Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 3, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:03:51

Ep. 81: VIva & Barnes Weekly Dose of Law!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We're going live two seconds early and I think I'm going to do something different tonight.
	I'm going to use headphones when Robert comes in and we're going to see if it makes a difference.
	Robert's not in yet and I'm not using the headphones just yet because I hate headphones.
	I like hearing everything around me impeccably unless I'm trying to sleep in which case I use earplugs but I still hear everything around me impeccably.
	Good evening everyone.
	It is going to be another...
	Big night.
	In fact, there were so many things to talk about tonight, I couldn't fit them all in the title, even by reference, so I figured I would just leave the YouTube title generic, and we would go over the big stories of the week.
	Vaccine mandates, Stuart Schiller, Scheller, Giuliani, Dominion.
	There's a lot of stuff to talk about tonight.
	But before we get there, I'm going to do the standard intro, the standard disclaimers, a little bit of a rant.
	And then we're going to get into the stream.
	First of all, let me just make sure that everyone is giving me the F. Uh, good.
	I love this.
	We've created a meme for the channel, and now I just lost both superchats that I was intending to bring up.
	One was from Mandatory Carry, and the other one was from...
	Son of a beast thing.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	I think I have the solution.
	While we do this, everyone.
	While everyone trickles in, I can go to...
	The YouTubes.
	I can pause myself.
	I can look here and I can see that I can't pull up the Super Chats on YouTube either.
	Well, there we go.
	I screwed up.
	All right.
	On that note, Super Chats.
	Not a right of entry into the conversation.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, don't give the Super Chat.
	If I don't pull up your Super Chat and that's going to upset you, don't give the Super Chat.
	Don't let people feeling upset.
	We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble takes 20% of what they call Rumble rants on Rumble.
	It is a lesser amount, better for the creator, better for those who want to support a platform that supports free speech.
	Some people have issues with Rumble in that you need to, I think, register with an email address and potentially even a cell number.
	There will be no perfect platform.
	Some people have faulted me or asked me to go on Odyssey, on Rockfin, a lot of these other platforms.
	I am, for the time being, favoring Rumble in that I don't want to distract and dilute all these other platforms, confuse viewers as to where to go.
	It's YouTube and Rumble for me.
	And Locals, obviously, everything is always on Locals.
	These streams are uploaded direct to Locals.
	So even if they get taken down, which they don't, they will always be findable on Locals.
	Let's go brand on.
	I don't know who that is.
	We got a new member.
	Booyah!
	Sea Winter became a member.
	Very nice.
	Welcome to the family, Sea Winter.
	So that is the intro disclaimers.
	I do my best to get to all the super chats.
	I do my best to get to a lot of chats.
	Who's Brandon?
	What's going on with Brandon?
	But I won't get to all of them.
	And if it's going to upset you, if I don't bring up the highlighted chat, don't give it.
	And if it's an abusive chat, I reserve the right not to bring it up.
	And if I do bring up something that is abusive, chances are I didn't read it in advance.
	I don't think this is going to be bad because I remember the avatar.
	Please don't be worried with talk of microaggression and white supremacy.
	These are all politically motivated, are often paid, and are all not good faith actors.
	Oh, well, good segue into the rant.
	So, yesterday, for anyone who saw my Viva on the street, I went bowling with the kids.
	My three kids, one of their friends, to my bowling alley.
	I mean, I have a hundred games that are prepaid for games because that's how often I go bowling.
	And I have them in my bowling bag.
	They're two and a half years old now because I haven't bowled 100 games in the last two years because of life.
	Didn't even think about the whole vaccine passport thing because it's a rainy day.
	Kids have been bothering me to go...
	Not bothering me.
	Kids have been asking to go bowling for a while because I like going bowling as much as the kids.
	And it's a rainy day and we go.
	And then I show up to the front door and I see those signs that are all over the place now.
	The QR code with the warning.
	Showing proof of vaccination in order to enter.
	And my stomach sunk because I don't have the app.
	I'm not downloading the app.
	And I was just hoping they were going to not ask.
	Let me go in.
	The bowling alley was bone empty.
	Bone dry empty.
	It was empty.
	There were two families in there.
	It's Rose Bowl Lanes, or Key Plus for anybody who knows the area.
	Empty.
	This...
	18-year-old kid behind the counter asks me, and my immediate reflex, which is what everybody, you know, I'm sure the government doesn't not want to happen, doesn't mind if it happens.
	My immediate reflex was to get very angry with this particular individual who's asking me for my vax pass.
	And then I just, I realized it's not fair to get angry with him.
	Then the question becomes, what do I do?
	Do I go out, storm out, not go in protest?
	For my own political beliefs, with four kids, three of whom are mine and one friend, knowing full well there will be sobbing, it'll be a day ruined because daddy wants to stand up for his politics, or do I bite the bullet, do this, it put me in one hell of a bad mood, explain to the kids what's going on, why this is, as far as I'm concerned, immoral, unconstitutional, unscientific, and we bold.
	Which is what I chose to do.
	Then I do my Viva on the Street rant last night, and...
	I read the comments.
	Now, I was going to call them troll comments, but that's not a fair characterization because I think they're sincere, genuine comments.
	I was going to call them hater comments, but that's also an insincere, superficial way of writing off criticism that we don't like.
	So I'll just call them criticism.
	They're criticizing comments to the effect that a real man would have left and stuck to his principles, shown a good lesson to his kids.
	Others were to the effect that I've already been vaccinated, so I've already caved into the pressure of the machine, yada yada.
	And I'm going to go over them.
	There's some legitimate criticism.
	It's predictable criticism.
	I didn't need to see other people say it.
	These are all thoughts that went on in my head.
	But it goes back to that Jack Murphy, Tim Pool discussion that occurred about a week ago, where Tim Pool is like...
	Say no for your kids.
	Pull your kids from school.
	Don't let them play sports.
	Sacrifice their lives for your political beliefs.
	And if you don't, you are caving into the system.
	That's what allows it to keep running.
	Jack Murphy, who actually has kids, who actually has some meaningful life experience on the issue, saw it differently.
	And I tend to see it the way Jack Murphy does.
	But first things first, a lot of people in the comments to that video said, Viva, you should run for office.
	Which leads me to believe that there are a number of new faces here that are younger than two weeks old.
	So welcome to the channel, all of the new people.
	I just ran for office.
	So as my grandmother used to say, it might have been my second time, my first and my last.
	But we'll see.
	But I ran for office.
	And I'm saying this tongue-in-cheek.
	It's good to see new faces here.
	So welcome to the channel if you're new.
	And if you're new, I literally just ran for federal government for Canada.
	And to my...
	Depressing, soul-crushing realization.
	95% of Canada voted for more of this.
	Well, I should rephrase.
	95% of the one-third of...
	How many people voted?
	16 million voted.
	So 95% of the 58% of eligible voters who voted voted for more of this garbage.
	30% voted for Trudeau.
	30% for Conservatives.
	It's split among the parties, but it's all the same garbage with a different...
	A different odor.
	A different aroma.
	So, 95% of Canada voted for more of this.
	On the substance of the critiques, people saying your kids would have respected you for standing up for what you believe in.
	I mean, I don't want to accuse people of not having kids.
	I suspect that point of view is the Tim Pool point of view, and I say it with respect.
	It comes without the meaningful life experience.
	There's no five-year-old kid, eight-year-old kid, who's going to understand that daddy's standing up for what he believes in by taking the kid out of a bowling alley on a rainy day once they've heard the sound of the pins, seen the arcade games, seen that.
	No kid's going to understand that.
	And rightfully so, and understandably so.
	In fact, not only are they not going to understand it, you would actually...
	Successfully turn your kid against you politically and personally.
	Because a kid's not going to understand it.
	They're not going to grow up to say, oh, I remember that time that daddy stood up for his rights and didn't take us bowling on a rainy day because he wanted to stand up for his rights.
	All that you're going to actually do for anybody who has kids, you will traumatize the kid.
	Those are the types of events that will leave a lasting negative impact of their dad.
	Not a good one.
	Not a dad stood up for his rights.
	It was dad prioritized his politics.
	To deprive us of a day of bowling.
	And even if they are 35 years old and come to that realization that it was an act of defiance, political defiance, as a child they're not going to understand that and it's not going to create a proper dynamic between kid and parent.
	And you would actually turn a kid who might otherwise be a political ally in your pursuit against you.
	You might actually turn them against you politically later on in their life because they're not going to have good experiences with what it means to stand up for what you believe in.
	And then in terms of standing up for what you believe in, who thinks that it's going to do any good at that point in time to start a fight with this 18-year-old pitcher behind the counter at the bowling alley?
	Who thinks it's going to do anything good to start a fight with the bowling alley?
	Everyone says, yeah, the machine works because everyone abides by these rules.
	There are places to pick the battles to actually have a meaningful impact and not just to start fights for the sake of starting fights and not just to cut your nose off to spite your face.
	Good.
	I'll leave the bowling alley.
	I'll go home.
	Nothing will have changed.
	In fact, maybe something more will have changed by virtue of the fact that I'm expressing my thoughts about it.
	That battle, other than ruining a day for four kids, is not going to win anything on the substantive front.
	There was another thing that I had to think about doing here.
	Viva, the left finally had me a good meme, did they?
	Live NASCAR, live NASCAR crafting, F Joe Biden.
	Keep it YouTube friendly.
	Everyone can read that.
	Let's go, Brandon.
	Oh, and then the other thing.
	So, yeah, you're not going to win any battles there.
	You're actually just going to turn what would otherwise be your allies in this battle against you, both emotionally, spiritually, and probably politically later on.
	And you're picking a fight that's not going to do anything.
	This is the individual ants fighting that the government wants.
	Let them all fight among themselves in a bowling alley instead of actually concerting their efforts for meaningful change.
	And then for everybody who's saying, you took the jab, you already succumbed to the system.
	There's a thing that people don't actually appreciate is that the motivated reasoning on both ends of the spectrum smells the same.
	Somebody shaming me for having voluntarily of my own calculations taken a medical procedure, someone shaming me for that, judging me for that and telling me that I should not have submitted voluntarily on my own accord to a medical procedure is no better than someone who is shaming me for not submitting to a medical procedure.
	So the people who think They're making a point by saying, I never want to see you again.
	You took the jab.
	You're a traitor.
	Anybody shaming anyone for making their own medical decisions for themselves is no better whatever end of the spectrum you're on.
	And my whole point in all of this was that it is an individual choice.
	And notwithstanding my individual choice, I will vocally defend the rights of those who are making their own choice not to do this.
	And I will vocally criticize the system that is imposing these...
	Unscientific vaccine passports.
	And I won't willingly participate in it.
	But when you show up with four kids not realizing and not thinking, well, you're sort of at that point going to have to cut your losses.
	And your losses are not going to be to devastate four children because you don't want to compromise.
	Yes, it is called compromise.
	And maybe not in the best sense.
	Your political beliefs out of stubbornness for yourself.
	By the way, these are my battles.
	They're not necessarily the ones that I have to make my kids suffer for.
	But I do have my certain lines that will not be crossed, and hopefully they never get crossed.
	Let's see what we see here.
	David, you should become an alternate society without the app would be cool.
	Bongino had been predicting it for a while.
	We're going to have to have alternative economic platforms.
	They're talking about a divorce.
	They're talking about a secession in the States.
	Look, I do think at the end of the day, a lot of people are going to realize that even what they...
	Think is good now.
	Will not be good in a year.
	Madame Von Cook, who I know the Avatar has been around for a while.
	Welcome to the channel.
	Welcome to the membership.
	The membership on YouTube is sneak peeks and maybe some, you know, posts, private posts, not private posts, but posts for members.
	It's not as robust as is membership at Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Viva, you did the right thing.
	As far as your vaccination status, that is your choice.
	Choice is what we are all about or should be.
	Exactly.
	And thank you.
	And, like, you pick your battles and you pick the battles that are actually going to accomplish something.
	But I read the comments and people are entitled to their beliefs.
	I just think that these are very superficial, naive, what's the word?
	Idealistic visions of what it is to be a parent, what it is to be a kid, what kids are going to appreciate in retrospect, what they're going to even understand.
	You don't want to turn the kids off of the political fight by making it unnecessarily.
	When the issue is a big issue, then you take the stand and then you say, yeah, maybe in Quebec they're talking about the Fauci juice for 5 to 11-year-olds.
	Maybe there you'll have the discussion with the kids.
	But for an afternoon of bowling, it was just funny that the email that I had sent my papers to myself contained a humorous joke about showing the papers, yeah, when the police ask.
	It wasn't police this time.
	It was just the clerk at the bowling alley.
	Okay, rant over.
	Oh, I mean, just following that analogy, you know, when we went to New Brunswick and we crossed over the border and I was shocked to see border agents asking for papers.
	Hey, what do people...
	Okay, go home, Dave.
	Show them who's the man.
	Show them what your principles are.
	Cut your vacation short.
	Don't get the life experience of talking to people and seeing the world.
	Go home to your house.
	Shut down your YouTube channel because you're supporting the man.
	Shut your biggest voice off because you're supporting the man.
	Shut everything off.
	Go into your basement.
	That is exactly what they want because you are in your basement, no voice, not getting out there, seeing people, having the experiences.
	That they've won because you are silenced and you are silencing yourself.
	And you are punishing yourself to the point where life becomes miserable, and they will effectively, without doubt, have won already.
	So, let's read some Super Chats, because I see Robert is in the house.
	Viva, I actually disagree.
	I believe kids can understand.
	We cancelled Netflix because of Cuties.
	We explained to our young kids, and they got it enough.
	True, Stephen.
	But I guarantee you didn't cut off TV entirely.
	And so, look, Netflix, I don't know what we have.
	I think we have Netflix.
	But there are certain things that you can say, yeah, we're not doing this because.
	And there are certain things that we are doing this because.
	They can understand certain things, but I guarantee you, maybe you did cut off TV entirely out of protest for all things TV.
	And like I say, maybe some parents do that and they bank on their kids' understanding why they had to leave the bowling alley after they showed up with their bags and for an afternoon of fun.
	Maybe.
	But I don't think so.
	And, you know, cutting off Netflix is different than cutting off TV.
	I guarantee you guys still watch TV because there's still good stuff to watch out there.
	All right, rant over.
	But that was it.
	It was actually just...
	My stomach's been hurting a lot these days, and I don't know if it's an ulcer.
	I don't think it's an ulcer.
	I think I had an ulcer way back in the day.
	It's the nervous stomach, is what they call it.
	IBS and...
	Yeah, that's it.
	Okay, let's get a couple more chats before Barnes gets in here.
	This avatar, man.
	Every time, Jesse Bear.
	I think the problem is you view defending your rights as politics.
	I respect your opinion, but with this, we will have to agree to disagree.
	I don't like asking questions like, do you have kids?
	We don't have to agree.
	That's the beautiful thing about this.
	I saw one comment that said, what did they say?
	You lost me.
	I'm done.
	Unsubscribing.
	If our relationship, you and mine, Jesse Bear, is different because you're here and we can respectfully disagree on things that we don't agree on.
	But if anyone is here watching and their subscription and their following and their respect for me is based on agreeing with everything I say and do, it's not going to last very long because even I don't necessarily agree with everything I say or do over the course of time.
	But if that's what the relationship is predicated on, it is a relationship that is doomed to fail.
	We don't have to agree on everything.
	We just have to respect each other's opinion.
	And if you don't respect my thought process and my opinions, I don't expect you to hang around.
	But thank you, Jesse Bear, for the super chat and for the comment.
	And let's listen to this.
	You ran for office, which is more than what many people are willing to do.
	To me, you put your money where your mouth is.
	No need to explain when you took your kids bowling.
	Thank you very much.
	Oh, and the other thing, it's just the irony.
	People are telling me what to do with my life and saying I'm a coward and this and that through anonymous avatars on social media.
	But that is the nature of the beast.
	You have to live with it.
	Okay.
	Fair enough.
	Not saying you did the wrong thing, just disagreeing with the larger principle.
	You and Barnes are the only good thing on TV.
	Well, that is the perfect segue into the evening to bring on the Barnes.
	Robert, how you doing?
	Good, good.
	Okay, now I know that I'm on mute because I don't hear you.
	Let's try that again.
	Can you hear me now?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now, people, I don't want to do it.
	I think I'm going to do it.
	I look so much like my oldest brother right now.
	It's scary.
	Is the audio better for everybody watching now?
	Robert, do you find the audio better?
	It sounds the same to me.
	Okay.
	Well, with that said, the same is not worse, so we'll keep it unless anybody has any issues with this.
	We'll see.
	I hate earphones.
	Okay, Robert.
	First things first.
	Any Rittenhouse update that you are allowed to share?
	Nothing.
	I mean, just except for trial.
	Just set for trial in November.
	Okay, and in terms of deciphering, is there any last-minute document, video dump that's going on that they're going to have to decipher through, or nothing that we know of?
	Well, certain information has been requested, but hasn't been received yet, so we'll only know when we get it.
	Okay.
	Well, I guess we're going to do the update of the week, which is the vaccine mandate lawsuits.
	I mean, you heard my diatribe from the Canadian side of things.
	No bowling for you.
	No bowling for you.
	It's like you said, the soup Nazi.
	It's going to be everybody's a little mini Nazi.
	And the terrible thing is, I'm not going bowling again.
	That's the problem.
	I'm not going to go back, but I love bowling.
	That's the small sacrifice.
	I'll go over some whatever.
	There's been minimal updates on Canadian lawsuits, but at the end of this, Robert, what's going on in the States in terms of the vaccine mandate lawsuits updates?
	Sure.
	The media always highlights The mainstream institutional media highlights a certain version or interpretation of the cases that often isn't accurate.
	So, for example, in New York, there are three different cases currently pending, well, currently that have reached some preliminary ruling by a court.
	There's several other cases still pending.
	And one federal court has ruled that the absence of religious accommodations means that the vaccine mandate cannot go forward until there is complete religious accommodations.
	The Second Circuit also ruled the same way on that and said that unless there are religious accommodations, the vaccine mandate cannot go forward in another context.
	In a third context, people seeking an exception but not seeking it based on religious accommodations or medical exemptions, just seeking it based on the right to pursue their profession, they lost before the District Court, the Second Circuit, not in a published ruling.
	There isn't published rulings on this.
	This is just they're not issuing emergency relief.
	And then Justice Sotomayor did not issue emergency relief and, like Justice Barrett before her, did not refer the request for emergency relief to the whole court, which is unusual.
	The protocol is, for the last 30 or 40 years, for the Supreme Court to refer any injunctive request to the whole court.
	It's interesting that usually when you see a justice not do that, it's often because they fear that the whole court will disagree with them.
	And that's why they don't do it.
	So it's interesting that both Barrett and Sotomayor did not have faith that their decisions to not intervene.
	And that's what's key.
	There's been no ruling by the Supreme Court affirming anything.
	There's been no federal appellate court ruling other than the Seventh Circuit case affirming anything.
	So these are just, we're not going to get involved on an emergency basis.
	And the main reason the New York case, I think, didn't work is because the New York case was not seeking religious accommodations, not seeking medical accommodations, the one that went up.
	Not only that, they were not saying that any of their plaintiffs would actually get the vaccine.
	They said they're going to be temporarily unemployed, maybe permanently unemployed, undetermined because they were put on unpaid leave.
	But certain benefits were kept in place.
	And the problem with that is that, theoretically, money can remedy that.
	Whereas, like the case I'm bringing against Tyson Foods this week, is that the real problem is that people are being put to a choice, a Kafka-esque choice, of either get the vaccine or lose your job.
	And some of them will get the vaccine instead.
	And that's a permanent injury.
	That's a loss of constitutional liberties.
	That you can't get back.
	That no amount of money can ever remedy.
	And I think that they would have been better suited had they made that argument even to Justice Sotomayor.
	But that's where that state of cases are.
	There's a couple of other cases pending also.
	Now remind us again of what the Seventh Circuit decision was.
	That was the University of Indiana where they did a robust religious accommodation so there was only one plaintiff left.
	And that plaintiff was not someone with either a medical exemption claim or religious accommodation claim.
	And now the decision, in my view, was still a joke.
	And even there, they didn't issue a substantive merits decision.
	They just didn't issue emergency relief.
	That's what's happening.
	For example, there's a case filed in Louisiana against a hospital that after they kind of won the initial preliminary injunction ruling, they went and said if your spouse...
	Isn't vaccinated.
	You have to go pay a special fine to us.
	I mean, that gives you an idea for where their mindset is going.
	But what the court actually said was that there was a fundamental right not to get vaccinated that has to be overridden by certain limitations that might be present, but that at this temporary emergency stage, the court wasn't going to jump in.
	And it's important for the media, frankly, just lying to people.
	They're often interpreting these cases as merits cases when they're not.
	The very few cases that have been merits cases have said no vaccine mandate, which is what happened in Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
	There's now five decisions in just the last two weeks that have enjoined vaccine mandates if they don't provide for a robust religious accommodation.
	Those people that are denying religious accommodations have lost every single time they've gone to court now, going on six years, because this was also litigated in the flu vaccine context.
	Now, the medical, of the religious exemption, I think we all understand the robust exemption.
	Now, a couple of questions, we've discussed it before, but I'll ask it again.
	What is the criteria?
	What is the process to verify one's...
	Legitimacy in terms of a religious exemption?
	And someone asked, you know, if they're an atheist and they don't believe in any organized religion but they have convictions that they don't want to get the vaccine, do those count in what religious exemptions have to be provided?
	Like, how does it work on a practical basis?
	So, I pinned a comment earlier in the week at our Locals Board, vivabarnslaw.locals.com, which provides what the state of Tennessee provides.
	And this is what the law is.
	And it says, any deeply held belief, moral belief, other belief.
	Can constitute a religious accommodation and a religious objection.
	Your religious beliefs don't require organized religion, despite what the governor of New York thinks.
	Your religious beliefs don't require approval from a parish, from some religious official or authority figure.
	Nor do they require it be part of...
	You can be an atheist.
	That is a religion.
	I mean, of its own kind.
	Religious objections mean conscience objections.
	That's the best way to think of them.
	That's how the law interprets them.
	You have a deeply moral belief, spiritual belief.
	Like a religious belief or traditional conventional orthodox recognized religious belief.
	And if it has the same degree of commitment, it's protected in the same way.
	And this is the state of Tennessee puts this up about religious accommodations in this precise context.
	And so I quote it in the case that we're bringing this week against Tyson Foods in Tennessee.
	So I'm just bringing this up.
	Turning that says, Sad Miranda right is the only verbal response required, but religious rights require form, notary signature and approval.
	Is that the case?
	None of that is true.
	None of that is true.
	You may have some state or employer trying to do that, but that's illegal.
	I'm going to be linking up examples on our locals board this week to all the times the Obama administration's own Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued hospitals on behalf of nurses that had denied religious accommodations to the flu vaccine shot.
	And they said that was completely wrong, that it's a completely, you don't need approval, you don't need affirmation, you don't need it to be part of an orthodox religious tradition, you can disagree with other members of your same denomination.
	All of that doesn't matter.
	All that matters is that it's a religious belief and it's not something they're really entitled to inquire into.
	And a lot of employers are trying to, they're trying to be substitute priest, substitute pastor.
	They've been advised not to do that.
	You can just go back and look at various EEOC statements over the years, various other state bodies that deal with discrimination, and their advice is very consistent.
	It's don't ask many questions, period.
	If someone says they have a religious objection, end of story, move on.
	And they're trying to get around the religious objections and the way Tyson Foods ultimately dealt with it.
	Tyson Foods took that first position, too.
	That, oh, you're going to have to have more proof, and da-da-da-da.
	And then their lawyers talked to them after they knew I was going to be bringing suit, and they said, okay, never mind.
	We're going to recognize all religious objections.
	Now, how they're trying to do it is do it the way United dealt with it, which is to say, oh, we're not going to really fire you, but kind of fire you.
	Put you on a one-year leave of absence.
	And that's what I'm suing over.
	That's constructive termination and violation of their religious rights.
	It's also, in my view, a violation of the ADA.
	And Tennessee has its own version of the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Tennessee Human Rights Act.
	And most states have their own version of this.
	So you don't have to sue in federal court.
	You can sue in state court frequently.
	Because almost every the same right, sometimes you have more rights in state court than you do in federal court, depending on the circumstances.
	There was more soldier vaccine mandate lawsuits brought this week, more firemen and policemen vaccine mandate lawsuits brought this week, more employee vaccine mandate lawsuits brought this week.
	A very interesting one on behalf of nurses in Minnesota that is claiming that really this is federal discrimination through what the CDC is doing in its Medicaid reimbursement protocol.
	That they're basically enforcing this and that it didn't meet the proper constitutional or statutory scrutiny.
	So there's more and more creative theories, but there's going to be more lawsuits on this than anything like it in American history.
	By my estimate, already over 100 suits filed across the country.
	There'll be over 1,000.
	But within the next month or two.
	Which per capita would mean that even if Canada did file lawsuits, we should have at the very least 10 to 100 if we're going per capita lawsuits per person, but we're not seeing this out of Canada.
	I'll get to that in a bit.
	I brought up one chat which illustrates one of the problems in all of this is the manner in which all of this divides not just societies, but actual families within families.
	And you create these unnecessary divisions which become existential divisions.
	That literally tear families apart.
	And then I brought up another chat talking about, you know, what's being required of children now.
	And I'm calling them children.
	Coming out of California, Gavin Newsom issuing his order.
	Now it's going to be forced, not forced, sorry.
	It's just if you want to go to school, you're going to have to be vaccinated.
	I don't know how young it's going.
	I think it's 11 years old.
	They plan on going down to five years old.
	I mean, I anticipate we'll be filing suit, Bobby Kennedy and I, by the end of the month, as soon as certain clarity is made clear by the CDC, challenging any attempt to authorize this or approve this vaccine for anybody under the age of 15. There's major issues about that, legally and otherwise.
	And so that's going to be a contested issue as well in the courts.
	My view is that the drug makers want the kind of legal immunity that emergency use authorization, the only other place where you get that scale of immunity, is if you're on the kids list.
	And I think that's why there's a lot of pressure being brought on a lot of political actors to stick this on the kids list, despite...
	UK officials, the advisory committee saying it's a bad idea, despite parts of the World Health Organization even raising questions about it.
	People around the world raising questions about it.
	People who are for the vaccine in other contexts are saying, no, it's a bad idea to force this on kids.
	And so you're going to see lawsuits everywhere.
	Just as a pure matter of logic, we know the statistics.
	They are planning to require a medical procedure for a virus.
	That has virtually no meaningful risk for a demographic.
	And this is not an opinion.
	This is absolute stats.
	I think it was 15 people under 19 in all of Canada that died from this.
	I mean, it is just creating a procedure for a demographic that has virtually no risk, despite what the exceptional cases that the media pulls out.
	The ultimate irony of what Gavin Newsom is doing, knowing the political split on the vaccine, you can make some assumptions as to demographics, but coming out after his failed recall and saying, well, now that you failed in your recall, now I'm going to impose something, which I know is going to have a disparate impact on certain political demographics as a big FU punishment to having tried to do what you did.
	But they haven't fleshed out the modalities of this yet or a timeline.
	They've stated it's going to happen now.
	You just have to wait before you can take suit?
	Yes, very much like what the feds are doing.
	You have a lot of people putting massive pressure on their employees and various federal government agencies, and they're often misleading their workers.
	There's no actual written policy that I've seen yet.
	And from various people I've talked to...
	They understand they don't want the risk of losing a whole bunch of lawsuits on the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.
	It's important for people to know the federal employees and arguably federal contractors, too, are protected under a law that is stronger than the First Amendment and that is stronger than Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and that's the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
	It imposes strict scrutiny across the board.
	On any federal government action against its own employees.
	So they have to show that the vaccine mandate is narrowly tailored to a compelling public interest.
	And as the CDC commissioner was on TV today saying, this vaccine does not prevent transmission and does not prevent infection.
	And that is the main excuse being used.
	And there are clearly alternatives, like testing other things, if you already have the natural body, the natural immunity in your bodies, etc.
	Getting into that, because we've seen the video clips go viral of the two NBA players talking about the natural immunity that comes with having had it.
	And this is not science.
	This is not my opinion whatsoever.
	These are the studies coming out of Israel, coming out of other countries.
	Lots of them.
	To the effect that natural immunity is a thing, it's undeniable, and by all accounts, it's longer lasting and more effective than vaccination protection, which implies, suggests, and does confirm that vaccination does do something, but natural immunity, from having gotten it recovered, does more.
	And yet there's still compelling vaccination of those individuals without an exception for them.
	Have there been any lawsuits to carve out natural immunity from having already contracted the virus in the United States?
	Yes, there was a case this week that went to the injunctive stage of the case, and the court, a W appointee, who is clearly a big fan of vaccines and is not drawing a distinction between past vaccines and this one, there are very unique medical facts about this vaccine that completely distinguish it from every vaccine in history.
	I won't get into all the medical details.
	Discuss that at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But they're legally impactful and consequential details in assessing what's, you know, is this a narrowly tailored remedy for a problem that's of a compelling public interest.
	But what this judge said was, what's interesting is all the cases affirming any form of public health intervention, masks, lockdowns, vaccine passports, vaccine mandates.
	All of the judges seem to implicitly admit that they cannot pass strict scrutiny.
	So this judge did the same, but he applied rational basis review.
	He misinterpreted the Jacobson decision to say that, oh, okay, even though all these things happened after Jacobson, and even though that limit Jacobson, according to...
	In fact, here's the irony.
	He cited Gorsuch, who was being critical of Jacobson's relevance.
	Because Gorsuch was like, this was almost rational basis review.
	This has no bearing anymore.
	He took the first part of that quote and said, oh, look, Gorsuch acknowledges Jacobson is rational basis review, so that's all I have to apply.
	I mean, it was a very disingenuous action by that court.
	Not a surprise from a W appointee.
	They're notorious for it.
	So he denied the preliminary relief on the grounds that, well, the government has some experts that say, Maybe the vaccine is better than natural immunity.
	So all they have to do is meet rational basis.
	So I'll say it's okay that the University of California is requiring a vaccine for people to participate on the University of California's campus.
	Even though they have natural immunity, and despite the fact that there was much better evidence, in my view, on the plaintiff's side of the case.
	But that plaintiff said that didn't bother him at all.
	He said, now we're going to get into discovery and see what they really know and what they really think.
	In particular, what have these experts really been up to?
	And I'll give this plaintiff credit.
	He's like, we're going to put these experts under real cross-examination and see what they look like then.
	And a lot of these experts, I'm sure, thought the case wouldn't go on.
	Because so far, whenever there's been a debate on any of these issues, these experts that are on the mandate side, they almost always look bad.
	They look like they don't know what they're talking about, don't know basic rules, don't know basic information, you name it.
	And was it Rand Paul or Ron Paul?
	I think it was Rand Paul who just grilled the HHS guy and basically said, have you read these studies?
	You're mandating this without creating an exception for Recovered COVID patients.
	Have you read these studies?
	And the guy's like, I haven't read those studies.
	I've read a lot of studies, but I haven't read those.
	And yet we're still mandating policy.
	I hated the word from the practice of law.
	I loathe the word now because people are throwing around the term mandate as though anyone mandated them to do what they're doing.
	Getting elected is not a mandate to do whatever you want.
	It was getting elected to be government so you could pass these things through the legislative process because you weren't mandated to be a dictator like good old Trudeau thinks of the smallest minority re-election in the history of Canada as a mandate for whatever.
	The other thing that's coming in terms of suits...
	I'm looking at bringing suits against Tyson Foods for people who suffered injuries because they took the vaccine, that they believe the vaccine caused those injuries.
	I'm looking at bringing suit against a wide range of people who have been fired already and going to be suing under both the ADA, also common law tort.
	Battery, and in certain cases, or assault, and in certain cases, religious freedom discrimination or invasion of medical privacy, depending on what's appropriate under the circumstances.
	So there's going to be lots and lots of cases, and a lot of these cases won't be resolved for years.
	So whatever happens now is just, you know, do the courts step up to the gap now.
	But whether they, even if they don't now, there's a lot of employers and a lot of governments that...
	Rushed into this that are going to be facing legal consequences for years and I think will ultimately regret what the decision that they made.
	I mean, it's all great.
	You know, the wrongs will be righted over the course of time, which means that they'll never be righted properly.
	And here, Attorney Net says, County stats released 52% vaccinated, 152 hospitalized.
	Of those, 36 were vaccinated.
	In Quebec, I tweeted it.
	It's not my information.
	It's CJAD.
	Which is notoriously the other side, the leftist side.
	Apparently 54% of new hospital admissions were fully vaccinated.
	I mean, go figure.
	And I'm just saying tongue-in-cheek, every fear hides a wish.
	How are they going to pin that blame on the 18% unvaccinated at this point in time?
	They're going to have to find a way because that's, in my view, what the whole laying the brickwork for demonizing the unvaccinated was for when this happens.
	Find a way to pit this blame on the unvaccinated.
	But the natural immunity...
	When we short-circuit procedures that we designed to give us a greater confidence in the truth and justice of the outcome of a decision, we're going to get bad decisions.
	Right now, not a single legislative branch in America, to my knowledge, at the state level or federal level, has passed any vaccine mandate.
	And yet we have all these vaccine mandates.
	I mean, at least make it go through the legislative process.
	I mean, it's embarrassing.
	I mean, Jacobson was a legislative process, which, by the way, exempted people who had natural immunity from prior infection.
	So for those people that love to cite Jacobson.
	That was one of Paul's points today.
	but in Quebec, they found the time to jam through the legislative process, the prohibition on protesting outside of hospitals, schools, et cetera, but only as relates to COVID, not other protesting.
	You can protest working conditions because you've got to please the unions, but you can't protest COVID.
	So it means that teachers can protest for better employment conditions outside of schools, but parents can't protest outside of schools for better air quality for their kids because that's related to COVID.
	I've But this, which they know...
	Would be more complicated, more nebulous, more of an argument of the pros and cons that would require discernment and, above all else, accountability for whoever voted for or against.
	No time.
	Two years into this, no time.
	Just jam it down everybody's throat and now broaden it and broaden.
	Narrowly tailored to apply to absolutely everyone five years up and five years old and older.
	Even if you've had it, I mean, it's...
	Especially like what I keep emphasizing to everybody that's still missed in a lot of the lawsuits is that this almost exclusively deals with the risk of asymptomatic spread.
	Because if you're symptomatic, self-quarantining is an easier remedy and a far more effective remedy.
	And so this is about unvaccinated people spreading it asymptomatically.
	When we know from the data, just from what the CDC commissioner said this week, That, in fact, the vaccinated are more likely to spread it by what she admitted than asymptomatic unvaccinated.
	So why do we have a vaccine mandate?
	It's for a problem it doesn't solve.
	It can't solve.
	It might even just exacerbate the problem.
	Who knows?
	Okay, so what do we expect in the coming week then?
	So Suits out of California, coming from you and Children's Health Defense?
	Yeah, I think there's a suit pending against the FDA, which has current briefing about it, which is about their bait-and-switch.
	A federal judge, for example, did not know, said, oh, this is some conspiracy theory that there's no approved vaccine available.
	He doesn't know what he's talking about.
	He railed on this law firm that brought a vaccine mandate challenge.
	And they may have been, you know, overaggressive.
	You can argue about their language.
	But the judge was just dead wrong.
	He said, oh, it's undisputed that the vaccine that is currently being administered is the emergency use authorized vaccine.
	The approved one is still not available.
	It wasn't available in August.
	It's still not available.
	So anybody that tells you you're getting the FDA biologic licensed approved vaccine is lying to you.
	So that's just false.
	And apparently judges just don't even know the difference.
	Because when you get Rachel Maddow as your fact source, you're probably going to get some things wrong.
	And some of these judges keep...
	Or the New York Times.
	And that's what happens.
	But there's going to be...
	So that suit's ongoing.
	Additional suits coming to challenge any attempt to force this on kids.
	All kinds of mandate suits already pending across the nation for military members, for federal officials, state government workers, private employees in that context all across the country.
	Firemen, first responders are the main ones bringing suit.
	Firemen, police officers, nurses, the ones that were celebrated as heroes for a year now are being summarily fired, in part because so many of them already have natural immunity.
	Also, they're the kind of people that pay attention to the vaccine adverse event reporting system.
	And they're like, hmm, there's something unusual going on here.
	So between that, they're not willing to risk.
	They already risked their lives.
	They're not willing to do what's unnecessary to them.
	But those suits are all over the place.
	Mostly currently in liberal jurisdictions, but it's spreading to other places.
	And the private employee suits are starting to build up because a lot of these mandates come in November 1st, December 1st, in that time frame.
	And I will be suing Tyson Foods.
	The first launch of lawsuits against Tyson Foods start this week in Tennessee.
	Robert, we've never met in person.
	For everybody watching, by the way, our relationship is now like two years old.
	We've never met in person.
	But I know when you're angry, Robert, and I know when you're angry on a personal level, and you seem to be personally angry with Tyson Foods in particular.
	They were in cahoots with the Biden administration.
	They were proud of what they did.
	They first tried to attack people's religious beliefs, said pro-life beliefs weren't legitimate beliefs.
	Outrageous.
	Insult.
	And they need to remember where they hire people and where they distribute their products.
	A lot of their employees are working class folks and religious folks.
	They're threatening 22-year employees, deeply loyal employees, who often have medical and religious reasons not to take this particular vaccine, and they're going to fire them.
	Instead of honoring their accommodation.
	They're not calling it a firing.
	They're saying you have an unpaid year of absence.
	You're not going to get paid for a year and your job might not be here when you come back.
	It's a firing.
	And they think they can get away with this nonsense.
	And they're up with their little Manhattan cocktail crowd with their corporate lawyers who think how wonderful and how morally virtuous they are for what they're doing to working class people in western Tennessee.
	And they're going to get a fight back and it's going to be a long fight and it's only beginning now.
	It's not ending now.
	It's going to be one after the other, after the other, after the other.
	And now the question here from Cam is, do the cases filed create a delay in the implementation of the policy?
	I mean, I guess that depends only on whether or not the provisional injunction, temporary restraining orders are granted.
	Otherwise, it will not delay it.
	It will just delay the ultimate adjudication.
	The feds are playing lots of games.
	They are yet, to my knowledge, to issue a full OSHA rule at all, and they've yet to issue a full policy.
	Instead, what they're trying to do is intimidate and terrorize their own employees by leaking false rumors.
	Oh, we're not going to...
	Religious accommodations.
	Oh, you're going to be investigated if you put...
	Stuff like that.
	That's complete hogwash.
	And anybody that's been around the game long enough knows how these people operate.
	And there's a lot of government people that are doing it.
	You know, there's some government people going after people on free speech, free press, and vaccination grounds at the same time.
	They figure if they're going to violate one constitutional right, why not violate two or three or four?
	You know, so it's going to be a massive legal battle, and I think they underappreciate that.
	And the reason is they've never faced blowback before.
	You know, they've got a few suits in the past with small outsiders representing one-tenth of one percent of the population challenging something.
	And there was usually an out.
	You know, in the schooling context, they're like, well, you can just take them to a private school or you can homeschool them, you know.
	So they didn't think it was that invasive.
	And it was for vaccines that had a century of success and that had very little risk of any problems for diseases that were severe and truly dangerous.
	And vaccines that actually met.
	The FDA's definition five years ago.
	Yeah, that's the 2015 definition, not the 2020.
	Well, I forget with post-2015 when they modified it.
	To make it, it seemingly sounds more like a therapeutic or a treatment as opposed to a vaccine as to what was hitherto for the last hundred years regarded as a vaccine.
	Okay, well, I think that'll do the vaccine updates.
	For anyone who is interested in following the lawsuits, what I love is that the States is having these lawsuits.
	In Canada, not so much.
	And just a good segue, actually, before we go into the next subject, I should be doing an interview tomorrow with John Carpe from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms of Canada.
	And they have interesting news, interesting updates.
	They have an interesting story that broke a little while ago for anybody who was paying attention, but we'll talk about it tomorrow.
	So stay tuned for that exact time to be determined.
	And we'll talk about what is going on in Canada.
	I know the JCCF is looking for lawyers.
	I know Rebel Media is looking for lawyers.
	So anybody who...
	You're getting into the practice.
	This might be a good opportunity if you still believe there's opportunity for any form of justice there.
	No comment from me.
	Okay, now, Robert, before we get into the next subject, everyone, by way of A or B, this is A, this is B, and if I bring up chats, this is what it looks like on A, on B versus A. Who prefers what?
	Let us know real quick.
	While you do that, I'm also going to remind everyone, I was told there are 8,300 people watching on YouTube and 1,600 on Rumble.
	Thumbs up, like, and A, A, A. All right.
	Discretion has been exercised.
	We shall leave it at A. Okay, now, there's one B. There's one lone B there.
	Sorry, man.
	Sorry, Rustus Android.
	I think the...
	Ooh, now it's being a little more diluted.
	Someone said C. All right, get out of here.
	Old Drill Sergeant, thank you very much for the good humor.
	Now.
	What do we go to?
	Speaking of...
	Speaking of the military, I mean, so on the one hand, the soldiers are getting harassed with requirement of taking the vaccine.
	The soldier who spoke out after Afghanistan's debacle and after 13 members of the American Armed Forces died due to a bombing that was attributed in part to the failure to properly withdraw forces from the region, a lieutenant colonel spoke out about it.
	Rather famously on social media, was critical of what had happened and said he was willing to give up his retirement that he was just a few years away from, his 20-year pension, because he just couldn't stay quiet anymore.
	It's not like he was particularly political because he was very critical of the Trump administration as well.
	He was critical across the board of how the hierarchy and military establishment had operated and said, there needs to be accountability, and I feel I have to speak out or accountability won't happen.
	After witnessing 20 years, really, of disaster in Afghanistan, he'd spent a large amount of time there.
	Worth noting is that one of the, I think at least one of the casualties was a friend of his that he, when he posted his first video that went viral, I think it was the night of or the day after, and couldn't disclose the name even though he knew because...
	Their relatives had not been informed.
	So personally affected.
	Take that to, you know, whichever way you want.
	Personally affected.
	Put up a video.
	I mean, I think we've all watched it at this point.
	I don't know what was objectionable about the first video.
	When I first heard the story, Robert, I thought he had disclosed confidential information.
	I thought he had disclosed classified information.
	I didn't realize it was basically just a member of the military in uniform, seemingly in office.
	Vocalizing many of the same questions that the rest of the world had had.
	The same questions we had discussed.
	Oh, jeez, I forgot their names.
	We did the live stream with the two guys.
	Oh, Robert, you'll get their names.
	Same questions.
	The Durant, sorry.
	Same questions we had been asking for months.
	Chain of command.
	Who made these decisions to abandon an airfield?
	There's no accountability.
	There was nothing classified in there.
	The first video went viral.
	Then, apparently, he was Put on a gag order, which I don't understand.
	How they issue a gag order.
	I didn't understand what pending lawsuit there was or issue that could have been the object of a gag order.
	And he continued being critical, but as far as I knew, never disclosed any classified confidential information and now is in the brig.
	And for anyone who doesn't know what the brig is, do you know what the origin of the word is?
	Damn it, I should have looked it up.
	Anyways, he's in military prison.
	Robert, how, why, what did he do wrong?
	And I know he hasn't been charged with anything yet.
	I think he has been.
	Last I checked, he hadn't.
	But what would be the charges?
	So the issue is in the military's application of the First Amendment.
	And because courts in America have taken a hands-off approach to the military.
	So there's both the U.S. Supreme Court and the military courts.
	Recognize that the Constitution completely protects soldiers like it protects anyone else.
	It protects any members of the military.
	But some of our military fans in the audience remind me there's airmen, there's sailors, there's marines, and then there's army soldiers.
	So I think of them all as soldiers.
	But they do go by different labels.
	Entering the danger zone, I guess you could say, from Top Gun or Archer, depending on your cultural reference.
	But because of that, the Supreme Court has said, yes, this applies.
	The Court of Military appeals and says, yes, this applies in our military court justice system.
	However, the U.S. Supreme Court has also said, when it comes to the military, we're mostly going to be hands-off.
	We're not going to meaningfully supervise or scrutinize whether the military is violating their members' constitutional liberties, which I've never agreed with that premise.
	If we wanted a military exemption of the Constitution, it would already be in there.
	It wasn't like our founders had no idea of the necessity of military discipline.
	It's that they chose not to include any military exemption from the Constitution because they knew that...
	It was a lot more dangerous than having such an exemption.
	But our courts have ignored that because they're corrupted at a certain level in deferring to other institutions of power and not meaningfully enforcing constitutional liberties.
	So the only reason why this guy could be in the brig at all is because our federal court system imposes no meaningful supervision over the military, and the military often doesn't impose constitutional protections on itself.
	It acknowledges they exist, but it's issued a string of decisions.
	I mean, up until the 1950s, the military pretended there were no rights of their own members.
	Then started to recognize, okay, I guess we have to kind of, that would be kind of crazy if you somehow lost your citizenship because you were enrolled in the military.
	That wasn't part of the bargain.
	And so started to recognize it, but put limits on it.
	And really what it comes down to is everybody agrees the legal standard is that the military cannot limit the speech of its members unless the speech of its members poses a clear and present danger to the ability of the military to do its job for national security purposes.
	The problem is the military courts have almost never strictly applied that.
	They find every excuse in the world.
	I mean, they once disciplined people for talking at a picnic.
	About the Vietnam War.
	I mean, amongst themselves.
	Soldiers talking amongst themselves.
	They dishonorably discharged several of those soldiers, members of the military.
	And they upheld it.
	Because their interpretation was, oh, it could undermine discipline.
	Well, that's not what was...
	The clear and convincing...
	The clear and present danger standard is supposed to be something that goes to the inability of the military to function.
	In my view, this lieutenant colonel's criticism of the military establishment is precisely what should be protected.
	That did not jeopardize discipline within the military.
	That did not endanger functionality of the military.
	That did not endanger national security.
	Just the opposite.
	By holding these leaders accountable, we can actually be more secure, more safe, and more efficient.
	And what's happened is, Dave, the military courts have distorted the rules.
	To really mean, if you offend powerful people, we're going to call that a clear and present danger to national security, not if what you're doing actually does that.
	But that's what he faces.
	And so they charged him with all the...
	There's these generic charges, you know, contempt charges, contempt of officers' charges, you name it.
	The article is from Military Times.
	It seems to be a few days old, but it says, just quoting the article, the general nature of the offense is being considered.
	So I guess this is back...
	Old news.
	Article 32. The general offense is being considered at the Article 32 hearing.
	Article 88, contempt towards officials.
	Contempt, showing disrespect.
	If that was a general crime, I would never get out of prison.
	Article 90, willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer.
	I guess that's the gag order, but I don't understand how they issued the gag order.
	Because they're calling it a lawful order.
	So what they do is, in these circumstances, they don't like what you're saying.
	So the issue in order to say, you can't say anything anymore.
	And purportedly, that's a lawful order.
	To me, that's not a lawful order.
	That needed to be limited to things that pose an imminent risk to discipline, to the security and capability of the military.
	And again, they tend to conflate saying something bad about the people at the top with messing up with discipline.
	The reason why there's disciplinary issues currently of effectiveness of the military is because the people at the top have not been held accountable.
	Consider this.
	This guy's sitting in the brig.
	For just telling the truth about what happened in the military hierarchy, while Joint Chief of Staff General Milley admitted in Congress this week that he tipped off the Chinese government and guaranteed them he would tip them off if there was ever a planned attack on their country.
	I mean, that's actual treason, as close to actual treason as you get politically.
	And now, Robert, because it's a good segue into the third charge, Article 133.
	Conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman.
	And if giving the heads up to your actual existential political military adversary is not conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman, I don't know what is.
	Stuart Scheller put out Facebook posts, videos, which, I mean...
	No swearing, no expletives, no threats, no nothing.
	It was critique and asking the very same questions that everyone else with half a brain and half a consciousness as to what's going on in the world have been asking for months.
	And I guess the only issue is that it's more insulting.
	It's more of the stinging nature of the truthful.
	It's who he questioned.
	That's what they're calling insulting.
	That's what they're calling unbecoming conduct.
	That's what they're calling dangerous to national security.
	It's that he insulted the hierarchy.
	Because that's who he insulted.
	That's who his focus was.
	It was these people need to be held accountable.
	Because right now, for 20 years, they haven't been.
	And for just speaking truth, it's a writer at The American Thinker compared it to the Dreyfus Affair, which is very much what it's like.
	People who don't know, there was a high-ranking French officer who was part of the old-school French aristocratic elite, who, like most of the military hierarchy was, who was selling out secrets to the Germans under French efforts, military efforts.
	But they said that couldn't possibly be the case, so they found one of the few Jewish officers, blamed him.
	An intelligence officer figured this all out, exposed it to the military hierarchy, so they tried to railroad him instead of come to terms with it.
	And when Emile Zola wrote about it, Jacuzzi, great, great, great article, great book, great title, they tried to put him in jail instead.
	It was only a decade later that we have a very corrupt military hierarchy, and what this soldier, this lieutenant colonel did...
	We've got a big problem that's going to keep reoccurring, that's going to lead to disaster around the world, the death of Americans and the death of others around the world, unless we hold this hierarchy accountable and frankly just do a mass firing of them.
	He didn't call for the latter part.
	That's my own edition.
	My edit.
	And he's the one they're trying to lock up.
	It shows how dysfunctional our system is.
	We look like the French military at the end of the 19th century.
	Or, I mean...
	I don't even know.
	Just a banana republic where some people were hypothesizing and rightfully so.
	What is this going to do to the motivation for anyone to get into the military, seeing the way that they will throw under the bus and utterly destroy?
	We saw what they did to Flynn.
	You saw what they do to anyone who becomes the enemy.
	But what does this do for inspiring anyone to join the forces other than deter them to do so?
	And what is going to be the impact of that in five to ten years for what was...
	For the last ever, the global superpower, what's it going to do to that military over the long run?
	It's a triple boom, because first they did this political purge, looking at anybody who said anything supportive that they didn't like under the name of race theory or whatever other nonsense that they were looking at that Milley was preaching about.
	That was part one.
	So everybody's been subject to interrogation on their political beliefs and attempted purge based on their political beliefs.
	Second...
	They've been subject to this mass vaccination campaign on a rushed basis for people who are simply not at risk from this virus.
	And with a vaccine that more than a few have objections to for religious or medical or personal reasons that they're being forced to take without getting any due process.
	And then on top of this, any soldier who speaks out, they're sticking in the brig.
	I mean, they're trying to do to the military what led to the French military being such a joke.
	There's a reason why World War I, World War II...
	The French should have just put an American flag up because we're the only reasons they still exist as a country.
	It's amazing.
	I guess this is the first movie reference in a while, but the movie Killing Zoe with Eric Stoltz and the French actor, I forget who it was.
	It was written by Quentin Tarantino, I think.
	Super violent bank robbery movie.
	And there was that one joke where there's the bank robbery in a French bank and there's one stereotypically loud American who says to the French...
	Guy holding the gun is like, if it weren't for you, you'd always speak in German and then he gets shot.
	But it's a funny thing.
	The French losing wars and losing the First World War and the Second World War has become a meme before memes existed.
	I never for once stopped to think as to how the French army actually was so weak.
	A French army that was dominant for centuries.
	I mean, under Napoleon.
	I mean, almost succeeded in building a massive empire.
	It was because they allowed this elite hierarchy to take over and it got so corrupt, it ultimately killed it.
	And we're seeing all the signs of that corruption at the military hierarchy.
	And this lieutenant colonel was the canary in the coal mine, saying, we've got major problems.
	That's why it wasn't even political criticism.
	It wasn't like he was saying, yes, Biden, no Trump, no Trump, no Biden, yes, Trump.
	It wasn't politically motivated at all.
	He was critical of the hierarchy all the way through all these administrations.
	And he was like, it doesn't change.
	It doesn't matter who's at the top.
	We have continued incompetence at the top because there's never accountability.
	And what happens is ordinary people die over and over and over again.
	And if we want to stop that, we've got to hold these hierarchy people accountable.
	And he said, you know, like people asking him, did all of those military service men, I say service men, did all the military people who died over the last 20 years die in vain, given the way they withdrew?
	And he says, yeah, you know, unless, I don't want to say heads roll, because that might be a dog whistle to some, unless there's some accountability for what happened.
	Everyone who died in Afghanistan over the last 20 years will have died in vain, given the awful, hasty, botched manner in which they withdrew.
	And I guess that irks some people the wrong way, but it's...
	I guess Milley doesn't mind, since he's such a fan of China.
	I mean, China's now taking over Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan this week.
	The Taliban brought him in.
	So, you know, I mean, we have a traitor at the top.
	That's the reality.
	Marcus Horn says, can you ask Barnes, if we remove the corrupt military officials, can we be sure they won't be replaced by equally corrupt people singing the same song?
	Well, there needs to be institutional reform and wide, robust protection of rights.
	That needs to go with it.
	I hate these headphones.
	Does anyone notice them anymore?
	I feel like a nerd, so to speak.
	It's depressing.
	So he's in jail, by the way.
	He's got representation.
	He's got, I think he's got...
	$2 million for him.
	The last I heard was $200,000.
	I guess I'm reading an article that's a couple days old.
	So he's got meaningful crowdfunding.
	If anybody has a link to the crowdfunding for him, please put it in the link and I'll pin it to the comment, pin comment when this is over.
	So he's got credit to his parents on this because he has been isolated, not allowed to even talk to his parents during this time period.
	It's just terrible.
	You see the parents talking.
	This is a man who's been serving for 17 years.
	Not just unblemished, but a commendable record, and not to compare him to other people who've been prosecuted.
	Just somebody who has been in there long enough and given enough of their own actual blood, sweat, and tears, and seen enough of their blood, sweat, and tears of their friends and their loved ones be sacrificed and spilled for this process, comes out and talks about it,
	and instead of addressing it and instead of saying, yeah, we screwed up and maybe we actually have to go write things, go punish the person who's easy to punish because, you know, but for social media, but for crowdfunding, he'd be in the brig with who knows what lawyer and who knows what means to defend himself.
	He's a husband and a father, which is also not irrelevant in terms of what people are willing to sacrifice for what they believe in.
	Retirement and easy life.
	I mean, he could have just hung in there, said the nice stuff, get your pension, sell out to the defense industry like the Millie types do, get really rich with defense contractors, and just play ball.
	And he spoke out because he realized more and more people are going to die unless somebody did.
	And so that's not a breach of military discipline.
	That's a recognition of military discipline.
	And so it's a crime that the military has put him in the brig, and it shows how much the whole hierarchy It needs to be purged of its position.
	Purged politically?
	Don't want anyone taking anything out of context here.
	We mean this is just...
	It needs to be mass fired the way they're firing real heroes like nurses and firemen right now.
	And by mass fired, Robert means from losing their jobs.
	No other means of firing.
	I try to be tongue-in-cheek, but it is very depressing.
	It's depressing on the one hand that things get to this point.
	it's depressing on the other hand that people standing up for these people get demonized and and things will get deliberately misrepresented for the sake of politics this man is sitting in i at one point it's isolation or solitary
	confinement for social media posts for a gag order pertaining to nothing in particular and if you listen to what he said he wasn't saying anything novel it was just that it was coming from someone of a position of authority and not from social media at large and and yes he was wearing his military uniform and doing it on site which i
	The difference here is that this wasn't a superior, threatening...
	This guy was aiming up, not aiming down.
	Punching up and not punching down.
	And punching up within the infrastructure and not punching down from the military infrastructure to the media infrastructure.
	And if those distinctions aren't enough for you, none will be.
	And I say not you, Robert, but the world.
	None will be.
	All right, let's go on to the one that is also equally interesting.
	Alex Jones is...
	You'll tell me if I'm wrong, Robert.
	Did he not just get screwed royally, but how?
	So, I mean, there's a lot of Alex Jones defamation lawsuits in different jurisdictions, but the bottom line, I think this was in Texas, right?
	Yes.
	And the judge...
	Spoiler alert.
	The judge came out with a default judgment against him, which basically adjudicated on the merits of the defamation claim.
	Basically, Robert, unless I'm mistaken, the judge said, he's guilty of defamation, default judgment.
	How you get a default judgment under these circumstances, you're going to elucidate me and everyone watching.
	He's guilty.
	Now the only question is how much?
	Yeah, I mean, because the media pretended that there had been a judgment on the merits.
	Both the plaintiff's lawyer and the court are scared.
	of an Austin jury giving a judgment on the merits because they denied Alex Jones his constitutional right to a jury trial on the merits.
	What the court did, and this is what's happening in liberal jurisdictions, it's why I've been telling clients of mine for a decade to get out of liberal jurisdictions.
	Don't be in the Austins of the world.
	Don't be, and for, you know, Michael Malice, other people moving to Austin, I get it, but that's as bad as New York, legally.
	There's no difference.
	They're politically, they're even more nuts.
	Because they are annoyed at how the state doesn't agree with them, the state that surrounds them.
	And so they're even more uber-aggressive.
	So the Austin judges are increasingly openly, overtly political.
	The prosecutor that got elected in Austin was backed by George Soros-related groups.
	I mean, that's the mindset of the political groups there in Austin.
	And they're eager to punish their political adversaries.
	And so this is a suit that wouldn't have been brought in most places in the country.
	It would have been thrown out on First Amendment grounds in most places in the country, but not in Austin.
	And the bigger problem is the Court of Appeals in Austin is also mostly in Austin.
	So it's all Democrats.
	So you have a conservative state, but if you live in Austin, you have almost all liberal Democrats ruling on your cases.
	And they have proven over the past decade that they have no recognition of their limits.
	And so what happened here is here's a guy, and Alex Jones and the other defendants that are sued, InfoWars, etc., produced millions of pages and documents and testimony and email and videos and hours.
	I mean, you add it together.
	Produced all kinds of videos, all kinds of audio files, all kinds of email files.
	They even produced the spam email.
	I mean, just email that they had just been spanned with.
	They never even read.
	They produced all of that.
	They sat for days and days and days of depositions.
	More invasive discovery than ever has been allowed in the history of anti-slap cases in the country.
	Then he does a second round of discovery after all of that.
	And after producing more discovery than I think any media defendant has ever produced, the court says, oh, that's not enough.
	I'm not going to let you have a jury trial.
	Judgment for the plaintiff.
	But just so everybody appreciates this, because this was your tweet, and then someone cheekily reported, that's a nice way to phrase the judgment.
	This was not, I'm not going to let you have a jury trial.
	This was, I'm not going to let you have a trial, as far as I understand it.
	They basically said, no jury trial, no bench trial, no summary judgment motion, none of it.
	It says, effectively, you defaulted in such an egregious way on communicating answers to undertakings.
	I forget what the word is in the States.
	That I'm basically saying you're guilty by your conduct in the file, not by the merits of the file.
	So I had a file like this back in the day.
	It was a big one.
	It was a well-known American guy.
	This is all public, but names are irrelevant.
	Who got a default judgment in the United States because apparently the conduct was so egregious in the courts that they rendered a several hundred million dollar judgment against the individual.
	By default, no trial, no ability to defend.
	They basically said...
	Your behavior was so over the top, you're guilty by default.
	They took the default judgment, brought it over to Canada, and then tried to seize hundreds of millions of dollars worth of assets.
	This seems to be what happened in this case.
	In the context of the procedure of the file, they say you defaulted or you didn't communicate answers to undertakings.
	You were jerking the court around, even if it's true.
	I don't think it's true, but let's just assume it's true.
	You screwed around so badly that...
	We're just saying you're guilty by default.
	Guilty.
	Now let's go to the amount.
	And you don't even get to have a substantiation of the allegations against you on the merits.
	It's a foregone conclusion because you behaved so badly.
	That's what happened to him.
	Yeah, that's what the court ruled.
	I mean, and to give people an idea, these kind of death penalty sanctions, that's what they're known as, because they're denying you your right to get discovery from the other side.
	They're denying you the right to a summary judgment motion, which in Texas, you have a right to go up through the appellate process before you even get to trial if it's a certain kind of electronic media defendant involved.
	They're denying you a right to a bench trial and denying you a right to a jury trial.
	They're denying you all of it.
	It's considered such a severe sanction, courts have repeatedly said it should never really be given outside of absolutely extraordinary, extreme circumstances with multiple warnings.
	To give people an example, the only time it's issued is when someone produces no discovery ever.
	Let me stop you on there, Robert.
	I think even producing no discovery, it would still be contempt.
	But when there's evidence that they've destroyed documentation, might be when you get it.
	I mean, take a more egregious example.
	You have to have multiple layers of it, even then.
	Because typically, even if they destroyed evidence, there's other remedies that are available.
	So you need to produce, like in the federal system, for example, if there's been an allegation of destruction of evidence, you have to prove that you can't get that evidence any other way.
	You have to prove that an evidentiary inference wouldn't be favorable, wouldn't be enough, or other fear.
	And that's almost never the case.
	This would be the kind of case.
	You have a video of the incident.
	It's the only video of the incident.
	There's no other witness testimony available.
	You're ordered to produce it.
	You destroy it.
	That's the kind of thing where they consider severe sanction.
	But even there, they usually diff you in evidentiary sanction.
	They say you get to assume that whatever was on that tape was bad for the other party.
	That's the typical remedy.
	The law, because these are constitutional rights, rights to due process of law, rights to a trial and rights to trial by jury that are being stripped of someone.
	It can only be done under extreme and extraordinary circumstances.
	But the left doesn't recognize these rules.
	They don't care about them.
	They're like, we don't like you.
	You're Alex Jones.
	They carved out a separate rules for Alex Jones on defamation law that they haven't applied to anyone else.
	They carved out separate rules on First Amendment law that they haven't applied to anyone else.
	They carved out separate laws on public speech outside of the courthouse that they haven't applied to anyone else.
	The court system is making a mockery of itself because it is such inflamed in political prejudice against alcoholism.
	And who is being really judged by this process is not Alex Jones.
	It's the abhorrent...
	Lack of respect for the law by the courts themselves.
	And Robert, I know why you're angry with this.
	Because this is the ultimate irony, and I've got to bring this up.
	Kangaroo Court from Chris Hill.
	I didn't read the judgment.
	I really want to, and I might do a standalone on this.
	I just read a few articles where the judge apparently cited Alex Jones repeatedly saying this was a show trial, a mockery of the system, to show his contempt for the process.
	And what does the judge do after all of this?
	Says, you're not even going to get a trial.
	I'm going to deem your behavior to be so bad for having called us a mockery, a show trial.
	I'm going to deem it to be so bad, I'm not going to give you a trial.
	Thus, hate him or love him.
	And I've gotten to meet him now.
	I don't hate him.
	I think he's actually, you know, he's been, like a lot of people know, he's been right a lot more than a broken clock.
	But love him or hate him, he says this is a show trial.
	And what does the judge do?
	She gets so mad at him for saying it's a show trial that she doesn't give him a day in court for the hearing on the merits default judgment.
	I mean, so obvious question, what are his remedies and what shall he be availing himself to?
	So there'll be, I mean, this is almost unprecedented.
	So like almost everything else in his cases, it's figuring out what do you do when the court system is so biased that it just won't apply the law.
	You can't trust it to enforce the law.
	That's novel.
	I mean, so I deal with that in a lot of my other cases.
	But because my cases are so political, that's the nature of them.
	But it's still shocking to witness.
	I mean, especially under the...
	Again, if you have great confidence in your case, if you're the plaintiff's lawyer, if you're the court, if you believe that Alex Jones was wrong, let a jury say so.
	Let the evidence be fully presented.
	Why be so scared of an Austin jury, which is going to be a very liberal Democratic jury?
	It's very revelatory that all of these judges won't let him have his day in court.
	It's almost as if they know something about these cases that these cases won't hold up in the way some people think.
	But right now what happens is, there's all the ways you can procedurally challenge a default judgment so he can deal with that part of it.
	They're going to have a jury trial on damages.
	That's the only thing they're allowing a jury trial on, damages, in Austin in May, according to the records.
	And so he'll be defending himself on that.
	And then I think, you know, and then the media lied.
	Massive libel campaign by the media.
	The media went out there and told everybody, oh, there's been a substantive ruling on the merits.
	Alex Jones lost because he couldn't produce evidence.
	That's all a media lie.
	NBC, ABC, CNN.
	All of them are just flat out lying about Alex Jones.
	Why is it if Alex Jones is so bad, the media always has to lie about him?
	And just so everybody's clear, because I've been reading it and I'm familiar with it.
	They said he could not...
	The framing is he could not produce evidence to substantiate his claims.
	Let's just even assume that that were true.
	He could not produce evidence to substantiate his claims.
	That might only mean that he didn't have the evidence to substantiate them.
	It wouldn't prove the falseness.
	Even if you get to the next step, which is proving the actual falseness of the statements, you might then arguably have to deal with the criteria of actual malice because these are public figures.
	What's the word?
	Spontaneous public figures?
	Well, in Texas, they changed the rules on that, too.
	They were pretending they were private figures, that they weren't public figures.
	I mean, that's why it's like every crazy rule that did come about.
	But that's why it's like if the media's interpretation was right, that he didn't have evidence to support his position, then you go to trial.
	You don't do a default judgment.
	You only go to a default judgment when you think even an Austin liberal jury will rule in Alex Jones' favor when they hear the actual facts, because they would hear a very different set of facts than the media is told.
	And so they would find out things totally opposite of what the media has been telling people about the case and about him.
	And so it tells you a lot that liberals are afraid of their own jury pools in these kind of cases, that they have to rig the system.
	to try to just shaft Alex Jones.
	Ultimately, this default judgment, my prediction, will be overturned by the Texas Supreme Court because it's such a egregious breach of the law, such a clear violation of constitutional right, and makes such a mockery.
	The Texas Supreme Court has to keep stepping in because the Austin Court just can't follow the law, and the Austin-Texas Court of Appeals can't follow the law when it comes to political cases.
	And just so that nobody thinks Robert is being unfair because he's partial.
	I won't say biased, partial to Alex Jones.
	When Robert says it's unprecedented, you can go pull up the articles.
	Even the counsel for the plaintiffs recognize, acknowledge, have publicly stated it's unprecedented.
	They just say it's warranted under the circumstances because it's a unique set of fact pattern.
	But when you...
	If anybody thinks this is a default judgment, meaning there had been no trial on the merits to prove...
	The evidence that is now going to go through as a foregone fact for adjudication on damages.
	If anybody thinks that this is the new criteria, there's an analogy in there to something that's going on right now.
	Oh yes, in terms of the requirements for mass vaccination based on risk of a virus.
	If that's the new criteria, you'll be getting default judgments left, right, and center just based on who is politically expedient to get them against and who is not.
	I hadn't followed the case in a long time.
	And when I read it, who's the judge, Robert, by the way?
	Do we know who appointed this judge?
	They're elected there at the state court level in Austin.
	In fact, all levels of courts are elected.
	But what it is, is the trial courts and the appellate courts are all overwhelmingly liberal Democrats.
	To me, there used to be some old school liberal Democrats that understood the importance of the rule of law, understood the perception of the fairness of our proceedings.
	These judges, in my view, do not.
	They don't respect that at all.
	But now, just to reconcile maybe something that might be incompatible here, if it's an elected judge, I mean, now that I know how people get elected at a municipal and a lower level, you know, level, it's not by massive amounts of votes, it's by a very small amount of highly involved individuals, which is why I now fully appreciate, and in a cynical sense, the strategy of infiltrating these systems at the local level because it requires so little manpower to do it.
	At a level where, you know, you can get elected or not elected by 30 votes.
	And so if you just have a lot of money to put into these things, you can really change things from the bottom up, from a cynical or Machiavellian or good perspective.
	But this judge was elected, which means in theory the constituents wanted this type of judge with these types of ruling.
	I mean, they assume this will be popular.
	This is liberal Austin that liked to pride itself originally on being creative and outside the box that's now authoritarian Austin.
	And it's what's happened to liberal jurisdictions across really the entire Western world.
	That these are people that are, you know, Kevin Olbermann and other people just going on authoritarian rants.
	Not even, I mean, that are indistinguishable.
	From the rants I used to see people when they attacked AIDS victims back in the 80s.
	The same kind of language.
	The same kind of just, I mean, Nazi language is what it is.
	And so, I mean, that's what Joe Rogan pointed out.
	I mean, Rogan got into hot water because he just pointed out, you know, when you allow this kind of breach, this is where it ends up.
	And if you don't stop it early, then before you know it, you're sliding downhill fast.
	And just so everybody knows, agree or disagree with the judge.
	Understand the distinction imparted on anybody who repeats that statement.
	He was found guilty on the merits.
	This is a default judgment, which means that there was no evidentiary hearing on the substantive aspect of the plaintiff's claim.
	They basically just said to Jones, you screwed up so bad in not communicating answers to undertakings.
	Default against you as a sanction, not as a question of evidence.
	Now let's move on to damages.
	And just to bring this up, Winston for Canadian PM.
	I am very certain that had Winston Freiheit's name been on the Liberal candidacy in Westmount, you would have had MP Winston in the house already.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm curious to see where it goes.
	It's not even to get into the argument, the nuanced, detailed argument as to whether or not Alex or Infowars sufficiently complied with the answers to undertakings.
	I've read the positions and the statements from both lawyers.
	Jones' lawyers say we provided tens of thousands of pages of documents.
	And if you want to say, okay, well, you didn't produce five or whatever, nitpick on what was not produced while ignoring the swaths of documents that was produced.
	Okay, you're looking for a conclusion and not for justice.
	And these are plaintiffs that have, to my knowledge, in all of their cases, including cases brought against gun manufacturers because there's some overlap.
	Have not been exactly forthcoming with producing information themselves.
	But it's what happens.
	You have these cases brought in liberal Connecticut, case brought in liberal Austin, and I can tell you in advance where the courts are going to go based solely on that.
	Whereas if it's in a conservative jurisdiction, 50-50, they uphold the law purely.
	Liberal jurisdiction, almost no chance the law gets upheld in a political case.
	Yep, yep.
	All right.
	Well, we'll see where this goes on a subject of another highly politicized case, which we'll see where it goes as well, is the Giuliani.
	Well, it is the Eric Coomer, Dr. Eric Coomer, when he shows up on CNN.
	He is a doctor.
	I'm not trying to be demeaning.
	It's just framing is everything.
	Dr. Eric Coomer has sued Sidney Powell, Linwood, Giuliani, Trump, Trump campaign, yada, yada, yada, for defamation.
	For statements they made suggesting that Coomer had prearranged certain results, had certain connections, certain ties, had made certain statements on certain conference calls that some people got, you know, tapped into with him and Antifa members.
	Yeah, we've talked about the lawsuits.
	We've talked about the substance.
	He sat down for deposition.
	I read through the deposition very quickly because it's a very long deposition.
	Even when it's four by four, it's still 200 pages.
	You go through the back and forth between the lawyers, the stenographer, the witnesses.
	Bottom line, Giuliani, he confirmed what we all knew, basically, is that they didn't really have the evidence to substantiate the public statements they were making.
	He heard stories.
	He heard this from that person.
	He heard this from this person.
	Saw some reports.
	By and large, the vortex, the same vortex that occurs with CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, sometimes occurs with the Daily Wire and other right-leaning sites.
	They cite a story, repeats, and so on.
	He goes out, publicly makes very big, bold statements, which ultimately he doesn't seem to be able to substantiate, and it doesn't look good.
	Also in his deposition, he confirmed why or that, without really going into the why.
	They had to distance themselves from Sidney Powell.
	After certain public statements she made, so it doesn't look very good.
	The only thing that really pisses me off in this entire story is Rachel Maddow's smug face as she's reporting on this.
	She could be reporting on herself, but right now she's reporting on Giuliani, saying, you know, he checked social media, he checked Facebook posts, and they ran with it.
	Robert, what do you make of the situation?
	If you went through the deposition, what do you make of that?
	And what do you make of the longer-term outcome in this case, given what is being, you know...
	Publicized now is the very big admissions Giuliani made during his deposition.
	Well, I found Rudy's source for some of the more interesting allegations, and they look a lot like this.
	That was Rudy's source.
	Rudy spent a lot of time imbibing that source of information during that time period.
	So Rudy was able to get the case in part because of his longer legacy and reputation, and it's now...
	Relatively public knowledge, but it was either me and a group of lawyers were going to handle all the election cases, or Rudy was going to.
	And the way Rudy got him is first he claimed credit for work that I and other people had done, and that's how Trump gained confidence in him, because he was right about those things, but he just took them from us.
	This led Rudy down a bad path, though.
	Because what Rudy's, oh, okay, I can pick up information from whoever's around me.
	Turns out it's accurate.
	I can get control of the case and win.
	That's not a good effective mechanism because our source was actual legal research and factual research and long legal history and a long political knowledge.
	And Sidney Powell got involved because she claimed to have, because neither Rudy nor Sidney Powell have ever done, until this time period, ever in their lives, any election litigation of any kind.
	The lawyers that are on our side of the aisle had been doing it for more than 20 years and had over 100 cases of experience.
	You couldn't have a more massive gap of information, more massive gap of understanding.
	So how do they get it?
	They get it by saying they have special secret information.
	When they steal information that comes from other people, credit to them, that's what it is.
	But the other thing they did is claim, Sydney in particular, claimed it's super secret sources of intel and information.
	And I kept telling everybody, I know it's crap because Richard Barris and I have already looked at the data and this is crap.
	This Dominion stuff is nonsense.
	And then they started being very specific.
	And I was saying, you're making specific statements that are easily provable false with five seconds of search.
	You're saying Smartmatic and Dominion are the same.
	They were not.
	You're saying Dominion was involved in Venezuela and China.
	No, wrong, wrong, wrong.
	I mean, I have always been a critic of machines.
	The people on the left were my usual allies at being critics of machines.
	People like Bobby Kennedy Jr. going back to 2004.
	Very critical of machines.
	It's not like I'm a fan of machines.
	That had nothing to do with what happened in this election that was legally questionable and to be contested.
	But they didn't want to hear that.
	And they told Trump they had separate super secret intel sources.
	And because they had stolen some information and got credit for that, Trump thought, oh, and Trump knew Rudy Giuliani the mob buster.
	But what we saw in that deposition is what we talked about all the way back to November of last year, almost a year ago.
	Said, here's where this path goes down.
	This path is a disaster.
	Here's why it's a disaster.
	Here's because they don't know.
	They don't have independent sources.
	I remember we were discussing early on, would Dominion sue?
	And I said, absolutely, they're going to sue.
	And the people connected to them are going to sue.
	Now, look at where they sue.
	They don't sue in Texas.
	They don't sue in Florida.
	Even though Sidney Powell's in Texas and Trump's in Florida, they sue in Colorado.
	They sue in New York.
	They sue in the District of Columbia.
	That's where they sue.
	Liberal jurisdictions that they know the jury pulls already in their pocket before the case even starts.
	And so I think it is unfortunate because I like Rudy.
	I have mixed views of his legacy.
	I think there was a lot of corruption in the cases that he did, a lot of prosecutorial abuse in the cases he did.
	He's apologized for a lot of that.
	So I'm not as fan that other people are fans of.
	But Rudy, the political personality, Rudy, the mayor, Rudy, the person, often a fun guy to be around.
	But he's now paying the price for wanting one last grab at power and money.
	When he was not equipped, and he knew he was not equipped, to handle these cases.
	And I'll never pardon either him or Sidney Powell on this.
	Because they did severe damage to what could have been a very robust legal challenge.
	And the media would be able to run with their version of events to recharacterize everything that took place in the election.
	So like when the Pennsylvania Attorney General is trying to stop the election audit, what is he citing?
	He's citing all of those examples.
	Even though that's not what the Pennsylvania officials are auditing at all.
	They're not focused on the machines.
	They're focused on did only constitutionally qualified people vote.
	And so it's unfortunate.
	But yes, it was embarrassing and it will continue to be embarrassing.
	Bottom line, people don't like...
	Some of what they're hearing right now.
	First of all, I can't take credit for your knowledge.
	I'm not trying to pass the buck or pass the blame.
	You pointed out certain things at the time.
	Certain broader things we both agreed on.
	If you're making exquisitely extravagant claims, you better have extremely compelling evidence.
	You listen to the deposition.
	Bottom line, it's willy-nilly nonsense.
	We had a big team.
	Everyone was sort of dealing with certain things.
	I was hearing this from this person who was on charge of that team, but I was paying attention and focusing on Pennsylvania and Michigan election lawsuits.
	So I wasn't personally vetting any of these statements that I was making.
	It doesn't look good.
	It didn't look good coming out of it.
	And by and large, no one has found any evidence, despite everyone on the internet looking for it, of the statements they made about Eric Coomer in particular.
	And you're dealing with a guy...
	This is one interesting question as to whether or not he's a public figure just because he's an executive or a higher up at a public company.
	I'm not convinced that that's a decent threshold because it's not because you work at a company that you become a public figure for the purposes of defamation.
	But there's no question in the context of that election, saying the things that were said about Eric Coomer can lead to very serious problems for Eric Coomer.
	And if you didn't have the evidence and you didn't have the personal...
	Knowledge of what you were saying, it was a very dangerous line to be walking, but like you saying, where I think a lot of your personal resentment comes, is that it undermined the other legitimate aspects, and now it allows it to just lump it in a bag of crap, and what were the legitimate grievances are now lumped with this crap in a bag, and everyone else...
	They put everything in such a shadow that nobody ever will look at it in detail in the way they could and should have.
	I mean, there's some people that still have, to the credit of a lot of activists, to the credit of a lot of state legislative officials.
	They have marched forward with the issues, and that's probably a good bridge into Pennsylvania.
	The state Senate in Pennsylvania looked at the audit taking place in Arizona and said, we should do the same thing.
	We should make sure that only constitutionally qualified people voted.
	We should look at the entire process that went into this, what training was given to people, what guidelines were given to people, what advice was given to people, and their focuses on the information contained by the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania.
	Well, the Attorney General, the same Attorney General who was predicting things about election outcomes before they happened, that Attorney General in Pennsylvania, who critically...
	Democrats put a heavy focus in 2018 of winning these key offices and these key swing states, and it was ultimately consequential.
	And then sometimes in Republican states, they made sure they were on board too, like Ratburger in Georgia.
	And so with the state Senate saying, we want to take a look at this.
	We want to get all the relevant records and information so we can meaningfully, forensically audit the election.
	The attorney general comes in and goes nuts.
	And he's particularly, he claims to be defending the privacy of the voters of Pennsylvania.
	Now, he makes some interesting claims in his petition to quash this.
	So the subpoena is issued for all this information, to be able to get the information necessary, to audit it forensically, to produce a report about whether, are the protocols good?
	Are the procedures good?
	Is the training good?
	Are there signs of anomalies?
	How can those anomalies be fixed and remedied?
	How substantial were those anomalies?
	Et cetera.
	But what's interesting is in filing the petition to quash the subpoena issued by the Pennsylvania State Senate, the Attorney General makes some interesting claims.
	He says things like, this data can't be turned over to any third party because if it is, you can change registration records and you can even send ballots out to people where they don't live.
	And it's like, where did that information come from?
	I thought nothing like that could happen.
	That might be...
	That might be an indication of the very problem and not a reason not to look into it, one might say.
	No doubt.
	Now, they can redact some of the information, but the information they're requesting, like...
	Addresses, date of birth, that information's already widely available out there about people in commercial databases.
	People's partial Social Security numbers, also widely available.
	Not the full Social Security numbers, but partial ones, widely available.
	Driver's license numbers, easily available.
	So the idea that this is super private information that you can't let the Pennsylvania State Senate look into isn't that persuasive to me.
	And in particular, when you contrast it with...
	What they're looking for.
	Because what the Attorney General doesn't talk about, he goes on for hundreds and hundreds of paragraphs talking about how terrible Trump is and how awful it is that anybody challenged the...
	It's just a purely political, polemical piece.
	You have to get to the very end.
	It's like, well, what's your legal objection?
	Oh, that's a privacy objection.
	Okay, right.
	Why did you go into hundreds of paragraphs of this gibberish?
	Really, what he doesn't want to talk about is they need that information to double-check...
	Making sure there weren't double votes or making sure people didn't vote who weren't supposed to.
	Private, you need certain information about that person, partial social securities, driver license numbers, date of birth to match with addresses, because otherwise what happens is you get caught in a situation Matt Brainerd does, where Matt Brainerd says, I think here's some questionable ballots, but we can't prove that unless we have this additional information to make sure there's not some weird anomaly, like somebody has the same name and the voting registrar just listed the wrong person as voting, that kind of thing.
	And that's the information he doesn't want them to have.
	And it's interesting that he's so obsessed with that.
	I get it's in the name of privacy, but it's almost as if there's something in there that he doesn't want the state Senate to get.
	Last but not least, he claims there are multiple audits in Pennsylvania.
	What he's talking about are...
	Risk-limiting audits.
	And the risk-limiting audits they did in Pennsylvania did not use what the standards of the United States Election Assistance Commission and others say you're supposed to do in a risk-limiting audit, and that is signature matches.
	No signature match check has yet happened in Pennsylvania.
	Hopefully this audit will do that because signature matches are the best way to highlight potential problems with what happened in the election and areas needed for reform for future elections.
	Now, Mike Bruna says, wrong Barnes, Pennsylvania had a signed voting.
	I don't know that I know what that means.
	Yeah, I don't know what he means by that either, by a signed voting.
	Now, actually, one question that I forgot to ask you, Robert, before I forget, going back to deposition of Giuliani and Coomer.
	I read a couple of reports because people sent me an article.
	I didn't know the source.
	Coomer's deposition was kept private.
	It was sealed, allegedly because he was unhinged in his deposition.
	I'd love to hear what he was screaming about.
	This comes from Eugene Hong.
	I've read that, but it only seems to be the same article being cited and recited by other sites.
	They are right-leaning, and I say that without judgment.
	So I didn't hear about Coomer's deposition even being conducted.
	I saw that too, and I saw no confirmation of that.
	The only thing I would say is this process of having unsealed depositions for one side and sealed depositions for the other side, I'm not a fan of.
	It creates a...
	Perception of imbalance.
	Well, forget that.
	The deposition should never be sealed regardless.
	If there's information in there that needs to be redacted, you can have certain sections blacked out, but an entire deposition?
	If the guy's unhinged, I want to see it.
	But if he's revealing code for whatever, that trade secrets, I don't necessarily need to see that.
	Okay, very interesting.
	There was a good segue, but I lost my train of thought into the next subject, which is...
	Oh, the conflict.
	Speaking of, how was it?
	The judges, Robert.
	The judges doing fishy things.
	So this article made the rounds.
	Everyone was sending it to me.
	I think it's like, it's just not surprising anymore.
	It's not surprising and there might be a little nuance to the issue.
	Allegedly, I think it was 131 judges.
	I don't know what levels, if they were federal or state judges, but allegedly 131 judges in the states were conflicted.
	In something like 630 cases in which they were judged because they had a financial interest in one of the parties.
	And in most cases, I believe it was by holding direct stock in the company.
	Either they or their family holding direct stock in the company.
	That was one of the parties to the suit.
	And it's an amount.
	I think $15,001 seems to be the threshold.
	I don't know what the rules are in the States.
	And in some cases, upwards of $50,000 in stock in a company.
	So, the idea is, obviously, judges are supposed to be impartial.
	They're supposed to have the appearance and actually be impartial.
	And you cannot have a financial interest in a party to a suit in which you are a judge.
	It's just a basic conflict of interest 101.
	They're supposed to recuse themselves.
	The idea is here that they didn't recuse themselves, why they didn't, whether or not it was their staff not doing a due diligence, whether or not it was misspelling the name as they ran it through conflict.
	There has been...
	Confirmation that a number of judges in a lot of cases were adjudicating where they had a conflict of interest.
	The spin from the media is that this represents 600 cases in the million cases that are filed in the states in a year.
	Not a million, but whatever.
	It's a fraction of a percent.
	It's egregious.
	It's over the top.
	Robert, how does it happen?
	Is it oversight?
	Is it procedural?
	Is it reckless?
	And what do you make of the report?
	Well, you know, if Mel Brooks does a sequel to History of the World Part 1, where he talks about it's good to be the king, I think they'll have to go back and forth between it's good to be the judge to it's good to be a Federal Reserve banker.
	Because both of them got caught this week.
	Over 100 federal judges got caught in many, many cases with ruling on cases that the rules are designed that they're automatically supposed to disqualify themselves from ruling on.
	And so the one perspective is the amount of money is pretty small.
	The judges might not have even been aware of it, so on and so forth.
	The bigger problem is this is the easiest place to catch.
	We're not going to catch a lot of other places where there's big, big conflicts, where the assets are hidden or the money's not known about or the interest isn't fully apprised of any party of.
	Here, this was supposed to be easy to catch.
	The judges put in what stocks they have.
	Any party that files suit lists what the interested parties are.
	Sometimes if you ever see a case or a complaint form or appeals case, you'll often see this notice of interested parties.
	It's a listing of all the relevant stocks at issue.
	And so given the combination of their disclosure requirements and these disclosure requirements in order to bring a case before a judge, this is supposed to be caught right away and easily disqualified.
	So to me, the concern wasn't that in these particular cases it may have had a major impact.
	It was that if even this very easy-to-catch conflict of interest isn't being caught on a regular basis to where hundreds of judges in hundreds of cases have an obvious, easily documented conflict of interest compelling disqualification as a matter of law.
	Then Lord knows what's happening in cases where there's real conflicts.
	So like, for example, I've had IRS cases and federal judges, it turned out, had a conflict with the IRS at the time of my case, which meant they could curry favor with the IRS by ruling against my client.
	And they hid that information throughout the case.
	That's the kind of thing that's not publicly disclosed, generally.
	You only found out because they put a lien on the federal judge.
	And it was like, whoa, whoa, hold on a second.
	So it's deeply unsettling that this is happening at such a systematic level, and it's the argument I've always made about the judiciary.
	The judiciary is the only branch of government that is the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary when it comes to the judiciary.
	So they write their own rules to decide how they're governed.
	They have their own enforcement mechanisms to see who enforces those rules, and they adjudicate.
	Their own enforcement of their own rules.
	We have tripartite method of government for a reason.
	We should not have the judiciary self-governing, self-regulating, self-disciplining.
	Breyer has been pushing that argument.
	He wants that to happen.
	Every time Congress tries to push something, he promises, don't worry, we'll take care of it.
	The court system has completely failed at it.
	They're not competent and capable to do so.
	One remedy...
	Would be to allow for an automatic right, like some state courts do, automatic right of disqualification for at least the first judge assigned to your case, at least one time, maybe even twice, because that would allow litigants who know the bad judges to get rid of the bad judges.
	And if you get disqualified too often, then that should be signed for a review as to what's happening with your course of conduct.
	What's it called when you get a peremptory strike on a jury member?
	You get a peremptory strike on a judge?
	Exactly.
	In fact, that's what it's called in some jurisdictions like California.
	We should have that in the federal system.
	Absolutely.
	But it shows issues.
	But it's a good transition to the other major institution that got caught this week.
	Two major Federal Reserve bankers.
	Turns out we're trading right on the eve of Fed Chairman Powell's pandemic announcement last year.
	About how the Fed was going to treat the pandemic.
	And shock, shock, shock, they trade almost as well as Nancy Pelosi.
	If Nancy Pelosi was a hedge fund, she would be the most successful hedge fund in recent history.
	But that's because members of Congress, like Federal Reserve Bankers, don't have any rules that strictly prohibit insider trading on their information.
	Someone in the chat's going to know, Robert, if you don't know offhand, who were the two politicians last year, or it's two years ago now, when the pandemic hit, who were caught having sold their stocks before Congress made the announcement?
	I think both are no longer in the Senate.
	Bill Burr and Kelly Loeffler.
	David Perdue was also...
	I mean, the real reason both of those Republicans lost their Senate bid is because both of them refused to stop insider trading.
	They said they were going to keep doing it.
	They blame Trump and everything else.
	That was the number one issue in political advertising in Georgia during the recall election, or the recount, whatever it's called, the second election.
	So that, you know, it's amazing.
	But there's somebody who set up a Twitter account just pretending to be Nancy Pelosi's trading advice.
	And it just goes through how amazingly successful our insider trading deals are.
	But this is two Federal Reserve bankers, and Powell said, oh, he's really concerned about it.
	By the way, my FOIA request for all this audit information is currently pending before the George Gammon FOIA litigation we're bringing, is currently pending before the Federal Reserve.
	And this is the second time, coincidentally or otherwise, first time we announced the litigation, all of a sudden they changed the FOIA rules two weeks later for the first time in six years.
	And it's the second time our FOIA request.
	Circulating up there.
	All of a sudden, some bankers are like, eh, we got to get out of here.
	Maybe we did some insider trading.
	We seriously and sincerely apologize for that.
	How much was it, Barr and Loeffler?
	The thing is, there's not an amount of money that can buy your integrity, but how much did they do it for?
	It was tens of thousands of dollars?
	Yes, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands.
	It was like Martha Stewart's case, which really wasn't a true insider trading case.
	They love the idea that they just...
	They get to play Gordon Gekko for a day.
	That's from the movie Wall Street, for those that don't know the character.
	Nancy is drunk.
	A lot of people are making that connection in the chat.
	She's drunk more often than Rudy Giuliani.
	With Giuliani, I thought you meant Kool-Aid by what you showed in the glass and not alcohol.
	Rudy just drinks and drinks and drinks.
	God bless him, but he's usually three bourbons in by noon.
	I know nothing of this, Robert.
	You shouldn't have stolen my stuff, Rudy.
	Sorry, I gotta pay you back a little bit.
	I didn't know that until that recent Tell All Books came out.
	It's amazing.
	I now have an insight into the actual...
	The dog seems to be coughing behind me.
	Yeah, I have an insight into this world that I would have never otherwise had access to.
	So the bankers, now what do they do?
	Do they, they've resigned from what someone said?
	Oh yeah, they're like, we're out of here.
	And Powell said, we're going to take a real deep look and make sure we have a little bit better ethics rules going forward.
	I mean, the reason why these guys are Federal Reserve bankers isn't just the power, it's the extra little on the side.
	It's terrible.
	I don't know how much money could make it worth it.
	I don't think there's enough money that could ever make it worth it to live with yourselves afterwards.
	At the end of the day, you get caught and you have to walk among your brethren again.
	I don't know how some of these people can ever do it.
	You get caught for $10, $15, even if it's a million dollars, you have to go walk among your brethren and you're not going to be able to do it because you stabbed them in the back so that you could make a little extra money because of your extra access to stuff.
	Well, speaking of unusual admissions in a court pleading, the Electric Avenue singer or copyright writer sued Donald Trump this week, or sued him a couple of weeks, sued him a little bit ways back, because one of the memes that Trump put up on his Twitter feed included the song, the Electric Avenue song.
	And he sued on copyright infringement grounds.
	Trump argued defense on fair use grounds.
	What was interesting to me was...
	It turns out this song isn't owned by the individual in the UK.
	It's owned by an Antigua company.
	And I was like, hmm, I wonder why he set up an Antigua company for his copyright place.
	Could it have any correlation to the fact that the English, like the Canadians, are not taxed on their worldwide income, but are only taxed on income within their own country?
	And then if you set up money to be made in the Caribbean, then you don't have to pay any tax on it.
	You know, it was a little side point.
	There wasn't much media reference about, of course, but I was like, aha, somebody who understands how international tax law works.
	But he filed suit on the Electric Avenue grounds in the court.
	It's the Southern District of New York because, again, Trump figured out too late to get out of New York.
	So he got dragged into a bunch of these cases in New York, whereas a lot of these cases wouldn't fly in Florida.
	You see very few people suing him in Florida, notably.
	Because they don't want to lose on the 11th Circuit.
	They don't want to gamble on which federal judge they get.
	And if they get a state court judge, they don't trust that they'll have the same...
	It shows lawyers and litigants know what I'm talking about is true, about the political prejudice of juries, jury pools, and judges in these jurisdictions.
	But the court ruled that the case gets to go forward because of two reasons.
	The fair use defense is very broad.
	And usually when somebody uses a song in a meme, it's almost always seen as fair use.
	When Ralph Nader played off the MasterCard commercial in 2000 for a brilliant viral campaign ad, they recognized that that was completely fair use.
	Other political contexts they've recognized as fair use.
	It's really for political purposes.
	It's not commercial misappropriation pretending you're the actual author of the song that damages your licensure market.
	But now they're pretending that being associated with Trump could damage his licensure market.
	So it's a very, you know, reads like a political decision in my view.
	I thought the argument where the court was strong was that fair use generally is a jury trial defense.
	It's not usually, because it's so fact-driven, it's not easily going to be a motion to dismiss defense.
	But that isn't the way courts have typically applied fair use.
	They've typically applied it at the dismissal stage repeatedly.
	But there's that issue, which the court didn't really admit or acknowledge.
	So I guess Electric Avenue is going to go to trial on copyright use in the Southern District of New York as the case proceeds onward.
	So we'll see what happens with all that.
	Now, Robert, before we run out of time, because I want to get to...
	We've done all of the top 10 locals at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	Sorry, here.
	I put it back to my name because...
	The big one is DeSantis is suing the Biden administration.
	A lot of people have criticized Republican governors, particularly in Texas, for not taking more action on the immigration issue because the Biden administration, first, they stopped keeping people in Mexico, let them come to the United States.
	Secondly, they weren't detaining people.
	They were mass releasing them.
	Third, they were releasing people without requiring COVID tests or vaccinations.
	The only people that don't have a vaccine mandate is, apparently, if you want to escape a vaccine mandate, come into the country illegally.
	It's like, go back into Mexico, come in, pretend to have a different name, Roberto de Varnez, and then I no longer have a vaccine mandate, apparently.
	And Pisaki's response to that was the most egregious middle finger to all of America says, yeah, that's correct.
	Moving on.
	I mean, it was shocking to a Canadian.
	Sorry, carry on.
	Yeah, I mean, this is the same person that explained when she was the State Department press secretary back under Obama that, well, what free speech rights?
	I'm talking about prosecuting Ed Snowden.
	I mean, so, you know, Psaki's got a long history of that.
	But it's because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the states have very limited legal authority, jurisdiction, or power over any issue related to immigration.
	This is how Sheriff Joe consistently had various rules struck down that he was not allowed to enforce, that Arizona as a state was not allowed to enforce a bunch of rules during the Obama administration because they said they were preempted by federal control.
	Now, there's some good arguments for that concerning borders, but that's the reality.
	So to DeSantis' credit, he brought suit saying, look, because we don't have any ability to, we only suffer the impact with no ability to reform it.
	We need the courts to enforce federal law.
	And in this context, what it is, is the other thing the Biden administration is doing.
	They've already lost to Texas and Missouri on the issue of certain forms of release in those jurisdictions.
	They've already lost to them on the issue of keeping people in Mexico.
	Now, Florida DeSantis is suing the Biden administration because Biden has come up with a third remedy for this mass release, which is to call it temporary parole.
	And this temporary parole is supposed to only be for a unique, extraordinary humanitarian circumstances.
	But the Biden administration has been telling people, often, by the way, not in writing, which is a good rule, everybody.
	Always in cash, never in writing.
	Biden administration has been following it in certain contexts, via the vaccine mandate context so far, and somewhat in the immigration context.
	But DeSantis is suing because he's pointing out the consequences, saying, look, clearly what they're doing is temporary parole because we went from 17 people getting temporary parole to somebody comes in, says they want asylum, they're automatically detained pending a hearing.
	Unless there's extraordinary humanitarian circumstance.
	Only 17 of those people met that standard under Trump in the last month of his administration.
	By contrast, more than a quarter of a million, 225,000 plus another 50,000 they can't explain, have already met it in the first six months of the Biden administration.
	So their point is, this is illegal.
	Congress has a specific law.
	They're abusing it.
	They didn't go through the APA process.
	It's also a constitutional violation.
	So he brought DeSantis to the Biden administration this week in federal court seeking injunctive relief on that law.
	And the idea here to stick to what you've been saying for a while is that this suit is not asking for more rights for the state level to manage their own borders.
	It's saying just enforce the federal laws at the federal level to all border states so that they don't run into this problem.
	Did you say a quarter of a million?
	It went from 17 to a quarter of a million, It's not applying to anybody.
	They're doing mass catch and release.
	They're also trying to reduce the number of beds available because they're using the lack of beds available as part of their excuse as a humanitarian reason for mass release.
	And they're trying to deliberately create a bed shortage to create that effect.
	And the other thing he detailed is all the economic consequences on the state.
	That they have to school people regardless of whether they're legally here or not.
	They have to treat people emergency medical treatment regardless of whether they're legally here or not.
	They have to deal with the criminal consequences both for victims and perpetrators whether they're legally here or not.
	And so the point is it's costing the states tons of money.
	They have no means of remedying this except for federal law.
	And the only way that federal law is going to matter is if federal courts force the Biden administration to actually honor it because so far it hasn't honored any of it.
	Amazing.
	The chat says, Jan6 chatted up a guy on my way to the Capitol, was a Fed with a camera around his neck, taught me how to spot hidden Antifa, later met guys with a bag full of gas masks, hanged them out.
	I never hear of similar experiences.
	Yeah, we've talked about that at length.
	To a court's credit.
	The federal court, a Trump appointee, Judge McFadden, refused a prosecutor who demanded that one of the January 6th defendants be imprisoned for basically misdemeanor offenses.
	And the judge said no, he's going to get probation.
	And the judge went out of his way to start lecturing.
	There's starting to be a pushback on the January 6th issues.
	Lectured the prosecutor.
	He said, look, it looks really bad when the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuted pretty much nobody.
	Connected to any issues at the Capitol over the last several years, or just the riots that took place over the last year.
	And you're asking me to lock up anybody now?
	And he's like, no, I'm not going to do it.
	So it's good to see pushback.
	It's where the court of public opinion matters, because judges who started out very hostile to these defendants, some of them are starting to recognize it for the politically motivated cases that it is.
	And this might be a good way to end this stream.
	It's The Princess says, I subscribe to Locals because you fight for freedom.
	Thank you.
	May or may not have a Barnes crush.
	Force Awakens on Locals.
	Another great view of Barnes.
	Thank you very much, The Princess.
	And we got Sheriff Joe and Janet had ICE train and deputized the deputy as agents.
	The federal government had a problem with Sheriff Joe doing a better job.
	Yeah, they shut him down and the courts let him do it.
	That's why it's important to push back in every means possible.
	And once again, DeSantis is coming up with some of the smartest legal actions and legislative reforms and remedies out there.
	And a bunch of states are looking at the next big fight in vaccine mandate cases will be state legislators.
	Legislatures passing real reforms that prohibit employers from discriminating against people based on their vaccination status.
	And hopefully Montana already has.
	Hopefully more states will continue.
	I read that on Montana.
	But the amazing thing is they're invoking, in terms of justifying why they're not detaining people, the absence of beds, while allowing people to come in who will...
	Statistically, be carrying a virus that's going to exacerbate the problem that caused the shortage of beds in the first place, thus exacerbating the problem that led to them bringing in the people without any form of vetting or detention.
	I mean, it's literal insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, except this is doing the same mistake over and over again and expecting it to solve the problem.
	All right, what do we end this on, Robert?
	I think we hit two hours.
	Let me see.
	We got...
	One chat here.
	Cigar tax to go up 100%, 50 cents per cigar.
	Pipe tobacco tax to go up 1,500%.
	No new tax.
	Okay.
	The hidden taxes.
	And inflation, by the way.
	Just inflation is the hidden tax that applies to everyone under $400,000, which I suspect you all are experiencing as much as we are.
	And we got, don't give up on the Rose Bowl.
	They need your business.
	Keep up the fight against our corrupt government.
	Robert.
	For anybody who might be a little depressed, we don't necessarily want to leave them on a depressed note.
	What do you say to everybody?
	Myself included, by the way, because certain recent experiences have been making me more and more depressed.
	But then the question is, where do you go?
	Where is it better?
	But what do you have to say for people who are saying the here and now is getting a little too depressing without the humor for me?
	At least you don't have a name that keeps getting arrested.
	Like a gentleman in a jurisdiction that had a name common in certain parts of the country, but not in his part of the country.
	And so they kept arresting him and jailing him, thinking he was a guy that had a wanted warrant for him in another jurisdiction.
	And so after the third such arrest, he was like, enough of this.
	Got stuck in jail a couple of days, filed a lawsuit, found a lawyer, and the court enjoined them from continuing to arrest him.
	So no matter how bad your life is, at least you're not getting repeatedly arrested for having the wrong name.
	There was a story, it's one of those memes that went around about an underwater diver who's doing work on one of the oil drills and the water's, you know, four degrees down at the bottom, so they pump hot water into, warmer water into his dry suit.
	Or wetsuit, whatever.
	From the higher levels.
	And apparently a jellyfish got sucked down and pumped into his suit.
	And he felt a little itch on his butthole.
	And then scratched it.
	But he mushed the jellyfish into his butthole.
	And it made a terrible thing.
	So everyone says, when you think you're having a bad day at work, it could be worse.
	But that is it.
	Look, we covered all the ground this week.
	And I think we missed a few things.
	Nothing big.
	Pfizer audit.
	Don Lemon.
	Which I guess there will be bigger news on a going forward basis.
	The week to come, what are we expecting this week in terms of law updates?
	So, I mean, yeah, the vaccine mandate cases continue to accumulate.
	We'll see what some other things happen, and there's always legal news.
	I'll actually be on the road, so we may not have a sidebar this Wednesday because of that, because it's a very big, interesting case that everything's under seal, and it shouldn't be under seal, and the public has an interest in finding out what it is, but I can't even discuss it indirectly beyond that.
	But hopefully it becomes public record, and if it becomes public record and gets unsealed, that will be very interesting legal information this week as well.
	All right.
	Amazing.
	So with that said, everyone, thank you all for tuning in.
	Oh, I didn't check Rumble Rants.
	I apologize, but I'm going to go check Rumble Rants and then maybe tweet them out as a thank you.
	Thank you all.
	This is great.
	Robert, thank you.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone, enjoy what's left of the weekend.
	If we don't have a sidebar this Wednesday, we'll do some live stream without Robert.
	Not because we'll be angry.
	We'll keep the routine going.
	Tomorrow, stick around.
	John Carpe at some point in the evening to be determined.

▲