck it down for the whole city.
	And that's beyond religious accommodations.
	And that's a liberal democratic jurisdiction there in that local state courthouse in Alachua County.
	Because that's one of the few Democratic-Liberal jurisdictions in the state of Florida.
	So you look at them in aggregate, they're losing a lot more than people anticipated.
	We've expanded our suit against the FDA, included multiple declarations from military members all across the country.
	The folks on the board reminded me that they're named different.
	I think if everybody's a soldier, they point out Army soldiers.
	Air Force is airman, which I should have known because my uncle's a colonel in the Air Force, or was, but I just knew him as colonel.
	I didn't know him as airman.
	Marine is a Marine.
	Now, that I did know because plenty of Marines have reminded me of it repeatedly.
	And Navy or sailors.
	But there are plenty of...
	There are some sailors, there are some airmen, there are some Marines, and there are some soldiers who joined the suit with filing more than a dozen declarations.
	And then a big, kind of shocking declaration, which I won't go into the full details of.
	I'll go to the full details of it.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Logals.com.
	But a major military doctor signed a declaration in federal court in the Colorado case brought on behalf of various members of the military about rather startling and disturbing information about what happened after several pilots took the vaccine.
	And so I won't go into the details because that will all of a sudden disappear here from YouTube.
	But the evidence continues to move in the direction against these mandates.
	And the courts are starting to slowly but actually wake up some to civil liberties and civil rights, at least in America.
	And Dapper Dave asked, you know, why aren't we seeing these lawsuits and victories out of Canada?
	People are just not filing them with the same...
	Quantity, as in the United States.
	I don't file lawsuits.
	I don't consider myself a practicing lawyer in the courts.
	And I try to find lawyers to handle cases that people come to me with and say, can you help me or find me somebody?
	It's like a political hot potato.
	Lawyers don't even want to take the cases out here because you're fighting the establishment, you're fighting the government, you're fighting the court system itself.
	In a sense, you're also fighting your bar society because they are the ones who are...
	Implementing these rules in as much as everyone else.
	And like, there's nothing left to say.
	It's like, you got the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms that are filing suits.
	You got Rocco Galati, who's not filing anything in Quebec.
	I think he's only certified in Ontario and British Columbia.
	No, sorry.
	Outside of Quebec.
	So he's filed in Ontario and BC, from what I understand.
	But there's not as many as I would have thought.
	And even knowing some of the civil rights attorneys in Quebec.
	I would have thought they would be jumping on these cases because of the high-profile nature, but it's not the same society as it is in the States.
	And you have the government talking about immunizing small businesses from lawsuits that they expect to be filed when these businesses start implementing the vaccine passports as they've done.
	So it's just a different culture, and I know which one I prefer at this point in time.
	Additional blowback politically.
	BLM and other groups in New York started protesting the application of the vaccine mandate and passport there in New York City.
	And that's starting to spread with some prominent celebrities in the musical world raising questions.
	There was some t-shirts worn this week that reminded people to...
	That if you can't, you know, to protect your right of free speech and free thought or it's going to be gone.
	Andrew Wiggins, an NBA player, may have a suit against the NBA because the NBA has denied his religious accommodation.
	I don't think that's legal.
	And in particular for him, if you look at the health metrics that were discussed at the FDA Advisory Committee on booster shots that applied their discussion there about the vaccine in general and about, you know, for young men under 40, particularly athletic men.
	Their risk profile, let's just say it wasn't on the virus side of that equation.
	The lawsuits are proliferating.
	Their ability to beat people into submission has not worked in the way they thought it would.
	People are willing to lose almost one out of five SEALs, as was discussed on Tucker Carlson this week, are talking about leaving rather than take this vaccine.
	And, you know, that's about a billion dollars worth of money and research and training that's gone in.
	You know, I mean, that would be a monumental loss to our military service.
	And as Tucker brought up, there are some First Amendment implications by all of this because it appears they may be using the vaccine mandate to purge political groups they don't like and religious groups they don't like from positions of governmental influence or power.
	They did it during the Canadian elections.
	They were using vaccination status to deny entry to political candidates into public debates as if, like I've said it 15 times already, as if a vaccination status is the scientific justification as opposed to a negative test.
	Like, vaccinated or not, if you test negative, you are either negative or you are so pre-asymptomatic that you're testing negative, in which case your likelihood of infecting anyone in the...
	Unlikely event that you happen to be positive is minimal.
	That would be the scientific thing.
	But they use it for political purposes to jail certain political leaders while others give speeches to thousands of people at rallies in Ontario to deny people not Maxime Bernier.
	Although they did actually.
	Maxime Bernier in Quebec.
	They didn't deny him the debate with his local whoever it was that was running against him.
	They had him in another room.
	And then they had the three vaccinated candidates in another room as though the dude is radioactive just because he's not vaccinated.
	Political weaponizing.
	Reminds me a lot of what happened during the HIV panic.
	And it's amazing.
	We designed our laws in America so that would never happen again.
	And yet here it is again.
	In fact, we never went this far.
	During the HIV context, not systematically.
	I mean, imagine if people were proud about whether, you know, if you have HIV, now you need to test for it.
	You need to put a little badge.
	You don't get to go to particular events.
	You need to be segregated from public life.
	Didn't we find all that horrific?
	It wasn't the movie Philadelphia.
	Didn't it win an Oscar about not doing that kind of thing?
	And here we are back, and some of those same liberals are cheering as if now this is wonderful.
	So it shows a sign of the times, but enough people are pushing back in the court of public opinion that it's starting to show up in the court of law.
	In addition, a great legislative proposal in the state of Alabama that hopefully spreads like a wildfire, which is that employers be held liable for anyone who suffers any injury from the vaccine if the employer mandates.
	My view is that should be the law already, but because there's some doubt about that, introduced by Biden's EEOC that reversed the Trump EEOCs.
	Orders on that.
	Then the best way to potentially remediate is for states to start passing laws saying, okay, you can go ahead and mandate a vaccine, local government or employer, but you're now on the hook for all the injuries that stem from the vaccine.
	And see what happens with a lot of those employers.
	And if it's immensely safe, all the better.
	But the idea that they wouldn't be responsible, that you have an employer who says, well, you're going to require training from certain employees, but I'm not going to be...
	I'm not going to compensate you if you get injured during the training.
	We're going to impose certain restrictions, conditions, behavior as a condition of employment, set aside the constructive dismissal or unilateral modification of a contract.
	We're going to impose this.
	But we don't want to be liable in case anything happens as a result of what we're requiring.
	It doesn't make sense in the first place.
	It's a massive shift of risk is what's happening.
	A shift of risk from big pharma, corporations, employers, and governments to the ordinary individual who are absorbing all the risk, the risk of anything associated with the vaccine.
	And so it's completely, the legal remedies are very limited and restricted still.
	If they really wanted confidence that this vaccine was safe and effective, real easy way to do so.
	Take away the immunity from Big Pharma.
	Because they're the ones who have the most incentive and the most knowledge.
	And see if they suddenly reevaluate how many vaccines they want to put out there.
	And I should have said this also, Rebel News.
	Everybody should follow Rebel News, but I suspect our worlds already overlap.
	They are...
	Ezra at one point told me that they've effectively turned into a law firm because of the amount of lawsuits they're filing.
	They're doing good work as well.
	God's work, almost.
	Nobody's doing it.
	And it's an uphill battle in Canada more so than in the States.
	And what's next?
	What are we expecting next on the horizon for vaccine mandate lawsuits in the upcoming week or weeks?
	So there's multiple hearings that are going to be happening in courts all across the country related to a wide range of suits that have been brought, some on union grounds, some on religious grounds, some on natural immunity grounds, prior infection grounds, some on grounds that this is just unconscionable in the first place, some on breach of contract grounds, some on public policy grounds.
	And the United case is the first case to follow up the theories that we've discussed here, which is that the ADA should apply.
	And so United, the class action on behalf of United employees said this is discrimination based on perceived disability.
	So it was good to see that happen as well.
	So the suits continue to multiply.
	The theory that we proposed or the arguments and evidence we submitted against the FDA on behalf of the Children's Health Defense, myself and Bobby Kennedy, is showing up in a lot of these other suits.
	So people are picking up the bait and switch the FDA did.
	And that nobody right now in the state is getting an FDA biologic license to prove vaccine because it's not available yet.
	And anybody who tells you they are, they're lying to you.
	And so a lot of that's showing up everywhere.
	So seeing lots of great pushback and fightback.
	To a degree that did not happen, frankly, during the Tuskegee era, during the eugenics era, during the Korematsu era.
	I mean, during that era in which emergencies, particularly national emergencies named in national security or public health, where most people stay quiet and mute and the courts were able to run roughshod over people's rights without much pushback.
	That ain't happening this time.
	And if anybody did not see the...
	Highlight or the stream where we talked about the FDA bait-and-switch, it's a highlight under that name, but I think it was episode 78, but there's an episode, a highlight-specific section out called FDA bait-and-switch, which explains everything that we talked about then, what was FDA approved, what wasn't, and the potential legal ramifications and a lawsuit that was filed, Children's Defense Fund, right?
	Children's Health Defense.
	Children's Health Defense filed a lawsuit on that.
	To be continued.
	We'll see where that goes.
	This, unless there's more, this might be a good segue into something related, but not totally related.
	What's his name?
	John Stossel lost it against Facebook because it sort of touches on some of the...
	It may not have been the best segue, but whatever.
	We're there already.
	John Stossel suing...
	I thought it had to do a little bit with some COVID misinformation, but this one deals more with climate misinformation.
	But it deals with the arbiters of truth.
	The tech giant Arbiters of Truth, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, yada yada, the fact checkers.
	And John Stossel, for anybody who doesn't know, he's a reporter.
	He's the Magnum PI looking guy.
	He's got a thick mustache.
	I actually always thought he was Burt Reynolds, but no, he's a reporter that used to work for 2020.
	I think NBC Nightly News moved to Fox and he is suing Facebook now.
	Facebook and two of their affiliated fact checkers for defamation.
	And it's a very interesting lawsuit because, look, we've seen it happen with COVID information, with Candace Owens.
	It's very similar to the Candace Owens lawsuit, but this one deals with two videos he made dealing with the wildfires in California, where he put out a video basically, on the one hand, challenging the official narrative that it was only climate change.
	He said it was part climate change and part forest management.
	Got fact-checked for it, and the fact-checkers...
	In fact, attributed a statement to him that he did not ever make in that video to then say, it's fact-checked false.
	And they said that what he had said was it had nothing to do with the environment and was only forest management, which is exactly the opposite of what he did in fact say.
	So the fact-checkers improperly summarized or attribute a statement to him that he did not make, labeled it as false, and I think they took down the post.
	And they did basically the same thing with...
	Climate...
	It was something...
	Oh, Robert, you'll remind me.
	I forget the second fact check.
	Oh, climate panic.
	But bottom line, they label him fake fact check.
	They penalize him for it.
	The fact checkers that Facebook works with are some French company who then Facebook just runs what the fact checkers say without verifying it themselves.
	He's suing for defamation, and rightly so.
	His reputation as a journalist basically is all that he is.
	It seems like a very well-drafted lawsuit.
	It seems much like Candace Owens' lawsuit, though.
	And so what do you tell people out there who are optimistic or pessimistic that this is going to go the same way as Candace Owens?
	It will be a good case to test the fact-checking world, particularly as it now interacts with the social media monopolies and giants, because they are using the fact-checks as a pretext.
	To suspend access to accounts, to suspend various videos and stories, and to label people.
	And that was different than if they were just censoring people.
	That would be one thing.
	But they're choosing to use the fact check as the basis for it, part one, which gives economic consequences and damages from potential defamation claims.
	And second, they themselves are supporting these potentially alleged defamatory statements.
	It is very similar to the Candace Owens case.
	It's filed in a difficult jurisdiction, the Northern District of California, which has a lot of hostile judges to anybody contesting big tech power.
	I mean, it's almost unheard of for the judges out of the Northern District of California to rule against the big tech machine.
	And so a lot of professional ties, financial ties, other ties.
	Political ties, etc.
	So that will be the hurdle.
	And then the second, the big legal question is, is fact check a factual statement?
	Or is it not?
	Because the ultimate, to me, it should be kind of obvious.
	And the legal question is, could a reasonable juror interpret it as a fact check, as a factual statement?
	That when someone says, fact check, partly false.
	Fact check, misleading.
	Fact check, missing context.
	Fact check, this isn't true.
	That sounds to me like a factual statement.
	And at a minimum...
	Go ahead.
	It's a joke that you even have to say it.
	Is a fact check a statement of fact or a statement of opinion?
	The whole ironic kick in the groin from the Candace Owens lawsuit was the judge who said...
	Anyone reading this would know that it wasn't a statement of fact, but rather one that was just a warning for them to read further into it.
	If a fact check is not a statement of fact as opposed to a statement of opinion, words...
	I mean, maybe we're already there.
	Words don't mean anything.
	In which case, there will be no future understanding.
	But it's an absurd statement that you even have to ask the question, Robert.
	Is a fact check a statement of fact or a statement of opinion?
	Because that's going to be Facebook's defense.
	Facebook's defense is going to be...
	They'll make a Section 230 argument, in all likelihood, because they try to structure their fact-checking so technically it's not them doing it.
	They're just promoting someone else who has a different opinion, if you will.
	So they'll argue that Section 230 applies.
	I don't think it does because Facebook is sponsoring, supporting, and colluding.
	In this.
	But again, that would be one area where they will try to defend themselves.
	And if they get the right political court, they might interpret it that way.
	Then the second defense will be that these are not actual facts.
	That a fact check is not factual.
	That ultimately was the defense in the Candace Owens case by Facebook.
	I couldn't believe that it stood.
	I don't know what the status is if she's appealing it.
	But for anybody who doesn't know, the judge literally said, hoax alert.
	When they qualified her statement as a hoax and flagged it with hoax alert, no one would take that to mean that Candace Owen was actually promoting a hoax.
	They would interpret that to mean they have to read her post with greater reflection, with greater scrutiny.
	Bull garbage up the wazoo.
	So this lawsuit, they respond to the Section 230 before they raise it.
	You don't need to sell me on that.
	I believe what they're arguing is that when it comes to defamation, It's a statement they're making.
	It's not a statement that a third party made on their platform, so there's no immunity under 230 for that.
	Facebook pretends that's the case, because that's how they set up their whole fact-checking system.
	Oh, we're just, this is a third party per fact-checker, and we're just putting their person up.
	We're not actually saying anything.
	Now, it's deliberately deceptive at multiple levels.
	And one of the things that Stossel Suit makes point of is that...
	The most defamatory thing was a false attribution.
	They claimed that he said climate change had nothing to do with the fires.
	He never made that claim.
	In fact, he said the opposite of that.
	But that claim is buried within the link.
	And so I'm sure Facebook can say, we're not responsible for that statement either.
	So Facebook's designed, their lawyers clearly crafted their fact-checking to create one impression for consumers, but a different one they could argue for legally.
	And that's what will be contested.
	But it's Harmi Dillon's firm that's representing Stossel.
	Very good firm.
	So they're well-equipped to argue this.
	And so it's good to see this bogus fact-checking put to the test.
	And we'll see what they then say.
	I actually didn't realize it was Harmi Dillon, but it's just a very, very well-drafted lawsuit.
	It's clear to the point.
	It has all the receipts, so to speak.
	The fact that...
	The fact checkers, in fact, confirmed the facts that were spoken by Stossel in his video and confirmed the fact that he didn't make the statements the fact checkers attributed to him.
	And what he did say is, in fact, confirmed by the fact checkers.
	But that's once you get past the first, second, third click links of the fact checkers.
	Now, as far as the argument goes that Facebook is going to argue that these fact checkers are third party, so they're not responsible.
	Doesn't that change when they have a contract with the third parties?
	It's not like an independent user on the platform.
	This is effectively an entity, an affiliate of Facebook, so therefore they couldn't weasel out of the argument that way?
	Yep, because it's clearly not purely third-party promoted content.
	Facebook is making a choice to stick a third party's content onto Stossel's content.
	That's Facebook making a post.
	That's not Facebook promoting some third-party content on its own accord.
	And so that's where I think that that argument shouldn't work.
	And they make the allegation that this was coordination, collusion, you know, all this is by Facebook's design.
	Nobody would know about this fact-checker organization but for Facebook promoting them, pitching them, linking to it, and sticking it on Stossel's page, and sticking it on Stossel's comments, and on Stossel's videos.
	And so I think the...
	I think he's got a good claim about the fact-checking process and how it's completely bogus.
	The question is whether there will be a court willing to be, that won't be so political as to cover for Facebook.
	That will be the open question.
	And just to praise Stossel a little bit, I mean, the lawsuit goes into his credentials.
	The guy seems relatively...
	Clean and meticulous in his work.
	Yeah, he's very careful.
	I mean, he was on ABC for a long time.
	He had his own show for a long time.
	So this is someone that has a pretty impressive pedigree.
	So to go after him was probably a mistake.
	Going after Candace Owens was one thing.
	Going after him is probably more risky.
	But they are in the Northern District of California.
	Because he was...
	I'm not...
	He was probably on the left end of the spectrum and the media cycle for a long time, and they went after him.
	I'm sure he was surprised when Facebook went after him, given that he seemed to be on the right side of the media for the longest time.
	And then the second you start contradicting something of the narrative, even if you're actually confirming a portion of it, they come after you.
	So, to be continued, we'll see where it goes.
	Do they get to use the Facebook Candace Owens decision as a precedent or different jurisdictions?
	Yeah, I mean, it's persuasive.
	But not binding, because that was a state court of Delaware.
	This is a federal court in the Ninth Circuit in the District of California.
	So to my knowledge, there's no fact-checking case yet that's been adjudicated outside of the Candace Owens case.
	So this will be setting precedent one way or the other.
	And I like it because this lawsuit simplifies the claim a little bit.
	Candace Owens had a creative one where there was an argument for unfair business practices because they were driving traffic.
	The third-party fact-checkers were using Candace Owens as a catapult to their own channels where they derive revenue from redirecting traffic from Candace Owens' wildly popular page.
	This is sticking more to basics, attributing statements to Stossel that he did not in fact make, qualifying statements that he did in fact make is wrong when they were not, and the collusion conspiring between Facebook and the third-party fact-checkers, or as I like to call them, third-party fact-checkers.
	So we'll see.
	It was good.
	Good lawsuit.
	Now, let's just say while we're on the subject of fighting the mainstream big tech beast, Donald Trump is suing not only his niece, who, if anyone does deserve to get sued for what she did, it's his niece.
	Oh, this was the second thing I wanted to bring up on the screen share now that I know how to do it.
	Mary Trump once tweeted, why is it so hard for people to be nice to each other?
	This is an unironic tweet that she put on Twitter.
	And to which I responded, you're the person who wrote a tell-all book in which you lambasted and labeled your entire family as racist.
	You broke the law by sneaking tax documents out of a law firm so you could take down your uncle.
	And you want to talk about why the world can't be nice.
	This is like the person who cries out as they strike you.
	So for anybody who doesn't know, Donald Trump is suing.
	Mary Trump.
	New York Times, a bunch of Jane Doe's for a lot of reasons.
	It's an interesting one.
	I didn't understand the breach of contract claim against Mary Trump until I read through the lawsuit.
	Bottom line, everybody knows Mary Trump ratted out her uncle, but good, her uncle being Donald, by delivering confidential tax documents that she snuck out of a law firm, delivered them to the New York Times so the New York Times could draft and publish that bombshell that never was.
	of a tax expose on Donald Trump.
	Well, apparently, there was a settlement agreement that resulted from, oh, what's the word when you...
	Probating a will in 1999 from someone else in Trump's family.
	I don't remember who it was.
	It doesn't really matter.
	There was some litigation.
	In the context of probating the will, the parties, including Mary Trump, entered into a confidentiality settlement agreement.
	Where she was not allowed to do certain things, I think one of which was write a tell-all book or an expose, and the other was to keep certain documents confidential.
	Well, it appears that Mary, and I don't know who drafted this lawsuit because it's well drafted, had forgotten about that confidentiality agreement or that settlement agreement by her own admission, violated it, apparently by her own admission, provided these documents illegally or unlawfully, I should say allegedly illegally.
	To the New York Times, who took them knowing that they were effectively inducing Mary to breach her contract.
	And then that's how they got the information.
	So Trump is suing...
	Sorry, go ahead.
	It just goes a step further than that.
	The whole idea came from the New York Times.
	The New York Times came to her, told her, by the way, there's a bunch of financial documents we would like that the lawyer related to the estate case has.
	Can you please go get them for us?
	And so that's how she snuck into the lawyer's office and stole a bunch of documents.
	And by the way, this is the allegation that is the entire foundation of criminally prosecuting Julian Assange.
	That if you instigate in any way the information coming out, then you can be criminally prosecuted.
	Instead, the New York Times got awards out of this.
	So it shows the incredible discrepancy.
	What Julian Assange was outing was whistleblower information about war crimes.
	This was about disputes about Donald Trump's taxes from 20 years ago.
	And so one gets an award and the other one gets criminally prosecuted.
	It shows you how the system really reacts and responds.
	But the key factor was that the New York Times was aware of it.
	The New York Times instigated it.
	The New York Times suggested it, and she was almost acting, as she foolishly admitted to the Daily Beast in a podcast in February, as their agent in doing so.
	And apparently even by her own admission, and there were some great clips, great segments of things she said, it took some convincing to get her to do it.
	It took persistence by the New York Times.
	So it's an interesting lawsuit.
	He's suing Mary Trump for breach of contract.
	I mean, the damages, how do you attribute damages on that type of allegation?
	You say, okay, declare that there was a breach of contract, arbitrarily fix the number?
	Well, his main theory against both it and the New York Times is unjust enrichment.
	And so I do like the fact that Trump is starting to pursue unjust enrichment theories, because his focus is not how much he lost, but how much the New York Times and Mary Trump profited.
	His point was this was the most linked and looked at article in the history of the New York Times, that their stock value went up 7% within a week of that story, and that she made millions of dollars off of all of this.
	And so Trump's point is, eh, that money belongs back to me.
	It's my information, my private information that you illicitly took and got rich off of, so you can just pay it back to me.
	And that's his core damages theory.
	Likelihood of success?
	You know, he filed smartly in state court outside of Manhattan.
	I think it's Dutchess County he sued in.
	So, you know, depending on which judge he gets assigned to, but he has a fighting chance outside of federal court and outside of Manhattan.
	And it does appear...
	This is illegal behavior.
	The line has always been in terms of invading privacy or getting records that are legally protected records.
	If I'm a reporter and you just bring it to me, no problem.
	I can publish.
	If I ask you to go do it, you become my agent.
	That's illegal.
	And it appears that's what the New York Times did.
	With respect to the confidentiality agreement from the probating of the will, I mean, there's no...
	Unless it's stipulated.
	There's no time frame for that.
	It's permanent.
	She got information that only could come out during discovery of a probate case.
	All those records are supposed to be kept private and confidential all the way through.
	Then she agreed that once they settled, of course, that all that had to be private.
	That's why she didn't even have custody of it.
	It was in a lawyer's custody.
	She got it from the lawyer by some circuitous, subversive method.
	And so these were not her records.
	She was not legally entitled to those records.
	She was not legally entitled to share those records.
	And the New York Times knew that and told her to do it anyway.
	That's why I see them as more culpable than her in many respects, because they're the ones behind this.
	But I mean, the question is, who would file criminal charges against her?
	Would Trump have to file a complaint or could a DA...
	Any of the DAs could have brought criminal charges or the U.S. Attorney's Office.
	You'll be waiting a while, Southern District of New York or Manhattan, for that to happen.
	They're too busy figuring out whether one of Trump's employees took the wrong tax deduction 20 years ago.
	For anybody who didn't see that stream, that was Trump's, who was it, an executive who apparently paid for his kids' private school and didn't declare it as revenue.
	That's worth the criminal investigation.
	Criminal prosecution in the state of New York.
	They don't have other problems in New York City right now.
	I just realized, Robert, how red I look compared to you.
	I think it's high blood pressure because I didn't even take that much sun.
	Or it's contrast against this shirt.
	Let me see what here we got.
	Seeing Insights says, why do social media companies think they have to be in the fact-checking business?
	Nobody's going to disagree with that.
	It's just a way.
	It's the ministry of truth.
	It's the ministry of truth.
	It's very interesting.
	He's going after Mary Trump, New York Times, and some various John Does, Jane Does, because he doesn't know everybody who's involved in it.
	Definitely survives a motion to dismiss.
	This doesn't get tossed at an early stage.
	It definitely should survive a motion to dismiss.
	Put it that way.
	You know how strong the case was, because the media wouldn't talk about it.
	And the few who did just had somebody making a dismissive quote.
	It was a very, very well-drafted lawsuit because Mary Trump has made a number of public statements, which you can't take back.
	And it's what happens when you have a big mouth and a vendetta.
	And you feel an unnecessary or unjustified sense of protection because you're fighting the good fight.
	So anything you do is justified to those ends.
	So she's said things that cannot be unsaid.
	And I think it's going to be a Leticia.
	No, Leticia James.
	Okay, we'll see where it goes.
	Next one, let's talk.
	While we're on the subject of New York Times, January 6th, the flaccid insurrection.
	I'm going to call it that from now on because it's awesome.
	The insurrection that never was confirmed, and I'm not spreading misinformation, people.
	The FBI has confirmed no coordinated efforts, no insurrection.
	A bunch of people got very rowdy protesting.
	We now know everything we need to know about Brian Sicknick and the reporting that came out of New York Times that has yet to be corrected formally.
	The news of the day.
	What's his name?
	Proud Boys guy.
	Who was apparently live messaging with the FBI agents as the protest and as the riot was going on, which can cause some people to question the degree of collaboration, the degree of cooperation, or at the very least, the degree of knowledge that the FBI had of the events of that day as they unfolded in real time.
	We've seen some of the footage now that has been released, and it explains why the FBI or why the prosecutors did not want to release the footage.
	The footage that we're seeing, some of it was bad.
	Others, when they're just strolling through, strolling in through open doors, does not necessarily look like what you think an insurrection would look like.
	So we might understand why that footage was slow to be released.
	But now we're getting news that one of the Proud Boys guys, someone in the chat is going to get his name for me, was apparently...
	Live texting with FBI agents while this was all going on.
	And the question is, Robert, you'll field this one.
	Why and what does it show?
	So it's two things.
	The fact this was printed in the New York Times and printed by a reporter who mostly covers for the New York Times, I mean covers for the FBI, means that this is information that's going to start coming out in discovery that they've been hiding for almost the last year.
	They know it, and they're trying to get ahead of the story.
	And that means this is probably just the beginning of many such stories.
	So that the suspicions that have been aired by Julie Kelly, who's done great work on this at American Greatness, Darren Beatty, who's done great work on this at Revolver, to a lot of criticism.
	And if you were a board member of febabarneslaw.locals.com and watched the first ever Hush, hush episode.
	You would know that this was the thematic structure of it just a few days after January 6th.
	And then what was predicted and previewed in there keeps coming true.
	And what it is, is there's just more and more mounting evidence that not only was this not a coordinated, organized, seditious effort to take over the government by violent force.
	But that there was more and more evidence of FBI informants being involved, FBI informers being involved, FBI instigators being involved, and the FBI having knowledge prior to the event, during the event, and soon after the event, in ways that they kept hidden from the rest of the world.
	So it has all the hallmarks of Whitmer, the sequel.
	And so it's getting worse and worse and worse.
	And the fact that New York Times had to put this out there means that the evidence is going to be much worse.
	And it's just going to be the flooded gates are about to start opening.
	And we're going to discover one more shocking thing after the next shocking thing after the next shocking thing.
	It's like it's everybody who doesn't know the tactic.
	getting ahead of the bad news, spinning the narrative before it happens, softening the blow for when the floodgates do in fact open.
	And you know, Nate Brody put out a great video at the time showing that this was what the The FBI knew that everybody knew what was planned for that day.
	The question then became, how did it devolve into what it devolved into?
	What did it, in fact, devolve into?
	Why were the Capitol Police...
	Incapable of dealing with whatever it is that occurred that day, supposed to be protecting the most important stuff in the United States.
	How were the doors left open?
	How did it all happen?
	And some people were hypothesizing.
	They were called conspiracy theorists at the time, Robert.
	And it seems to be coming to fruition a little bit.
	No doubt.
	Because, I mean, also what's coming out in some video footage is you may have had parallel action by the Capitol Police.
	You may have had some Capitol Police opening doors and waving people in and standing down.
	You may have had other Capitol Police instigating violence against people who weren't committing any violence, who are outside of the Capitol.
	That there may be one or two of those other people who died may have died at the hands of Capitol Police.
	And that's why they're hiding all the video footage.
	That basically all the video footage would tell a very, very different story than the media narrative they tried to release that day.
	And that they've been trying to tell ever since.
	In fact, the Twitterati on the left spent the whole week with wild speculation, misconstruing what Sidney Powell said, misconstruing what Steve Bannon said to say, oh, it's all a coordinated thing.
	Still living in a fantasy land while ignoring the obvious truth that keeps coming out in court documents, keeps being reported by Julie Kelly and Darren Beatty.
	And now, when the New York Times has to start confessing it, you know they're in deep trouble.
	And for anybody who doesn't know the story, the mainstream media was running with the story that Steve Bannon admitted to plotting the insurrection.
	Not he admitted to hosting or setting up a protest down some ways away.
	Admitted to the insurrection, and it's just fake news through and through, but...
	Once the real news gets out, people have already heard the fake headlines.
	You have to wonder, why this week were they busy worried about those headlines?
	Did they know this headline was coming?
	Did they know this story would otherwise dominate and they needed to distract everybody and detour everybody on the fake news narrative?
	And then some of the sort of government prosecutor types or government prosecutor apologist types.
	People named Shipwrecked Crew.
	Now I know why his crew is shipwrecked.
	With his legal advice.
	He had been brutal and quite snobbish.
	Attacking...
	Julie Kelly attacking Darren Beatty, attacking anybody who raised these questions.
	He also was promoting that Durham was going to bring all these big indictments before the election and that Amy Coney Barrett was going to be one of the greatest conservative justices in history, that the elections were okay.
	He has a long history of promoting utter nonsense and gibberish.
	And I would have left him alone on this, but for the fact he took shots at you last week.
	So I was like, okay, I'm going to have to remind everybody what an idiot this guy is.
	Well, I'm happy to say I...
	Didn't know because I don't watch Shipwreck Crew.
	What did he say, Robert?
	Should I be scared?
	No.
	Think about it.
	You're this bigwig lawyer, supposedly, and you've got to hide behind an anonymous name.
	Okay, but can you at least pick a good anonymous name?
	Not Shipwreck Crew?
	I mean, come on.
	That's sad.
	Sad.
	Didn't think it through.
	Let's read this one here.
	With FBI having a Proud Boy informant, how does the FBI not accept at least some culpability in the January 6th occurrence?
	Is it okay to set up and stand by when you're the FBI?
	Well...
	As we've seen in Whitmer, and Robert, from what you've been explaining, the amount of times the FBI is spanked for entrapment or for active participation, don't get your hopes up, but how do you respond to that question?
	I mean, they should.
	I mean, there's no question that, I mean, at the time, some of us, like when I did the Hush Hush episode, the giveaway was the unusual lapses in security.
	I mean, the Capitol is the most secure building in the world, arguably.
	The idea that a couple of protests and protesters could suddenly just be rampaging within, that doesn't happen unless there's a severe lapse in security.
	And historically, if you're looking for telltale indicators that something else may be afoot, one of the things you look for is unusual and unexpected lapses in security.
	But a key to that lapse in security was the FBI itself, who basically at the seventh floor was instructing people no worries, no problems, when they knew just the opposite.
	So, I mean, the FBI was deeply complicit in all of this, wanted to profit from all of this, just like they did the Whitmer case.
	One of the head agents in the Whitmer case was promoted to handle January 6th cases, so that tells you what you need to know.
	But, yes, I mean, they should be held responsible.
	Historically, they almost never are.
	And it's not just not being held responsible, but this misinformation from the day one.
	Can you imagine what a mad world of politics it is in the States that they actually went for the second impeachment?
	Go back and watch some of the arguments made, some of the evidence presented with the knowledge that we have today.
	And you can only come to two conclusions as to the mental framework of politicians in Washington.
	They're either liars or they're stupid.
	I guess there's three.
	Or a mix of both.
	Because...
	Whether or not they believed what they were saying back then, it has proven to be virtually entirely false and almost, some might say, something of a setup.
	As some people said the day of, I brought up the chat, I don't want to trigger any algo words on YouTube, but people were saying from day one, this is intended to be a setup to be weaponized against the movement.
	They used it for a second impeachment and now we're basically learning from the FBI's own admissions, no insurrection, no coordinated, nothing.
	But it looks like the FBI was well aware of what was going on, and the Capitol Police, for whatever the reason, had a monumental security failure on that particular day.
	The Capitol Police and the FBI behaved like two organizations that wanted this to occur and helped make it occur.
	That's what the evidence keeps mounting towards.
	So you can draw whatever inferences you want from that, but those two facts appear to be increasingly well established.
	Okay, interesting.
	Do we shift gears entirely?
	And go to the one that's fresh in my mind now.
	I think one that people might have an interest in.
	Not me per se, but the copyright law aspect of it is interesting.
	The Marvel lawsuit against his name is Lieber, I think?
	Yeah, well, it's one of many that they're bringing.
	So, a summary for anybody who doesn't know, and the one thing I learned is that the person they're suing, Lieber, is the brother of the son of Stan Lee.
	I think brother.
	Now, I didn't realize that Stan Lee, that's not his real name, and now it makes sense, I guess, Stan Lee Lieber, but Stan Lee is a cooler, I guess, from Hollywood's perspective name.
	So Marvel is suing for declaratory judgment to basically declare a notice of termination that was served by Lieber, effectively saying that your ability to use the copyright will expire next year or the year after, and after that I...
	I guess the copyright reverts back to the person claiming copyright, which would be Lieber, who was a writer.
	I don't know exactly what he did way back in the day.
	Marvel filed what they're referring to as basically a preemptive lawsuit to declare the notice of termination invalid so that they don't run into copyright issues over the main characters of Marvel.
	Probably did a very bad job explaining that.
	Maybe you want to flesh it out a little better.
	Sorry, explain what the notice of termination is for those.
	I sort of understand it, but I think a lot of people won't.
	And then, you know, the merits of this.
	So, yeah, the backstory is that creators often sold their copyrights for very cheap and were often, for a range of reasons, sort of sometimes hoodwinked to other purposes.
	The creative artistic talent did not get the financial renumerative award that they were really, as a matter of equity, entitled to.
	From their own creations.
	And also this would undermine creativity over time.
	That if you could screw over creators, more and more creators just wouldn't create or would do something different.
	And so as part of this copyright, they went in and amended the copyright laws to say, okay, after a certain time period, 36 years in some cases, 53 years in other cases, you can basically claw back your copyright, claim it back by saying, okay, I gave you a license, gave it to you for whatever reason.
	However long ago, but now the time period has passed to where I get it back.
	And the way this also works is your copyright passes on to your heirs.
	So you have people who have, and the way you get it back is you can simply give a notice of termination.
	That, okay, you've had my license for 36 years or 53 years.
	Now I'm bringing it back and maybe I'll give it to you again, but we have to contract for that.
	And what Marvel has done and what Disney has done, I mean, Disney, for example, the Disney mouse was supposed to be in public domain back in 1984.
	I mean, on multiple occasions, Disney has lobbied Congress to carve out special exceptions to allow them to keep their protection longer than, frankly, should have been the case.
	Because at some point, copyright becomes more about private monopoly than it does about rewarding artistic creativity.
	And what you have is you have corporate...
	And so this dispute actually arose before with Marvel some years ago.
	Went up to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a different case.
	Similar circumstances, though.
	And the court made a crazy ruling.
	In my view, it was just deferential to Marvel, deferential to big corporations.
	There's something in copyright called work for hire.
	Traditionally, that was thought of when I hire someone as an employee and I as a company are on a project, anything they do working on that project, The company owns rather than the employee owns.
	That always made sense.
	It was not thought to apply to all licensure situations to where if you have a freelance person creating something and then a company pays them for it, that that means they have it permanently and that's a work for hire.
	But that's what the Second Circuit did.
	The Second Circuit basically converted all freelance work ever done into work for hires.
	All of a sudden, you are magically an employee all over again.
	And so that was a very controversial decision.
	Everybody in the creative community hated it, thought the Supreme Court should reverse it.
	These cases are going to bring that back.
	Now, the lawyer handling it for Marvel and Disney is Daniel Petruccelli, one of the most overrated lawyers in the world, a man who single-handedly got his client convicted.
	If you want to get convicted easily, hire Daniel Petruccelli.
	His name to fame is he tried O.J. on a civil case in front of a bunch of jurors who already said he was guilty before they sat down in the jury.
	Congratulations.
	How impressive.
	But that's about it.
	But this is a preemptive effort by Marvel to assert a continued monopoly and corporate control over all of the, and to convert individual creators' content that they slaved away to create on their own accord, to never get the benefit of that, for their heirs to never get the benefit of that, to allow them to be corporately owned.
	And for a lot of us in this space, that was always a horrendous decision.
	There's a reason why Congress passed a law that allowed this.
	I mean, again, you get it for 36 to 53 years, depending on the circumstances.
	This needs to go back to the people who created it.
	They were not employees.
	None of them were.
	And they are the ones who should get it.
	But it will have massive impact on Marvel because almost every major Marvel character, Iron Man, Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, Black Widow, you name it.
	It was not obtained by an employee of Marvel, it was obtained in this other way, and could go back to the family or individuals.
	The work for hire, it would be more independent contractor, not employee.
	But even in the context of independent contractors, what they create in the context of their contract, I was always under the impression that that belonged to the contractor and not to them.
	The nature of the contract.
	It's not supposed to be.
	In other words, well, here's the thing, for example.
	It would be one thing if they said, we want you to develop an Iron Man project.
	Here's our ideas, and you're going to work on it as a freelance contractor.
	That isn't what happened.
	There's these people out there creating comics, and Marvel would say, we'll pay you if we like something you create.
	That's your classic licensee situation, not your classic employer situation.
	And it was not meant to apply to the work-for-hire context.
	And it's not the case that they just bought all rights way back in the day for what would obviously be a nominal or lesser amount because it hadn't achieved the success that it achieved now.
	They paid them per page and they paid them for certain things, but they didn't pay them for everything and they were never employees and they didn't say in advance, here's what you're working on, here's what we want.
	They had all these great content creators and they said, okay, send me what you got.
	And they bought certain percentages of it.
	But that should have been a temporary license.
	I mean, temporary like 36 to 53 years.
	But it should not have been a permanent license.
	Otherwise, it completely guts the whole point of rewarding and protecting content creators from these often coercive relationships, particularly back then.
	And copyright now, I mean, it was the life of the author and then 50 years after death?
	It depended.
	It depends on the circumstances.
	Like I said, Mickey Mouse keeps living somehow as copyrighted protected.
	So it'd probably be one of those good check your congressional list for how much stock the congressman...
	Disney probably makes the top 10 frequently.
	So what would be the practical effect, hypothetically, of the notice of termination of copyright or the notice of termination is deemed to be valid?
	Obviously, it has no retrospective or retroactive value, so it would only apply...
	And it wouldn't apply internationally, likely, either.
	This is only U.S. copyrights.
	But the impact would be Marvel no longer has it.
	And for the other reason is, a lot of us would prefer some of the original family members to have control of it.
	So some of this woke nonsense that they're trying to recreate and rebrand these characters, instead they could sell it to somebody else who won't do that with the product.
	Won't do that.
	So, I mean, most of Marvel's value would disappear, in my view.
	If they lose these cases.
	And Disney paid $4 billion for it.
	Disney's already damaged the Star Wars brand, maybe terminally.
	And they're doing damage to the Marvel brand.
	But this would completely wipe out most of the value of that Marvel brand if they lose those characters.
	And I think they should lose them.
	They can buy them back and maybe the people will resell it to them.
	Yep.
	Or maybe, like, it's a good point.
	Maybe they'll resell them to someone who's going to be responsible to the legacy and to the intent of the characters themselves.
	Very interesting.
	I didn't think of that, actually.
	Now, here, J. Mill says, is there a controlling interest factor, or is it an all or none for the rights of these characters?
	It won't be all or none, because they'll have certain co-ownership claims and things like that.
	But they'll be in financial difficulty if they lose.
	Well, someone said it best.
	Everything woke turns to SH upside down.
	Whatever, I'm trying not to swear.
	Okay, so that's interesting.
	What is your prediction, actually, if you have to go with this?
	Do you think politics is going to prevail?
	I think that there's...
	I think it's going to be a close call.
	Legally, there's no doubt in my mind who should win.
	And it shouldn't be Marvel.
	It shouldn't be Disney.
	But politically, you never know.
	You know, that will be the hurdle.
	Will they defer to big corporate power, or will they enforce the law the way it was meant to be written?
	All right.
	To be continued.
	It's interesting.
	It's not my field of interest, because I don't know the last time I saw a Marvel movie.
	Iron Man.
	I don't think I've seen an Iron Man movie, if people want to judge me.
	But I did watch Joker.
	I mean, I watched Joker.
	I don't know who owns the rights to that, but not bad.
	Not controversial, like I said at the time.
	Okay, I know people are going to freak out if we don't get to it, and in as much as we can discuss it, the Maricopa County audit.
	Now, my understanding is that the audit is complete, and when the media ran the stories that said Joe Biden gained votes, that was only on the recount aspect, which is basically just counting again what you've already counted, and not the audit aspect, whereas the audit aspect did in fact reveal anomalies.
	That may need to be rectified through election reform in the near to immediate future.
	I don't know if you saw Razor Fist's breakdown, but I think it's pretty clear where you never know which way you're being pulled in terms of extremes.
	Was it a crushing blow that confirms anomalies?
	Or was it a crushing blow that confirms the legitimacy of the results?
	Or somewhere in the middle, Robert.
	I mean, I think it depends on which aspect of the audit you highlight.
	So the media highlighted the fact that the hand recount confirmed the machine count.
	So to the degree there are allegations that the machine manufactured votes that did not exist in paper-printed ballot form, that allegation was rebutted effectively by the hand recount.
	The hand recount ended up finding a few more votes for Biden than the machine count did.
	That was what the media ran with.
	On the flip side, the auditors also found a very insecure election system.
	That part's not a big surprise.
	The left used to acknowledge this just a year ago before the election.
	HBO had a big documentary on it.
	How hackable election machines are has been your recurrent problem.
	Ten years ago, there was a massive bid.
	I think it was CNN illustrating all the problems.
	Everything that everyone was repeating now, I guess in ten years, technology has...
	They don't spend enough money on the machines to make them that secure is the reality of them.
	Too many machines, too cheap in their policy, so they're always hackable.
	That they weren't secure, that there were about 57,000 or so votes that were in doubt, not because of the hand recount and not because of the nature of the ballot, the physical structure of the ballot, but instead because of reviewing two things.
	They didn't do a signature match check, but they only looked at whether or not the system captured and caught the blank signatures or the signatures that were scribbles.
	And they found there were three to four times as many, depending on the particular error, errors than the original election officials caught.
	In other words, where they missed the fact that the signature was blank.
	Where they missed that it's just a scribble.
	It's not a signature.
	And so that does raise questions about what would a real signature match check have shown.
	But they never did do that.
	But the other aspects they found were you had people with the same name and apparently the same identity both voting from two different locations and both of them voting.
	That is what was referred to as the...
	Sorry, it was...
	Multiple residents?
	What was the word they used in the line?
	Multiple residences.
	So the same voter, multiple residences.
	There appeared to be ballots that were cast in the name of voters from places they didn't live.
	And there were a range of other anomalies that they found.
	So from an auditor's perspective, they found enough forensic issues to say that there were more ballots or more voters in question.
	And so for those on that side of the aisle, they got what they wanted out of the audit.
	The media got what they wanted out of the audit.
	And so it was a bit of both, depending on which aspect you highlighted and focused upon.
	The biggest controversy moving forward is that it appears that certain log entries and other entries on the machines were deleted the day before the machines were turned over.
	This has led to a referral to the Attorney General of Arizona.
	Who's in a little bit of a bind because he's running for the United States Senate.
	So is he going to meaningfully investigate?
	Because there's going to be a lot of people paying attention in the primary.
	But anything he does do, will the media say this is politically motivated?
	So he's kind of caught there.
	I tried a case once in front of his wife, a federal court appointee by Trump.
	Let's just say I don't have great confidence in him, but if his wife's any indication.
	You can't judge someone always by their spouses, but sometimes it's a good proxy.
	So we'll see.
	But that's the biggest...
	Now, there are aspects of the audit that are continuing.
	They reached a settlement agreement that's going to allow them to look at routers and other electronic information.
	So to those that wanted to say, look, the audit disproved certain allegations related to the machines, the audit produced evidence in support of them.
	To those who wanted to say, look...
	The audit found major problems and security flaws in the manner and method in which ballots were counted and cast.
	They, too, found substantial evidence in their favor.
	So both sides got something out of the audit.
	I like the audit because it's a good precedent to set, period.
	People should always have a right to audit their elections.
	And I say this is not a critique of Razor Fist.
	He used the F word.
	And one might back that up and say, OK, well, we won't use the F word.
	We'll use the A word.
	Anomalies.
	They didn't do signature matches or signature verifications on an amount that would have, you know, an amount that exceeded the difference.
	So there's that.
	People are going to say, well, whatever.
	But that's the bottom line outcome.
	Call it an F, call it an A, call it a, I don't know, a double D due diligence not being done.
	That was the ultimate outcome above and beyond the recount, which showed a gain for Biden.
	It revealed anomalies or at the very least imperfections in the mail-in system.
	A lot of insecurities.
	A lot of insecurities and inadequacies in the way the election was conducted.
	And they came up with a great set of proposed reforms.
	There could have been a few more that I think they could have come up with, but they used the information they developed to say, here's all the legislative reforms we need to make this system work better in the future.
	And I think there's a fair chance those reforms pass.
	So that'll be another.
	Lasting, positive impact of the audit.
	We'll use the D word.
	All of them, incidentally, are also other swear words.
	Okay, so it's very interesting.
	Effectively, I caught the gist of the outcome of that.
	Because it is funny.
	It's beyond one screen, two films.
	This was literally two different screens blasting diametrically opposing messages.
	Although, did I not see wrong that Tucker Carlson is taking some flack?
	For not having discussed this?
	Or did he discuss it and I missed it?
	Or did he not discuss it and why not?
	He did not discuss it, though his show came on not long after the whole process was still being heard.
	So it was heard in the afternoon, I think on Arizona time, if I recall right.
	So it seemed like it went to 3 or 4 in the afternoon Pacific time, which is about the time he's going on the air.
	So we'll see how he covers it and what ways he covers it moving forward.
	I think that there was a lot of valuable information there that people could cover without having a political bone in the fight.
	In other words, if you believe in election integrity, election transparency, and election confidence, there's a lot of things that you can use from the audit to support that and substantiate that.
	Over the last decade and a half, it's mostly been the left.
	Complaining about machines, complaining about lack of transparency, complaining about lack of audit trails, complaining about lack of paper trails, complaining about these kind of procedures that the audit details, hey, there's still problems with, and here are some of the solutions that could fix it.
	So I think for those that are on that, you don't have to be partisan to see value in the audit and to see value in the reforms being proposed.
	Yeah, and someone said, I mean, I saw the clip.
	I don't know who the individual was that was saying it, so I couldn't assess the authority.
	Apparently, whatever this chat says is what the individual testified to, and apparently it's an undisputed fact.
	It may not be illegal, though.
	I mean, it's not clear to me that they had a legal duty to maintain it.
	So that aspect was not established, as far as I could tell at the hearing.
	I mean, it's a bad inference.
	You know, if you're on the side of the aisle to say, hey, you should have confidence in the elections, but let me delete, delete, delete, delete.
	Let me pull a Hillary.
	Which reminds me of Trump's joke at that thing.
	But I think there was value to this no matter which side you were on.
	And the media spun it.
	It was interesting.
	The media went from saying this is a totally bad thing to, oh, this is great.
	It confirms everything's fine.
	If you had any doubt which side the media was on, they answered that by the way they covered this audit.
	Very one-sided, unfortunately.
	It's the amazing thing.
	It's the predictive wrongness of the media.
	Whatever they say, just assume that it's the exact opposite and you're going to be more right.
	More often.
	Australia, the world's largest open-air prison.
	Horrible what is going on down under.
	Also remember, Australians are descended from both prisoners and their jailers.
	We in the USA have an...
	Okay.
	And we're going to get Avi Aminian because he'll be able to freely and remorselessly discuss what's going on in Australia.
	So stay tuned for that.
	Okay.
	While we're talking about what you're able to say, free speech, First Amendment, I guess some good news of the week.
	Amia Cahoon.
	We talked about this a while back.
	I did a vlog on it a while back.
	Illegal social media posts.
	Amia Cahoon at the time was a 16-year-old high school student, was hospitalized for an upper respiratory infection issue, was told that it was COVID, but apparently tested negative in the hospital.
	And so they said you might have passed the window of opportunity for a positive diagnosis for COVID, but your symptoms appear to be COVID.
	She made two social media posts, and it was the second one that landed a sheriff at her house, telling her to take down the Instagram post, or as she went into the house to do it, he said to her father, or people will start going to jail, or we'll be taking people to jail.
	And who's the one that shows up, the sheriff or the sergeant?
	I forget which one talks to the other, but one of them showed up at the door, told her to take down the post, threatened her.
	She went to do it.
	While she's doing it, The sheriff or the sergeant talks to her dad and says, her dad's like, I can't believe you guys are threatening to take me to jail for this.
	Amiya comes back, overhears this, felt pressured, yada, yada, yada.
	It was a joke at the time.
	I mean, it's an unfathomable thing that someone would come to your door and ask you to delete a post that is not an overt threat against a specific individual or entity or something a little more shocking, outrageous, insightful than, hey, I'm going to survive my fight with COVID-19.
	Apparently the school, after her post, was getting a number of calls.
	They didn't like it.
	It was creating a panic.
	And so the police officer felt empowered to demand that she remove the post because it was tantamount to screaming fire in a crowded theater.
	Well, anyhow, she sued.
	First Amendment, 14th Amendment violations.
	I forget what 14th Amendment is.
	Is it equal protections, Robert?
	The 14th Amendment is the means by which the rest of the Constitution is enforced against a local or state government.
	Okay, so she sued First Amendment, 14th Amendment, and I guess predictably in a sane world, won.
	I mentioned it in my video from yesterday, Steve Leto did a great breakdown of it, where he was flabbergasted by apparent false statements that the attorneys for the sheriff made publicly to the effect that no one was threatened with arrest when the body cam footage and all of it was viewable, and the agreed statement of facts in the judgment said...
	Yeah, we threatened to take people to jail, or we made that statement.
	So bottom line, they concluded that the officer coerced through threats, reprisals, a violation of fundamental free speech rights.
	The judge said, you know, social media, it might be a place where free speech is crass, typos, and yada, but it is free speech by definition.
	So, I mean...
	I don't know what damages she's going to get, Robert.
	Is she going to get legal fees?
	Oh, yeah.
	Because the 42 USC 1983 claim, so the government actors involved are going to have to pay her legal fees.
	And that's usually the biggest impact of that kind of suit.
	And the other big, the nice thing to see was the court's language at the beginning of the case, where it said, yeah, it's a scary pandemic, but that's no excuse to suspend constitutional liberties.
	And so it's good to see courts start to come back to that language, come back to that understanding in this context, especially.
	This was the first big pushback legally by the courts in the speech context concerning COVID censorship.
	And it was a big win for those purposes.
	Yeah, the judge, it was a great analogy or a great way of describing it.
	Free speech is not a toggle that the government can turn off and on depending on what the circumstances are.
	Probably a lesson that other governments throughout the world should learn.
	Lo and behold, in Australia, you will get arrested for a social media post if you're encouraging a protest.
	In Canada, we're not there yet, but we're not that far.
	So hopefully we'll keep the pressure on and people's eyes open and minds open.
	In Aussie land, they'll beat you up to make sure you don't get COVID.
	Pretty soon they're going to start shooting you to stop you.
	I'm going to make sure you don't get COVID.
	I'm going to just kill you first.
	And then I was going to be cynical and say, cause of death.
	COVID.
	Yeah, that would be exactly it.
	It's like the South Park pandemic episode.
	Australia saw that episode and thought, oh, we should live this out.
	Where they shoot, the cops become the teachers because the teachers can't work because of COVID.
	And the cops got laid off because of COVID.
	So they go in and they become teachers.
	Then they end up shooting the only black student.
	And they blame COVID.
	And they're like, if it wasn't for COVID, we wouldn't have been here.
	And if we wouldn't have been here, then we wouldn't have shot them.
	So it's COVID's fault.
	I mean, that's the world in which we reside.
	I'm going to say the one good thing about the judgment, the judge says, good times and bad, free speech has its value, and free speech is fundamental, primordial, and it should be equally as much even if you...
	You know, you're in a crisis.
	And what the judge said is the analogy is always misdescribed screaming fire in a crowded theater.
	It's falsely screaming fire in a crowded theater to cause panic.
	And, you know, this girl was saying that she suffered from COVID.
	I mean, even if it's an outright fabrication, which it doesn't sound like it was because she was in the hospital for upper respiratory issues, that's not going to cause a stampede that's going to kill people.
	And if the school doesn't like it...
	Well, I mean, I guess they can sick the police on her, which is what they did.
	Okay, what are we going to do now?
	Speaking of speech and press, Infowars filed suit this week against the Biden administration because the Biden administration decided the problem with all their border crisis issues wasn't that there's a border crisis issue of people flooding across and all the other issues related to it.
	It was that people knew about it and that people were photographing it.
	So they came up with a solution.
	Well, you know, we can, that almost all of this was by drone footage.
	So they decided, well, we get to control the air at the border.
	So we're going to put in a special order, a special rule.
	No more drones.
	Over any place that could expose the Biden administration, basically, concerning the immigration crisis.
	So one of the people who was using drones to capture video footage concerning it was Infowars, Mr. Alexander Emmerich Jones.
	And so Infowars filed suit against the Biden administration this week because that is a patent First Amendment violation, right, of access of the press.
	And the freedom of the press to be able to document and detail it.
	It's obvious the drones pose no imminent threat to anything except to the Biden administration's credibility.
	So this one I'm more skeptical.
	I didn't read the lawsuit, but knowing what I know about drone regulations in Canada, I have my license.
	I took the course.
	I passed the course.
	Weren't there some allegations of illegal drone usage?
	Apparently you're not allowed using them to transport living animals.
	So the question would be, is hooking a fish with a drone transporting a living animal?
	That's not transporting.
	There's haters out there who want to criticize for no good reason.
	Glorious, is what that video was.
	But I know the way that drones are regulated here.
	You can't fly them over crowded areas.
	You can't fly them over built-up cities.
	You can't fly them over a federal, I'm trying to think of the word, basically federal property, train tracks, ports.
	You basically, you can't fly a drone in Canada anymore, effectively.
	So, I mean, who authorized the restriction in the United States?
	Do they go through the FAA?
	Is there an Administrative Procedures Act violation?
	Is there a Procedure that had to be followed in order to implement the rule in the first place.
	It was a temporary emergency drone order, which they've used before.
	They used when they didn't like the filming going on at the protest of the Keystone pipeline.
	Maybe it wasn't the Keystone, maybe it was the other pipeline.
	They didn't like those drones, so they put in a special order too, and then they knew it was going to get challenged and revoked it.
	It was a temporary emergency order.
	It didn't go through any APA process.
	It was just by an executive branch agency, and it's clearly targeting press.
	And that's the problem.
	So it's a clear-cut First Amendment violation.
	It's not like some...
	They didn't come up with a neutral drone policy that said, okay...
	I mean, Canada understands how to do this.
	To have a totalitarian country, it needs to be total.
	So, you know, no drones anywhere.
	You know, maybe that would have worked.
	But that's not what they did.
	They basically said, no drones over this region right here where you keep exposing our bad political conduct.
	It is so outrageous.
	And the drone footage revealed serious stuff.
	Why were the media not...
	Granted access on the ground, if I can ask a stupid question before I finish it.
	Well, some of it's difficult places to get access to, and they have a little bit more.
	There's been constant fights about that, too.
	The media sued in the past over the Biden administration over limiting physical access there.
	But some of it's dangerous issues, some of it's ease of access, and then some of it's legal issues.
	It's just the easiest way to get the footage is drone footage.
	And it's like there you don't have to have physical access.
	You don't have to risk somebody being on the ground.
	You don't have to deal with the legal issues of all that can be implicated.
	You don't have to go at what Lauren Southern went through.
	She talked about her sidebar.
	Hiding out in different places, end up in a Turkish prison, all of those kind of experiences.
	You can short-circuit all that if you just send a drone in.
	And just so everybody understands in Canada, first of all, the first fishing video was before they changed the regulation.
	The second fishing video was after, but there's still an argument whether or not that's transported.
	And it's not criminal anyhow.
	But what I was going to say, in Canada, for anybody who doesn't know, you need to pass the license before you can fly any drone over 300 grams.
	250 or 300.
	You always must retain the drone within eyeshot without assisted viewing.
	So no binoculars.
	You have to have your license.
	You have to have it on you.
	You have to have $1 million liability insurance to fly the drone.
	Canada has done to drones what they did to firearm ownership.
	They've criminalized what was otherwise a fun hobby of law-abiding citizens.
	What if a squirrel kidnaps it?
	Someone asked the question, why don't they just fly it over from the Mexican side?
	How close are these places to the border?
	They're right along the border.
	Yeah, not a bad question.
	But essentially, within a certain range, on both sides of the border, there's certain federal authority, but they're clearly using it for unconstitutional purposes in this case.
	And so, E Unum Pluribus says, they also shut down the bridge, because a selfie stick from an SUV window would have worked just as well.
	I don't know.
	Did they shut down the bridge, Robert?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	So that's either a good joke, or the onion becomes reality.
	Lawyer referrals for U.S. service members trying to fight the vaccine mandate.
	Yeah, I mean, there's several that are currently.
	The thing with that is you may have to go through your internal administrative procedures.
	So there's several cases pending already on behalf of soldiers, but whether or not they have to exhaust administrative remedies first is the big sort of unresolved question.
	And so there's several military lawyers waiting to see how that filters out first.
	And actually, I should have asked you, what conclusion is Infowars seeking, and are they looking for an injunction or a temporary restraining order?
	Injunction.
	They just want a declaration injunction that they have a right to put their drones up there.
	Okay.
	Actually, one question before I forget.
	I know everybody's asking or everyone is talking about it.
	The Petito laundry story, which has been all over the news.
	I mean, multiple headlines on every website.
	One of the questions that was being floated this week, some people are operating on the basis that Laundrie is no longer among the living based on where law enforcement is searching for him.
	The question is everybody wants justice, which you're never going to be able to get in a circumstance like this in any event.
	The question is whether or not the parents could be sued because some people were floating the idea of not suing, let's get to civil afterwards, but prosecuting the parents for what occurred in this case.
	I mean, I'm not venturing out of my field of expertise.
	I have none here.
	My understanding is that it's just always incredibly difficult to go after family.
	You'd have to have a specific, like, harboring a fugitive, knowingly doing something.
	Is there any basis for any potential criminal prosecution of the parents from what you know up to now?
	And then we'll get into the civil side.
	Well, at least not usually in Florida.
	Florida has laws that effectively deter and discourage the ability to criminally prosecute family members for those kind of alleged activities.
	They would have to be much more complicit and culpable.
	Though Allison Morrow has a good story.
	Apparently she accidentally interviewed someone who might have been a murderer.
	She had no idea about, but that it was also like a family murder case.
	She might have some professional experience in dealing with people like that.
	In Florida, very, very difficult.
	Also, it's just generally difficult, hard to do.
	It's more of a law enforcement threat, typically, than something they follow through on.
	Being able to prove that's also tricky.
	It's when somebody is not family.
	And is harboring someone and gives them money.
	Okay, you have an inference that they knew what they were doing was criminal.
	If your family member shows up and says, I need keys to the car and some cash, do you think, oh, wow, this must be to help a crime?
	Probably not.
	And in Florida, they have specific laws that make it hard.
	Yeah, that's what I was told.
	I don't know what those specific laws are, but that was sort of my understanding as well.
	On the civil side, I mean, let's assume Laundrie, the male accused, is of the age of majority.
	Age of minority, you can go after the parents civilly because they're still responsible in some sense for the acts of their kids, exceptions aside.
	Civil liability against the parents?
	Oh, that's always possible.
	That's always possible.
	That someone can sue in those instances to claim...
	I mean, it would be interesting how that suit would be in this case, but theoretically there could be a suit, yeah.
	Okay.
	And now, Jose Ruiz, if you intended to put a chat with that super chat...
	Put it in, but don't put another super chat in, because every now and again, happens to me.
	You put in a super chat, and you think you put in the comment, but you hit send, and then your money goes out without the actual value that you were looking for with that super chat, unless it was just to support us.
	In which case, either way, thank you very much.
	Alright, before we run low on time, Robert, let's do the gun rights lost for mootness, because I don't know what that is.
	So, break it down.
	That's the case we discussed a month or so ago, which was the Fourth Circuit case that established that...
	That the law prohibiting gun ownership in 18, 19, and 20-year-olds violated the Second Amendment.
	Well, while the case was pending, because it takes forever for these cases to go through, of course, the main plaintiff became 21. And the court suddenly decided, oh, this case is now moot because this person is now 21 and is now isn't subject to it.
	So we're going to vacate the whole case and dismiss it.
	So it's like they came up with all these excuses why it was the right thing to do and valuable to do.
	Moutonness is a made-up doctrine in the first place.
	It's not a constitutionally rooted doctrine.
	It's just for courts to play Pontius Pilate.
	They had a controversial case with an original panel split.
	And rather than defend their opinion before an en banc hearing, they decided to dismiss it on mootness grounds.
	Even though there's a doctor that says capable of repetition yet evading review, they don't even discuss it in their opinion.
	Because clearly a case that is likely almost always going to take more than three years to go through the whole legal process, it will always be moot over and over again.
	So that was the doctrine.
	I was like, well, how do they deal with this?
	Oh, they don't.
	So it was kind of preposterous, but it's another Pontius Pilate excuse by a court so that that precedent is no longer precedent anymore.
	I've learned now about U.S. law.
	Is there not the exception to mootness of the likelihood of repeating or recurring of the issue?
	And this is going to recur for everyone who's 18 to 20 years old.
	How do you get past that?
	Dismissed on mootness.
	Pretending that issue isn't there.
	That's how this panel did.
	They didn't discuss it.
	I mean, that was the screaming issue right at the top.
	This happens in election cases.
	I litigate it all the time.
	It's like, this is classic, capable of repetition, yet evading effective full appellate review.
	And they don't even talk about it.
	So, I mean, really what it was is they didn't want to argue their case in front of the whole en banc panel, so they dumped it.
	Now, maybe they knew something about the en banc panel that I don't know.
	Maybe they knew the en banc panel might reverse their decision, and they thought it was better to dump it than to get reversed.
	Don't know.
	But that's what they ultimately did.
	All right.
	I just said to Psy and Quant's beautiful dogs in that avatar.
	And bringing this up here, yes, it's 250 grams takeoff weight.
	So with the battery in, taking off.
	So my Mavic...
	Or my Spark weighed less than 250 without the battery, but they got that too.
	And the problem is, if it's under 250 grams, you have to have a powerful engine to deal with the wind, and then you don't, generally speaking, have good video quality on it.
	The Mavic, sorry, the Spark was particularly good for the weight, but even still.
	Okay, no more drone talk.
	Let me go back to our list, Robert.
	What do we say here?
	Whistleblower rights restore.
	Oh, we'll get to that one afterwards.
	Whistleblower rights.
	What's the subject there?
	Oh, so what it is, is in the federal system and in the state system, you have a lot of whistleblower claims you can bring.
	Some of the laws require that you be right in your whistleblowing.
	So you think you see something illegal.
	Let's say it turns out you get fired because you raised questions about it.
	Let's say it turns out it wasn't illegal.
	In some laws, that defeats your claim.
	However, in a lot of other statutes, it's unclear.
	And in my view, those should be based on the employee's perceptions.
	So if you have a good faith belief that you're reporting something illegal, because that's the whole point.
	The whole point is if you see something illegal, report it.
	If it turns out you're wrong, okay, fine, no harm.
	But no adverse action should happen to you.
	And so what happened was a lower court dismissed a claim on the grounds that every whistleblower claim had to be objectively true.
	And if it wasn't, even if you got fired for blowing the whistle, if what you blew the whistle on turned out not to be illegal, you would be permanently screwed.
	And this would just discourage whistleblowing across the board.
	Correctly, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that, reinstated the verdict, or remained it for a different verdict.
	And that was a big win for whistleblowers across the country.
	So it depends on the nature of the law, but it reestablished that unless the law specifically states an objective requirement, that should always be a subjective good faith requirement in the context of whistleblowing.
	You know, if you see something, say something, but if you are wrong about what you thought you saw, we're going to prosecute you for wrongful arrest or filing a false police report.
	Similar analogy.
	So that's very interesting.
	Another big appellate case was Facebook took a big, big loss on Section 230 immunity.
	This was also out of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
	And what it was is that right within Section 230, it says this does not apply to any intellectual property claims.
	The question is that's open that where there's been a split so far in the courts was what about invasion of privacy?
	Stealing my image claims.
	Because I think this could be much broader than the claim brought in this particular case.
	In this case, what happened was somebody used...
	It's called likeness.
	You have a right to your own likeness.
	This local popular, real virtuous kind of reporter, that's the image.
	Well, apparently, you have to dig down in the case.
	You find out what happened is they were using her image to advertise for dating websites and erectile dysfunction.
	So, needless to say, she was not a fan of this.
	So, not only are they using her likeness for monetary purposes without her benefiting from it, she wasn't a big fan of promoting those particular products in the first place.
	But people thought she was.
	They're like, hey, we saw you on the dating website.
	We saw you.
	I mean, all this other stuff.
	Oh, we saw.
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay, you like that.
	That's what leads you to smile.
	And so she sued.
	Facebook said, oh, this is Section 230.
	Yeah, sure, these people are putting up advertisements, but we're totally immune.
	This is third-party content.
	We can't be responsible.
	District Court agreed.
	Third Circuit wisely, in my view, reversed and said, no, intellectual property is exempt under Section 230.
	It's not protected under Section 230.
	And when you're suing for someone misusing your likeness, that fundamentally...
	Is it an intellectual property claim?
	There's a lot of cases that could fit within that.
	And I think it raises a whole new set of claims.
	Like, in my view, what YouTube has done, what Facebook has done, in some cases what Twitter has done, is use someone's goodwill, and that's what they said was the property, protectable property interest here, is use someone's goodwill to build up YouTube, to build up Facebook, to build up Twitter.
	And then censor and delete them when it becomes politically convenient.
	My view is you could argue under this theory that that's an intellectual property deprivation that has occurred, an unjust enrichment that has occurred, that misused and misappropriated their goodwill that they should be able to sue for with intellectual property now fitting as an exemption from Section 230.
	So I think it opened up a door to potentially unique legal remedies and relief against big tech.
	That's fantastic.
	And that's also along the lines of what we have in Canada, where they're using someone's likeness in a way that might embarrass them or subject them to ridicule.
	That's very interesting.
	So longer-term ramifications of what that could mean for people who have...
	What could be the longer-term ramifications of that particular decision?
	I think anybody...
	Whose goodwill has profited big tech and then big tech has later stripped them of the value of that or commodified it for their own benefit and then censored them after the fact.
	Theoretically, they could have an unjust enrichment claim on the grounds that their goodwill was transported to big tech in ways that were unjust because they were then deprived of that ongoing value of goodwill on a going forward basis.
	Do you know what district that decision came out of?
	Filed in Philadelphia.
	It was the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, maybe one or two other states.
	I think maybe Delaware.
	And the other question was, was this in respect of, sorry, let me bring that down, individual users or customers?
	Because in this particular case, she wasn't suing as a user.
	She was suing as someone whose image was being used.
	But I don't see why it would necessarily be limited to someone in her particular procedural posture.
	Okay, excellent.
	And now I guess a good segue to the next one, and hopefully we're going to get a few more in.
	The Twitter defamation lawsuit that the computer guy in the Hunter Biden laptop story filed, surprise, surprise, was dismissed.
	And the reasons for which it's dismissed, you could have written them in advance, knowing, I guess, if you wanted to know where a court was going to go.
	For those of you who don't know, the computer repairman guy who gave the computer to the FBI, I think Twitter at some point suggested that it was the product of a hack.
	And so this guy had his business destroyed because people thought he hacked into a client's computer.
	He sued Twitter for defamation, and the judge basically dismissed the lawsuit on the basis that...
	Twitter never referred to him by name.
	It was other news outlets that did.
	And Twitter can basically decide what to put up and what not to put up and say on their website.
	And therefore, this guy is left holding a big bag of nothing.
	Did I miss some facts in there, Robert?
	No, this is the same judge we said you knew her bias because she summarily sua sponte at the beginning of the case said, why shouldn't this be dismissed for Section 230 grounds when Section 230 had no application?
	But it gave you an idea of where that judge's mindset was coming from.
	And so the ruling is, to me, nonsensical.
	It clearly contradicts what they did in the Alex Jones cases.
	It's another illustration where, and Alex Jones never talked about anybody by name that's, for the most part, I don't think anybody that's suing him, at least most of the people that are suing him, he ever talked about ever by name.
	And yet, those suits somehow magically can just keep marching on.
	Every single one of them.
	And yet here's a suit where clearly he's being referred to.
	So the rule in defamation is that you don't have to be referred to by name.
	If in the story, people in your local community would know the story is about you, that's defamation.
	Period.
	Clearly, everybody in his community knew what Twitter was saying was about him.
	And if I may show off some of my acquired knowledge, that's the Kentucky Fried Chicken defamation case, if I'm not mistaken.
	Yeah, not referring to him by name, but somehow they didn't identify him, but everyone else was able to identify him in the media.
	Doesn't seem to make all that much sense.
	The ruling is bad defamation law.
	It's based on a biased judge who wanted to rule in favor of big tech, particularly in the Biden context.
	Hopefully he'll be reversed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
	This is black letter law.
	When you do this analysis, you don't say, did they refer to them or not?
	Did they show them or not?
	You say simply, when somebody in this person's community reads this story, will they know it's about him?
	By that standard, it's obvious they knew it was about him because that's how he suffered damages.
	I mean, obviously, and everybody knew it was him.
	Everyone knew to then put the social media pressure on him.
	And what else?
	She effectively gave Twitter 230 immunity in her judgment.
	She said Twitter can decide what to publish and what not to publish on their websites.
	Defamation be damned.
	Yeah.
	And that's also bad law.
	She thought that right away from the get-go.
	Protect Big Tech.
	Cover for Big Tech.
	It was clear that's what the judge's motivation was, and she just continued with that, even though the law says otherwise.
	So hopefully the 11th Circuit reverses and reinstates his claim.
	All right, now I'm going to go to live chat on locals, Robert, but I don't know that there's a way to bring up the liked questions.
	Do we have questions from locals that we should address?
	Well, there was one other primary topic to cover, which was a debate, I think Nate, or some other people, I forget who else, about the pardon issue.
	Which is, I have long argued that accepting a pardon is not a legal confession of guilt, period.
	It's simply because part of the reason why you might be pardoned is that, in fact, you were never guilty in the first place, and that's the conclusion of the executive officer who pardons you.
	However, there was some loose language in some cases that I thought was being misapplied that people led them to believe that if you accepted a pardon, it constituted a legal confession of guilt.
	A case went up that was one of Trump's pardons, one of the people that was in Afghanistan that ended up being put into prison under military law based on alleged violations of military protocol.
	It was an incident in which he was accused of murdering people.
	There was a lot of people who looked at it who had serious questions and who thought it was really the Obama administration that had created that situation or circumstance to politicize and weaponize certain groups against other groups.
	So Trump looked at the case, had serious doubts about the person's guilt, and pardoned him.
	He is seeking habeas petition relief because there are still collateral consequences from his prior conviction that he wishes to set aside based on legal violations that happened in the original military proceedings.
	The district court said, no, you can't anymore.
	You accepted a pardon.
	That's a legal confession of guilt.
	Went up to the 10th Circuit.
	10th Circuit said, no, that's wrong.
	Accepting a pardon has never been and is not legal acceptance of any guilt whatsoever.
	It has no ramifications beyond the fact that the system can no longer punish you in a certain way.
	And you can continue to pursue habeas petition relief if there's any collateral consequences you're still trying to set aside.
	So a very good ruling to enforce the rights of people who are pardoned and not punish them again for the fact that they're pardoned.
	I mean, it's interesting, and I'm just thinking Steve Bannon in particular with We Build the Wall.
	There were some developments in that that I might have to do a follow-up on.
	So the idea is, okay, a court of appeal says it's no admission, yada, yada, yada.
	First of all, is this precedent now?
	There's no conflicting appeals decision from another circuit?
	Nope, nope.
	It's the only precedent on the appellate court level in American history.
	And now the question is going to be this.
	Notwithstanding the court of appeal precedent, The lingering effect that this might have in other issues.
	I mean, I guess it's a legal distinction, so there will never be able to use the acceptance of a pardon as the basis for any form of admission in the context of criminal or civil liability.
	Exactly.
	Well, that's very good.
	That'll answer, that'll take some pressure off, I guess, Steve Bannon and others, but very interesting.
	We'll have to see what Nate and others have to say if they disagree with that Court of Appeals decision.
	What else, Robert?
	We've got six minutes left.
	I think that covers most of the main primary topics.
	There are a few smaller cases to discuss, but we'll save those for another week.
	And let me just make sure if we got everything that we covered in the last week.
	All right, I guess we could end it up summarizing the week in Canadian politics, which...
	Did not turn out the way I thought it was going to turn out, or at least hoped it was going to turn out.
	But it's an amazing thing.
	We've talked about this, we've covered this, but the machine in Canada, people talking about the voting, people raising the D word of voting machines, which is not an issue in Canada, but it's like the Time magazine article.
	The true system and the true issues are not these theories that some lawyers were floating.
	It's the way the system actually works itself, which is media working in tandem with government to redirect, to silence, to manipulate, to mislead, and to suppress voices so they can manufacture the outcome they want and give the illusion a free choice.
	It was the Time magazine article, but on less steroids in Canada, in that you have the state-sponsored media.
	Cutting off voices, demonizing, working in tandem with the government that subsidizes them so that when people go to the voting booth, they only have one or two names in their head and what they think about those one or two names is going to be largely influenced by the media.
	I had reported one thing actually in the follow-up video.
	I said 37% turnout.
	For whatever the reason, Global News, when they were giving the updates, were giving the voter turnout but on a...
	Adjusted basis.
	As votes came in, they would turn the 37% into 52%.
	Whatever.
	56% voted in my writing.
	I was able to get 1,498 votes.
	So discouraging.
	And discouraging the way the election went overall, except Trudeau still has his minority government.
	And other discouraging stuff for the rest of the week.
	But it was a very interesting run, Robert.
	I'm not sure that I will repeat it unless I absolutely have to.
	But I ran for the country.
	Now I feel...
	Free to run from the country if it turns into Australia.
	But Robert, okay, so give everyone watching some hope for the future, hope for the next week, what we should look out for, and what we can expect.
	Well, I mean, it's good news that there's at least 1,496 more non-communists in your district than might otherwise be expected.
	And I think you quadrupled or almost quintupled the prior vote there.
	And the PPC did break 5%, which substantially exceeded the 3.7 expectations that the oddsmakers set, so people who bet on the PPC did well, despite the near-media blackout and debate blackout of the PPC in Canada.
	So if even, you know, quiet, tolerant...
	It's okay if you run over me now.
	It's almost like the British guy in National Lampoon's European vacation.
	It's kind of the way the Canadian response is to authoritarianism.
	But it's good to see any fight back.
	And in fact, same thing in Germany.
	The AFD, I think, is going to break double digits again.
	And Merkel's party is going to suffer.
	Trudeau, he didn't call this election to get the same minority government he already had.
	He called it to get a majority.
	The fact that he didn't is a sign that people are not satisfied with these authoritarian policies, even in jurisdictions where it's generally thought to be accepted.
	And the fact that we're seeing cases win in multiple cases, three cases now, win at least temporarily against vaccine mandates in liberal New York.
	It shows that the pushback is real and substantial and palpable.
	And as long as people continue to do so, they continue to battle it out in the court of public opinion.
	They'll continue to influence the court of law, continue to influence the court of legislators.
	And that's how real change and real reform happens.
	And so lots of reasons for optimism amidst the clouds and dark skies that some might see in some places.
	And I'll say, actually, the fact that the PPC broke 4%, so I think they were at 5 point something, they get 50% of their election expenses back.
	So that's also that, which means the campaign, the party's doing very well, and they're just going to regroup and push harder next time.
	Actually, Robert, before we forget, Viva Fry, what are the books over Barnes' shoulders?
	So I guess this is how we'll end it this week.
	So that's the collapse from Jared Diamond.
	Talks about how when societies mishandle things like viruses.
	They can collapse overnight.
	And the crowd and the popular mind, which reminds people that it's like what Mark Twain said.
	If you ever find yourself in the majority, reconsider your opinion.
	So there's a lot of wisdom to that.
	And it's good to see so many people independently fight back despite massive, massive...
	Coercive pressure.
	It shows the power of the conscience and the individual mind to always push back against authoritarian or institutional rule.
	And it's always been.
	It's what somebody said a long time ago.
	The greatest schools of learning can never be closed.
	The rights of man, the conscience of man, and the archives of nature.
	And if you listen and pay attention to both and use your conscience and cognitive capabilities, then you can find ways to push back.
	And that will be a good preview for our Wednesday sidebar with the good philosophy professor, Dr. Gordon Prescott Barnes, on ways to continue to think and debate and discuss a wide range of topics with a wide range of people.
	Robert, I'm getting into your childhood through your brother.
	So everyone, be forewarned.
	All right, everyone in the chat, thank you very much for tuning in.
	As always, share this around, post highlights, whatever you want.
	Thank you for the support.
	Thank you for the encouragement.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	This will be out on podcast tomorrow and on Locals Direct tomorrow as well.

▲