Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 10, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:05:33

Ep. 82: Viva & Barnes LIVE WITH THE LAW STUFFS!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ooh, we went live one second early.
	I was doing the countdown in my own head.
	I see the people saying that I'm going to be late.
	If I'm late, people.
	F, thank you.
	F, Andre Tuchulescu.
	F, I love that shepherd.
	My goodness.
	That is a big, beautiful dog.
	Let's go, Brandon, people.
	Has everyone seen my acoustic version of that?
	I think everybody has because it did well on my second channel.
	Second channel, by the way.
	Shameless plug.
	Viva family.
	If anybody doesn't follow us on Locals, I just posted a picture of that, which is going to be our next cooking video.
	It's a lamb testicle.
	Or a ram testicle?
	Whatever the male version of the lamb is.
	The sheep.
	I went to a farm today.
	They had lamb, which they harvest and sell, but all were sold and taken for.
	They had apples.
	I ate a few too many apples.
	I'm trying to capture the winning shot for the million dollar GoPro challenge because I'm going to win this year.
	Or at least I'm going to make it into the final.
	And shameless promotion that is not paid advertisement.
	For the GoPro million dollar challenge, if anybody is out there and is in the market or has the new GoPro 10, they have a very interesting marketing campaign.
	In order to submit, to have your chance to...
	Partake in a million-dollar prize.
	You have to submit with the new GoPro, which is great marketing.
	It really is.
	But if anybody's got the new GoPro 10 or they're going to go get it, submit to the million-dollar challenge.
	A winning shot is a two-second clip that they use for the promotional video, and you split a million dollars among however many people they choose that year for the winning montage.
	So 1,300 folks.
	Wow, I have to see how many people are watching.
	200 likes.
	Come on, people.
	Dashens rule.
	Thank you very much.
	So, I'm calling it now.
	I think I have already submitted a winning clip.
	I think it's going to be in the montage.
	It involves an animal, not a dog.
	I have shown it to family and one other YouTube lawyer.
	I'm going to make it.
	But anyhow, that's a plug for GoPro that is a not paid advertisement at all.
	I actually paid for it because I bought the GoPro Hero 10 Black.
	It's glorious.
	While everyone's watching, and anybody who lives in Canada that has a restaurant or a food-producing business, I this week just discovered an app called Second Harvest because I had contacted a local charity called Centre La Salienne after hearing them on the radio when I wanted to help.
	And it's a charity that provides food and meals to underprivileged children in the Montreal area because in the St. Michel area, like one in three kids.
	I don't even have enough food to eat.
	And they are literally given food for the weekend from their schools.
	And I wanted to help.
	And I said, like, I want to put you guys in touch with farmers and restaurants that have leftover food.
	And the owner of the owner, the president of the charity said there's already an app for that.
	It's called Second Harvest.
	And I did a Zoom call with the person who, you know, is in charge of promoting Second Harvest as an app.
	And it's amazing.
	It's just like Second Harvest.
	You download it if you're a restaurant.
	And if you have leftover food, you fill in the thing, it lets you know which charities are within a certain vicinity, and it puts the charity in touch with the food-producing unit, like Subway, donut shops, restaurant, you know.
	Second Harvest, for anyone who has a restaurant, grocer, or anything that has leftover food, so you can not waste the food and get in touch with charity and people who need it.
	Viva Fly Rod Fund.
	Thank you very much, J-Mill.
	Always love that avatar.
	I'm going to take a few super chats, then I'm going to get into my rant, which will be a short one.
	We already saw that one.
	But if anybody's in the market for the GoPro, man, do it, submit.
	It's amazing.
	Five days before the collapse of our healthcare system, it's not going to collapse, but if this is what it takes for people to wake up and realize two weeks to flatten the curve so as not to overwhelm the healthcare facilities turned into two years.
	The one-month curfew last year to not overwhelm the healthcare facilities at...
	Christmas.
	It was January.
	Turned into five months.
	We don't want to overwhelm the healthcare system.
	So what does the government do now?
	It implements a wholly unscientific, unconstitutional, obligatory vaccination policy that is going to result in healthcare workers quitting.
	Because the government, in their infinite wisdom, has determined that empty hospital beds are more dangerous than healthy but unvaccinated healthcare workers who may themselves actually not need to be vaccinated if they actually have natural antibodies.
	That's the government science.
	Manufacture the crisis so that you can respond to it.
	Sorry, that's not the rant, by the way.
	But the rant is not far off.
	Okay, let's see what we got here.
	AstroTurf whistleblowers, a grass whistleblower.
	Let's get into the rant, people, before we get into the disclaimers.
	I just put out a video before this.
	It's about Bill 96 in Quebec.
	It's a pure Quebec vlog.
	So, you know, it may be of limited interest to the rest of the world.
	Maybe a little bit of limited interest to the rest of Canada, but certainly of interest to Quebecers, and even more so of interest to English Quebecers, because Bill 96 is that proposed law that's going to amend Bill 101, which was the language law in Quebec.
	And I've been approached by people, Anglos, who come up to me and say, Dave, you've got to raise some awareness to Bill 96. We're losing our language rights.
	And I've had this conversation with more than one individual.
	If one of the people who I've had this conversation with is watching, I'm not necessarily talking about you.
	We get into it, you know, it's terrible.
	Look what they're doing to our language laws.
	English Canadians are being treated like second-class citizens.
	English Quebecers.
	To which I responded, you reap what you sow.
	And if this was your line, your language rights being violated by a law that they're going to invoke the notwithstanding clause, if this was your line, we have different lines in the sand.
	Because for the last 18 months, English Quebecers and English radio, CJAD, I'm looking straight at you.
	And all of the people on CJAD, Elias Makos, been kissing that boot for the last year.
	Anna, what is her name?
	Natasha Hall and Ayn Rand or Aaron Rand.
	CJAD, everyone at that radio station, everyone in English media has pretty much been promoting this agenda.
	Mandatory masks.
	Mandatory vaccination, vaccine passports, supporting the lockdown, supporting the curfew, notwithstanding constitutional rights, but now they've come for your language.
	And they haven't even really come for it.
	They want to put in more restrictions that have already been in place for 40 years.
	Now it's a bridge too far.
	Now they've gone too far.
	You reap what you sow when you don't respect any one of your rights.
	Don't expect the government to respect any one of your rights.
	And when you don't respect any one of your rights and the government doesn't, don't them to respect...
	Don't them...
	Let me calm down.
	When you and the government don't respect any one of your rights, they're not going to respect any of your rights.
	And this is the bed that we have made as a society.
	And it's a little late to start crying, what about my linguistic rights?
	When quite literally, we were locked in our homes after 8 o 'clock for five months.
	And not only did nobody complain about it, but the same radio stations and the same people who are now complaining about this actually supported those violations.
	Those were fine.
	But...
	Don't make me have a French sign that is nettement predominant.
	All right, let me bring up some super chats here.
	Then we're going to get into the...
	Sorry, I knew it was off topic, but it horrified me.
	Poor lady nearly lost everything at the scammers making ad revenue off her details.
	Thomas Caldwell, I think I know what you're talking about.
	But hold on, let me see if I'll bring up these chats.
	I just hope Canada gets better for you, brother.
	Keep up the fight.
	Oh, you know what?
	Part two of the rant.
	People then say to people who speak up, well...
	What did you do?
	People come to me and criticize me, typically anonymously, you know, through social media and say, I haven't done enough.
	I've worn the mask.
	I, you know, I didn't go out and deliberately get arrested.
	I didn't go out and promote people to go out and break the law.
	Yeah, I didn't.
	But if anyone looks at me and says, I didn't do enough, that's fine.
	You're entitled to your opinion.
	But I would not challenge you to say, what have you done more?
	Because if you've done more, more power to you.
	And if you think that the way to fight this is to go out and break the law and incite others to break the law, not my strategy.
	So if that's the strategy you're looking for, you're in the wrong place.
	But if anyone through the anonymity and comfort of their keyboard is going to tell me that I didn't do enough, when I ran for parliament, when I challenged the establishment, when I spoke truth to power, when I, I think on a daily basis, I am vocal.
	If anyone says that's not enough, okay, you do more, and I will pat you on the back to the extent that it is a more that abides by my principles of what is appropriate responses and what is useful discourse and useful action.
	But this is a minority of the people, and I don't want to make it sound like everybody says this.
	I mean, anyways, it is what it is.
	Let's go, Brandon.
	Oh, hey, Vivo, here we go.
	Just want to pop in and say, hello, I started law school last week.
	A decision helped by watching you in Barnes.
	So far, so good.
	Thanks.
	Ben, law school sucks, but it's fun.
	And once you get through it, the practice sucks, but it's fun.
	And then once you get enough experience under your belt, it's up to you what you do with that experience.
	But the law school part of it is fun because you actually learn the law as though, I was going to say, as though the law matters.
	The law does matter.
	But there's the ideal perspective of the law, and then there's the reality of law put into practice.
	Two very, very, very different things.
	All right, let's just do the super chat disclaimers, the legal disclaimers, all the disclaimers.
	Refuse resistance, replace.
	Refuse the mask, vast force, resist tyranny, replace the government, and open locals chat.
	Son of a gun.
	Thank you, Steve.
	Here's my thing, just about the wearing the mask.
	My issue was mandating the mask.
	I...
	I'm fairly certain you would have gotten a very large amount of support, voluntary mask wearing, and you probably would have gotten less pushback had it not been made mandatory.
	But it's not wearing the mask that's the problem.
	Anybody is free to do with their body what they think is appropriate with their body.
	It's when it becomes obligatory.
	But it's not because something becomes mandatory that I'm going to not do it out of defiance just to be defiant.
	And nor is that necessarily the right way to go about doing it either because...
	You can go out there and smash windows.
	You just give them the excuse to bring in the police.
	You can escalate, and it just gives them the excuse to escalate.
	And people need to appreciate.
	You need to know how to negotiate from a position of power, and you need to know how to negotiate from a position of weakness.
	Because everyone encouraging other people to go out there, get arrested, ruin their lives, it's very easy when you tell other people to do it.
	Whether or not it accomplishes anything, arguable.
	And whether or not it destroys the life of the person who has been told and encouraged to go do it, Less arguable.
	So there's a way to fight smart, and there's a way to fight, just to go back to that Colors movie from the 80s, Sean Penn, Robert DuBall.
	Baby Bull looking at Papa Bull says, let's run down there and procreate with one of those lady cows.
	And the Papa Bull says, no, let's walk down and procreate with all of them.
	There's a way to fight smart, and there's a way just to fight and get the response that you know you're going to get by fighting not smart.
	Only 2% of people in Africa are vaccinated.
	Why don't they need it?
	Why do I need it so bad?
	I've heard that argument made before.
	Alright, so let's just standard disclaimers.
	Superchats.
	I do my best to get to all of them.
	I will not get to all of them.
	And I reserve the right not to get to some that are just deliberately abusive, if that's the case.
	So if you're going to be miffed, if I do not bring up your superchat like this...
	If you're going to be miffed, if I do not bring up your super chat, do not bring up your super chat.
	Do not do a super chat.
	I don't want anyone feeling miffed, rooked, shilled, grifted, whatever the use of the term is.
	YouTube takes 30% of super chats.
	If that upsets anybody, you can go and follow us on Rumble where we are simultaneously live streaming.
	Rumble only takes 20%, which is better for the creators and it's better for a platform if you want to support a platform that supports free speech.
	No legal advice?
	No medical advice.
	No contradicting official narratives advice.
	We just ask questions.
	And it is up to everyone else to assess and come to their own conclusions.
	Here's a donation to Winston's haircut fund.
	He got a lot of burrs stuck in his fur this weekend.
	Still not cutting his hair.
	I cut the hair around the butt so that we don't get the Klingons or the...
	What's the other one that people call it?
	Klingons?
	There's another term.
	I've trimmed around that area.
	I've trimmed around the other area so it accumulates less.
	Fluid.
	And we had to cut out some hair because of the burrs.
	Now, menu tonight, because it's going to be a good one.
	Officially a good one.
	Dershowitz is in a team now that is suing Dominion under the Rico statue.
	I've got more questions than answers on this one, so hopefully Barnes is going to be able to field some of these.
	Donation to David's haircut.
	Cameron, I'm not cutting my hair for a long time.
	If my wife is watching, she might get PO'd.
	I'm not cutting my hair for a long time, and I'm calling it the freedom fro.
	I don't plan on cutting my hair until there is a certain amount of freedom that has been restored to Canada.
	So, get ready.
	I've been meaning to grow my hair out anyhow.
	So, we'll see.
	Plus, I think it's only a matter of time before they require vaccine passports to get haircuts.
	But for my momentary lapse that people have shamed me for, I...
	When I have advanced warning and when there's not other interests involved that I have to factor in on my own, I plan on respecting my principle.
	Why, just today I actually attended an event and remained outside in the car shooting my vlog on Bill 96 because I refused to show a vaccine passport to go indoors to eat.
	Plus, I don't eat lunch anyhow, so whatever.
	Okay.
	Make Carlos Valdemar proud.
	I don't know who that is, but I'm going to have to Google.
	Okay, so we got that.
	Trump is suing Facebook to reinstate his...
	Let me just make sure that Barnes has the info.
	Trump is suing Facebook to reinstate his social media platform.
	I'm interested to see what people are going to think about that.
	I'm not optimistic about the lawsuit for a reason, which I'm going to say now so that people don't think Robert planted the information in my head.
	If ever there has been a case of latches, this might be the case of latches, where I think they may have waited too long to seek injunctive relief to reinstate...
	His social media platform, because quite clearly there's no urgency.
	So we'll get there.
	Henrietta Lacks is suing, I forget which pharma company, but this is a phenomenally fascinating lawsuit on a factual level, historical level, dingleberries, and legal level.
	We'll see.
	Happy birthday, Winston.
	Oh yes, it was Winston's one-year birthday on Friday.
	Hey, Jamawa says, resist by any peaceful means.
	Look at the sick out by the airline workers.
	Make it hurt where it counts.
	And I agree with that.
	I agree with that to some extent.
	You know, like I make it hurt in a peaceful sense.
	Yeah, they want to fire employees.
	They want to fire federal employees.
	I guarantee you if...
	If the meter maids boycotted and did not issue tickets, the city might think twice.
	If federal security agents hypothetically said we're not going to do that which we're doing out of protest, yes.
	Where I draw the line, as a moral issue, protesting outside of hospitals will not yield the result you want.
	You have to make sure that you are the protest's target or the object of the protests.
	Are the right object and not just more innocent victims.
	Terrorizing the innocent, terrorizing the vulnerable, or making the vulnerable hurt does not promote a cause.
	Wow, everybody seems to have gotten the dingleberries here.
	Let me make sure that Barnes is in the house.
	You got the link.
	Links.
	Okay, so what else we got?
	Not kinks.
	Links.
	Let me just go back to my list and we'll see what else is on the menu for the evening.
	Oh, well, we'll talk about the New York Times.
	We'll talk about that lawsuit.
	You know, let's talk about that lawsuit now until Robert gets here.
	Gadsad and Jordan Peterson have been sounding the alarms in Canada for compelled speech.
	The Bill C-16, I think it was.
	I get mixed up on the numbers, but it was the bill that amended the criminal code to add gender identity as an aggravating factor to certain crimes.
	It added gender identity to forms of discrimination.
	And at the time, Jordan Peterson and Gadsad, for those of you who don't know who they are, psychologists.
	Jordan Peterson is a psychologist.
	Gadsad is a professor at Concordia.
	In evolutionary marketing or something along those lines, both very smart people, sounded the alarms that this was getting very close to compelled speech.
	That is to say, not only are you not allowed saying certain things in Canada because of hate speech, Because it qualifies as hate speech, targeted harassment, whatever.
	Which we saw in real time happen with Mike Ward, the comedian, who was fined by the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal for making jokes at the expense of Jeremy Gabriel, a young kid with Treacher Collins Syndrome at the time he was young.
	Fined.
	So it's one thing to have speech censored.
	Then it's another thing to have compelled speech.
	And they were raising the alarms that this was going to result in compelled speech.
	I did a video at the time when I was much less...
	Prone to sharing my own assessments.
	I said, you know, I think we pick on bad law, which makes, you know, bad cases.
	We pick on bad cases, which make bad law, which create a precedent that people run from.
	And the case at the time was a British Columbia case.
	It always seems to come out of British Columbia.
	And it was police officers who were found to have harassed a trans individual that they arrested.
	And, you know, the fact pattern was unique, but people used it as the example.
	Well, we got another example.
	And it's the case of a trans employee at a restaurant on the Sunshine Coast, I think, in British Columbia that was fined $30,000 for, quite literally, damaging the feelings, I think was the conclusion, of the employee because the employee complained of being misgendered by the employees.
	Apparently, management didn't do anything or didn't do anything fast enough to respond.
	There were meetings to discuss it.
	One meeting escalated to the point of the trans employee slapping one of the employees on the back, which the judge concluded was a parting slap on the back.
	Long story short, yep, they violated the human rights of this individual by misgendering and by firing the employee, which was determined to be as a result of trans issues.
	So a sanction or discriminatory...
	Termination of employment.
	So, another bad case with unique circumstances that is making for bad law, but Gadsad took to Twitter to rub it in the face of the Canadian Senate, who heard Gadsad and Jordan Pison talk about it.
	Sound the alarms, and it looks like it's coming to fruition.
	Now, Robert is in the house, looking dapper, over-under as to what the two words are going to be, everyone.
	You know what it's going to be.
	Robert, how you doing?
	Bueno, bueno.
	Am I on mute, or are you on mute?
	Can you hear me?
	Yeah, I can hear you now.
	Okay.
	Damn, how many times am I going to do that?
	Robert, someone asked in the locals chat how familiar you are with what's going on in Quebec in terms of language laws and Canada in terms of these gender cases, these trans cases, which are now making the rounds and making the news.
	I mean, language laws in Quebec, not so much?
	Neither.
	I see the headlines.
	I see your videos.
	That's the scope of it.
	Okay, well, and I'm not delving into the nitty-gritty, but I think you have a better understanding of it now than probably most Quebecers and Canadians who are just not really paying attention to this.
	We've got a big one tonight.
	We've got a big show, so we should probably get into it.
	Let's just start with the vaccine updates, the vaccine mandate lawsuits updates.
	I'm not up to speed on it.
	What's the latest coming out of the States?
	Sure.
	So, I mean, there were vaccine mandate protests all around the world, even in places like Kuwait, where you don't often see protests.
	So it's extraordinary, not only in Italy and UK and a range of places throughout Europe, but it was striking to see it in places like Kuwait.
	You've seen places in South Africa, other places.
	So it's a worldwide global resistance phenomena.
	And this week in the States, we saw a continuation of a prior trend, but we also saw something new, which is we're starting to see vaccine mandate strikes.
	It appears they're doing them as sick-outs, what's called sick-outs.
	Basically, a whole bunch of people decide they're sick on the same day.
	Apparently, Southwest is trying to keep a lid on it because Southwest is already facing suit.
	Because the allegation of the Southwest Pilots Union is that this violates the Railroad Labor Act's labor provisions.
	And so in essence, the labor provisions require that you can't just unilaterally impose something on something that's already been negotiated in a different direction.
	So they're pursuing it as a labor rights matter under federal law.
	They have a temporary injunction request pending in federal court in Dallas, Texas.
	And apparently a bunch of the pilots decided to act on it.
	And anybody who knows pilots, they're like baseball players.
	They're very, or baseball pitchers.
	Very iconoclastic individuals who tend to walk their own walk and don't tend to take to anybody telling them what to do, especially with their own body.
	I won't get into the medical concerns that have been raised by military experts for pilots, but be aware.
	All that will be discussed at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But rest assured that pilots are aware of that information.
	So they're particularly concerned about certain aspects of this particular drug.
	So apparently they did a massive surprise sick-out, even though the Southwest had been warned about it.
	And it caused thousands of...
	Of flights in different places all across the country to be canceled over the weekend.
	Not only that, there were protests in Seattle by port workers and ferry workers that's caused major problems.
	The vaccine mandate may relate in part to what's happening at the ports and the delay in the supply chains of workers not being available in different places simply to get things off a boat.
	There's talk of school bus drivers in various cities also doing sick outs because there's been sudden problems there.
	So expect the strike and labor resistance to grow dramatically as people see the likely success the Southwest pilots will have.
	And now that's the question.
	Did Southwest deny or not confirm any disruption?
	Because now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know if it was on Twitter or our locals page.
	People were saying they live under Southwest air routes.
	And there's been no traffic, and apparently Southwest is not recognizing any interruption to services?
	Southwest is just saying we're having a, like if you call in, we're having a temporary surge of calls.
	So things like that.
	They're trying to pretend it's not what it is.
	And so the, because they don't want people suddenly canceling a bunch of their flights.
	And because Southwest usually has a pretty generous refund policy.
	And so that would, you know, that...
	It could cause all kinds of issues that they did not anticipate.
	And it's important to note, Southwest Airlines initially said they were not going to do a vaccine mandate because they're known as an independent, iconoclastic kind of airline by their policies and procedures and personnel in the past.
	And the Biden administration purportedly put direct pressure on them.
	We'll see how all this turns out.
	Of course, the United suit is still pending.
	American Airlines is looking at, pilots are not only looking at suing, but also because a lot of these airlines initially backed off and said they were not going to pursue the mandates, at least as the pilots.
	And then they changed their position after apparent pressure from the Biden administration.
	And pilots are just not the kind of people to lay down.
	And their unions are not so politically corrupted as to also lay down.
	Like, you know, Tyson Foods labor, some of its unions laid down, proved how useless they are.
	So that's one stage of suits.
	Another stage of suits is, once again, religious accommodations are winning in court.
	There's a lot of lawyers out there engaged in massive legal malpractice.
	I'm hearing more and more stories of both governmental lawyers and corporate lawyers giving bad legal advice to their clients, telling them that they have to do a mandate, telling them not to respect religious accommodations, and they're going to ultimately get sued.
	It's only going to be a matter of time.
	It might be six months from now, maybe two years from now, but there's a lot of law firms and lawyers that are going to be sued for giving bad legal advice because they don't know what they're talking about.
	When you get your news from the CNN legal analyst who can't hack it in the real world, That's not a good method of, that's not going to be considered doing your due diligence.
	And as an example, now religious accommodations going all the way back to the Obama administration.
	I detailed at the vivabarneslaw.locals.com this week videos showing that both the Biden EEOC and the Obama administration EEOC have recognized the right to exemptions from vaccine mandates and that religious beliefs Don't require theistic beliefs.
	Religious beliefs are really about your conscience.
	It's explicitly recognized that non-theistic moral code beliefs about life, the purpose of life, the meaning of life, about things that go to your core conscience, those are also recognized, respected, and protected under the law.
	And in my view, there's no stronger moral belief than informed consent.
	And many people refuse.
	There are various media personalities baffled by why people would be asserting Who don't have a problem with the vaccine themselves but aren't taking it because they object to what's happening on moral grounds.
	It's because for many people informed consent is a part of their conscience and they refuse to partake for that reason.
	And for those people who don't think informed consent could be a serious purpose about life, about the deep moral code, we killed people at Nuremberg who violated that code.
	That's how much we considered it a deep moral belief to violate it.
	You could be summarily executed like they were at Nuremberg.
	So I think that, but all those cases, all won again.
	Religious accommodations won in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, won in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, kind of implicitly won in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals when the University of Indiana dropped their objections to religious accommodations.
	So now we're seeing a pattern going all the way back to the Obama administration.
	There's over a dozen cases where religious accommodations have all won and any employer who denied it lost.
	And now I want to bring this one up because Project Veritas put out a video which...
	Take it for what it's worth, because some people are going to say the individual in the video doesn't know what he's talking about.
	They'll find ways to get around it, but seemingly confirmed the origins or what is used in these vaccines, which is at the root of a lot of people's religious or conscientious objections to taking the vaccine.
	Robert, I know you heard what Justin Trudeau said in Canada.
	Just not wanting to is not a good religious conviction, and they're going to make it damn difficult to get one.
	And it'll be very onerous, is what he said.
	Even in these cases, the one I think I saw, the Michigan case, which was from the Court of Appeals, confirming or not staying the injunction that stayed the vaccine mandate policy.
	When they're using religious exemption, though, I think people still get the impression they're using it as in a Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu thing, and not as in even an atheist can raise the religious objection.
	elaborate on what that concept means under American law and that it's not limited to The big four religions.
	Our views, I mean, the whole history of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which this implements, is that religion is about a matter of individual conscience, that it's not about organized acceptance.
	So the EEOC, Obama's EEOC, filed suit on behalf of people against the flu vaccine mandate all across the country.
	They won every single one of them.
	And it was for nurses against hospitals.
	And some of them claimed that it was necessary.
	That there's a defense that says that, you know, basically it's business necessity to do it.
	All the hospitals lost.
	And if they lost, ain't nobody else going to be winning.
	But it's clear, Biden's own EEOC, and I put up a video description of it at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	People can go and see the content list of all the vaccine lawsuit discussions.
	It has its own playlist on the content section.
	But I went through what the Biden's own EEOC talks about, and this is what courts have recognized, all the offer for decades now.
	Which is under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which you also have your state analog version of that.
	Sometimes it's more extensive and expansive than it.
	What they mean by religious belief is not what the New York governor thinks it means.
	What the law means is any action of individual conscience.
	Is it about your purpose in life?
	Is it about your meaning in life?
	Is it about right and wrong?
	Is it about a moral code?
	It's all code.
	For conscience.
	In fact, if you read some of the cases, they'll talk about that explicitly and expressly.
	So just think of it.
	Is my opposition because I don't like Joe Biden?
	Or is my opposition because this offends me at a deep level?
	And the reason why this issue is so animated and so intense is because it offends people at a very deep level.
	I mean, not everybody, but more than a few.
	Indeed, if you get honest polling, as Richard Barris, People's Pundit, has done.
	From the public polling project funded by the people, over about between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans object to these mandates.
	They say that you should not fire anybody because they refuse it or reject it.
	In fact, indeed, often medical and religious reasons, political and religious reasons can overlap, as the EEOC says.
	The fact that it's also political or also medical does not make it any less religious.
	What matters is that it's about your moral code.
	It's about the purpose of life.
	It's about living.
	Your body is your temple is a very commonly held belief in a wide range of people that's a part of their moral code.
	Again, the Obama administration sued hospitals who denied that as a religious accommodation and won.
	The Biden EEOC admits that's still the case in its own compliance space.
	I know that we've seen it, but where can we find the Obama EEOC so that people can read it for themselves?
	So I put up a description of it at a video at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, which has the caption of each of the different claims, pointing out this suit, this suit, and then they went through.
	And in time, I'll be uploading those to either, probably I'll be uploading those to locals.
	They're working on getting that done.
	So we can upload PDFs there.
	And so once that's done, that's where we'll have them.
	I'm going to continue to put up a whole index of all of the suits that have been filed.
	But again, religious accommodations is the way to go.
	Where there has been struggle has been natural immunity.
	So the first suit that was filed on natural immunity, George Mason University, they folded and capitulated rather than gamble and lose in court.
	In California, a George W. Bush appointee relied on Jacobson, and that was what we discussed last week, in my view, deliberately misinterpreted Gorsuch's words, and said that as long as there's any scientist out there who believes that it's possible the vaccine is better than natural immunity, then the university can do whatever it wants.
	Again, I think it was in Michigan.
	It may have been another state.
	Another George W. Bush appointee said that they could discriminate, fire someone.
	And again, they're ignoring the fact that in Jacobson, that mandate excluded people who had natural immunity.
	So they've never approved.
	No court has previously approved a vaccine mandate to be imposed on people who are already immune from the disease.
	So that to itself is new.
	No, but it's also atrocious in that for talking about the party or the people that say trust the science, follow the science, We know, and this is not medical advice, this is nothing, this is just, it's known now that vaccinated people can carry, contract, and communicate the virus.
	And so the idea being that you need to impose the vaccine passport and terminate, as opposed to just ensure that the individuals are not infected.
	The idea to emphasize the vaccine passport over a negative test, knowing what we know now.
	It's wholly unscientific, and that's not even getting into the constitutional issue.
	So if people are not compelled by the constitutional arguments, at the very least, be compelled by the science that these people are imploring others to find or to follow.
	And the immunity, I mean, what's the, present both sides, but I mean, we now know the immunity theory is that immunity, natural immunity, lasts longer than vaccine immunity.
	The question is...
	Not knowing when you receive the immunity or how long the immunity is going to last, can you then nonetheless still compel vaccination?
	So one court out of California says yes?
	So yeah, one federal court in California said that, and another court, I believe it was in Michigan this week, also said that the first test was rational basis review.
	They said no strict scrutiny, no intermediate scrutiny.
	If it involves vaccine mandates, that's just rational basis.
	That's a misconstruction and misapplication of Jacobson, a decision that shouldn't be respected at all anyway, as it was the sole basis for the eugenics approving decision of Buck v.
	Bell.
	Anybody citing that decision has no clue what they're doing.
	They don't understand the morally horrific consequences that flowed from that decision.
	But putting that aside, the decision doesn't even say that.
	That decision said a state legislature could authorize a health board.
	To impose a fine on someone, a very small fine, if they didn't take a vaccine that had had a century of history of being safe and effective as it relates to an epidemic that opposed a lethality rate of one in three of people who got it dying.
	That is no comparison at all to any of these circumstances.
	These courts are pretending otherwise, and they're embracing Jacobson for what the eugenics court did.
	Which say, this means the government can do whatever it wants in the name of public health.
	And what the Korematsu case did, the government can do whatever it wants in the name of emergency.
	So that's the first thing they did.
	They cited this morally horrific decision, which whatever you think about vaccines or vaccine mandates, you should be terrified that courts are talking about giving government that power again.
	Because that is what led to the Nazis.
	I know our audience, our regulars know, Jacobson was the smallpox case in 1905.
	Where, incidentally, it was not compelled vaccination, even the outcome and the decision.
	It was a monetary fine, which was the equivalent of, what, 100, 200 bucks today for not getting the vaccine in the context of smallpox outbreak with a vaccine that had been, you know, had a little more history to it.
	The buck decision was the forced sterilization of women of a certain demographic, you can elaborate, on the basis that they were, and I'm quoting, I think it was idiots was the word in the decision.
	Intellectually deficient and therefore should not have kids or procreate or have offspring because it would be detrimental to the world.
	Forced sterilization.
	And I believe it was 8-1, Robert?
	Am I mistaken?
	Or was it unanimous?
	That's my recollection.
	8-1, as I recall.
	These are the decisions.
	Then you have the Korematsu one, which comes up every now and again, which was detainment of Japanese Americans because they were perceived as an existential threat to the United States because of what happened at Pearl Harbor.
	But it's the buck one that I think most people don't appreciate.
	Was forced sterilization of women who were deemed to be mentally deficient to the point where they should not have kids and the government should decide they should not have kids.
	Was there a demographic issue in that case as well, Robert?
	At least in consequences, absolutely.
	Disproportionately black women, poor white women, and Native American women.
	And by the way, they did it under a disguise.
	They told them they were doing something different than what they were doing most of the time.
	And so, I mean, it was one of the most morally horrific, and they continue to do it through the mid-1970s.
	And kind of like what they're doing with some of the testing of this vaccine, they picked on orphans, they picked on people that were disadvantaged and unprotected, people that were inmates, people that were in communities or constituencies that did not have political power or social status.
	And unleashing that power, it's not a surprise that George W. Bush judges liked that power.
	That's why, you know, some of us have never been Bushites.
	So the people assume things because of where I am politically now.
	I've never liked any Bush.
	And so the because this is their ideology down deep and it goes way back and go back to grandpa.
	So the it's not a surprise that George W. Bush judges are the ones issuing these kind of rulings.
	But it's it's clear that they're not going to respect natural immunity at this point.
	With any consistency.
	Now, just because these two cases lost out of the gate doesn't mean anything long term.
	The California professor is going to fight it all the way through.
	I'm sure the same is true in Michigan.
	This is just they don't get emergency injunctive relief.
	The rest of the fights are just beginning.
	It's an amazing thing.
	I know the rules of YouTube, so I can't even have these queries that I have in my mind.
	But the idea of having natural immunity, which means having already contracted it.
	Compounded with taking a vaccine.
	I mean, I wonder, I do, you know, you have to wonder, like, at what point, at what point is more not necessarily better?
	And at what point can people, you know, ought they have the right to make their own decisions?
	That I'm more comfortable with on a legal basis.
	And that is the other, yeah, and so that's those suits, but there, and then a bunch more suits.
	First responders continue to file suits all across the country.
	Employees continue to file suits all across the country.
	And I filed suit this week against Tyson Foods for its discrimination against people who asserted religious objection, its discrimination against people who had medical objections in Dyer County, Tennessee, and filed it on behalf of all Tyson employees that could be impacted by it.
	We'll be seeking injunctive relief this week.
	I detailed the whole suit in a video.
	Because of the suit, it has a lot of medical information in it that YouTube doesn't like discussed.
	You can get the whole details of that suit.
	And I'll be posting the suit either probably by tomorrow, as soon as Locals gets the PDF aspect up and going, at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And it will be only one of the beginning.
	New York Times just three days ago said, oh, it's amazing.
	Praise Tyson Foods vaccine mandates.
	Said, and they haven't faced any lawsuits over it.
	That was a little premature for the New York Times.
	Maybe if they followed this channel, they wouldn't have got that wrong like they got some other COVID things wrong this week.
	Oh, well, let's go over that real quick.
	I mean, so vaccine mandates were up to speed on what's going on.
	Thus far, religious exemptions, at least in the United States, are being recognized and affirmed on appeal.
	Natural immunity, not so much.
	Very interesting.
	Curious.
	I mean, it's amazing.
	From a legal, scientific, and constitutional perspective.
	So we'll see what else goes on.
	That New York Times.
	I mean, we've been talking about New York Times quality control failure for a while now.
	This article that just came out last week, where they didn't just get things wrong.
	They got things monumentally wrong, panic-inducing wrong.
	Everything about it was wrong.
	And the question is, how does it happen?
	Does it not go through an editor?
	Does it not go through a process where people fact-check?
	For those who don't know, I forget who the journalist is.
	If anybody knows her name...
	It was a prize-winning journalist.
	Well, there's some question as to the legitimacy or the merit of that prize that she won.
	But overstated the child hospitalizations by the small amount of 800,000.
	And not like a typo.
	It wasn't like it was, they said 930,000 when it was just 30,000.
	Like there was an extra number in there.
	The typo, the mistake on the number didn't make any sense.
	And there are those with more knowledge than me who said even the 63,000 child hospitalizations itself, Might not be entirely accurate because it might include hospitalizations that don't result from COVID but with COVID.
	And it probably, by referring to them as children, might be a little misleading because it might have been the bulk of it probably was between 15 and 19 years of age.
	So calling them children might lead you.
	The entire article was bunk from beginning to end and they issue a retraction which says, sorry, we got the number wrong by the small amount of 800,000.
	We got the timeline wrong.
	As to when certain meetings occurred with the FDA.
	And we got certain factual information wrong as to certain countries not proceeding with vaccination of children for whatever the reason.
	And they just issued the correction and move on.
	Robert, I mean, I don't know.
	How does it work?
	There is a process of quality control before something gets published at the New York Times?
	There is, except the quality is only about whether you're in line with the political narrative of the time.
	Not with whether you're accurate factually or otherwise.
	And that's how they're sticking opinion into fact articles.
	That's how Project Veritas has successfully sued them into discovery, passed the motions of dismiss stage.
	And this is just more illustrate, that's how Sarah Palin sued them, even for an editorial, because of the facts they had tried to infer in that editorial successfully into the discovery stage.
	And that's, and this was, the advantage they have here is they're telling the kind of lie that you can't be sued for.
	The only people who get sued for generic statements is Alex Jones.
	You can sue him for any statement.
	It doesn't matter how factual it is or isn't.
	It doesn't matter if it's opinion or not.
	And no social media consequences.
	No suspension on Twitter.
	No blocking the audience.
	Yeah, no little tagline like Twitter is doing.
	Twitter got caught this week doing that misinformation tagline, which is going to lead to more suits because it's the theory of John Stossel.
	If he succeeds in his suit...
	That's going to open the door to a lot more suits for labeling things misleading.
	Because they were doing it on people just reporting obituaries.
	People were reporting obituaries.
	And the obituary just had information about the chronology and the timing of them taking a certain drug.
	And people could draw their own conclusions.
	But the obituary is not misleading.
	That's all factual.
	They're sticking it on anybody who raised any questions or put up any data or information that challenged the narrative immediately gets the misleading label while the New York Times is yet to get hit by any of them.
	Where were all those Facebook fact checkers then?
	I didn't get a misleading label.
	I just got a COVID warning label on my video explaining how the New York Times got it wrong in their video, in their article.
	It's garbage.
	The New York Times is garbage, and it's worse than garbage.
	It's propaganda garbage because they issue the correction, and under the correction, they have to specify that the journalist who bungled the article beginning to end in a material sense that would get anyone fired if not sanctioned, they have to remind everyone she's an award-winning journalist.
	But I got the COVID warning, and more information, click here.
	Not misinformation, because I have quality control internally.
	It just has to go through one person.
	But Robert, good segue.
	Donald Trump is suing these platforms now to get his social media platform reinstated.
	The lawsuit, in a nutshell, I think he's only targeting Facebook right now.
	I don't think it targeted Twitter yet.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	But bottom line, he's suing to have his social media account reinstated on an injunctive basis, alleging that they enforce these rules willy-nilly, alleging that they're effectively working in concert with government, which I like the argument on a factual basis.
	And that he's having his First Amendment rights violated by a private tech company, but because they're working in concert with, at the direction of, and basically in collusion with the government, they can be held to this account.
	And he's asking for injunctive relief to reinstate his social media platform on the basis of urgency, irreparable harm, etc.
	Let's get into it before I actually ask the main question.
	What are your feelings on the lawsuit?
	Any chance of success?
	It seems well drafted, but in law, what do you think?
	So, actually, it relates to one of the vaccine mandate lawsuits that I didn't discuss, and also another suit we will be discussing tonight, which is you have three unique suits challenging the state actor principle.
	So, there's a class action that's been brought against Kaiser Permanente based on their vaccine mandate.
	And their theory is that Kaiser is a state actor because of the degree of collusion that has taken place in the vaccine mandate context with the government.
	And of course, because Biden gives dumb rocks a bad name, he keeps yipping to people about what the government's been up to.
	And so more and more people are including this in their suits saying, okay, this looks like state actor behavior by so-called private employers.
	And the other interesting thing in the Kaiser case, by the way, is they allege Kaiser is sharing people's medical information with third parties, that they're using the testing data and vaccination data and other data, and they're sharing it with other biometric and medical information and then disclosing it to third parties.
	So a major privacy issue in that case, and I wonder whether that's happening systematically.
	There have been many people concerned that they would use this as a pretext to engage in massive data and information gathering.
	That is illicit under the law.
	If it was a state actor, it'd be a privacy violation.
	And by the way, they've done this before.
	A case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court that relates to all three of these cases where the government imposed a regulation that said, man, we would really like it if these particular companies would test people in a certain way.
	I believe it was drug and alcohol testing, as I recall.
	The employees sued.
	On the grounds that that was state action.
	What their employer was doing was trying to comply with these regulations.
	That even though the regulations did not require this, it incentivized it.
	U.S. Supreme Court agreed.
	They said that's really the government trying to get away with doing things they're not supposed to do through recommended regulatory policy.
	And in particular, the government wanted the employer to share the information that they were gathering on their employees with them.
	Some years ago, I brought the biggest Bivens class action in American history because the IRS, which was charged with enforcing Obamacare, people probably should have paid a little more attention to that.
	It might not just been about getting Robert's fifth vote on Obamacare's permissibility as a tax.
	It was because the IRS was gathering everybody's medical data.
	They were using the pretext of Obamacare enforcement to demand medical...
	The way your information gets digitally stored these days and digitally shared these days for repayment, reimbursement, means there's some centralized medical records processors out there that see almost everything.
	They went after one of these people, and apparently they were doing it systematically across the board, and nobody just wanted to say anything about it because they thought it would embarrass them, and they didn't want to get sideways with the IRS.
	I represented a client who said, screw that.
	Now, they put him under seven years of hellacious harassment because he stood up to them.
	But he hired me after the harassment began.
	But we brought the class action because they stole 60 million medical records of 10 million Americans, including every major movie director, movie producer, movie actor, baseball player, and judge, and his family, or her family, in the state of California.
	I called it Hoover's wet dream of blackmail file.
	And ultimately, the government folded in that case.
	Folded in many ways, but that's another story for another day.
	But this is, I think there are some people, it looks like Kaiser's part of this doing this again, and again with the aid of big tech, by the way, in all of this.
	So they're all intertwined, but it relates to this state actor theory that is the core theory that Trump is pursuing.
	And my understanding is it's the same lawsuits he brought before.
	He's just seeking an injunction in each of them to reinstate his account.
	Okay, and now, just remind everybody out there who may not know, newer viewers, Bivens claim.
	What is it?
	Ah, so when the federal government screws you, you don't have a specific law usually.
	We'll talk about one relating to Nazi art a little bit later.
	But you usually don't have a legal means to sue them, or Nazi stolen art.
	So the courts recognize that that creates a problem.
	That if the federal government violates your constitutional rights and you can't sue, how's that supposed to work?
	So the Supreme Court recognizes in a case called Bivens versus six unnamed federal agents that you do in fact have an implied right to sue for a violation of certain constitutional rights.
	The courts have played games with which ones you get to sue on.
	But the Fourth Amendment is one of them.
	The First Amendment usually is.
	And so the question is in the state actor context.
	To what degree does...
	I don't know if they'll be able...
	I think trying to prove Kaiser Permanente as a state actor is going to be uphill.
	But again, the Biden administration is helping their case a lot.
	They can be deemed to be state actors on a punctual basis, on a specific issue basis.
	So not at large, but at the very least here, yes.
	So I don't know what the threshold is.
	I know what criteria is because the lawsuits all allege the criteria, but it's just a question of whether or not the judges say it has met the threshold.
	So Trump now is coming in and saying, reinstate my Facebook accounts because you're violating my constitutional rights.
	In this particular context, given the new facts coming out of Saki, they're acting at the direction of, coercion of, or there was another word that started with C, the direction of the state, and therefore they're subject to constitutional requirements or restrictions, and they should have to reinstate my social media accounts.
	My issue, Robert, is it's an injunction.
	You have the balance of the inconvenient, irreparable harm, urgency, color of right.
	It's been now nine months since they've cut them off social media.
	How do you come in nine months later and say, now I want to come back?
	Are you not now going to be blocked by not the theory of the clean hands, but latches?
	Like, you waited too long.
	Obviously, there's no urgency.
	I think that what I'll give them credit for is the briefing is much better than the original complaint was.
	And what they're actually doing is they're borrowing from a Yale law professor who several years ago wrote.
	I work with him in another case.
	But it was a very smart article, and his argument was this.
	He went through the whole history of state actors.
	And his argument was that when you combine some means of coercion, some means of public pressure, is the way he put it, a pressure campaign plus immunity.
	Equals state actors.
	And so his position is, and this, like the way in which that case I was talking about earlier, the Supreme Court said it's clearly a state actor.
	They said it wasn't just the fact that you put pressure on them through this incentivized regulations.
	You gave them immunity if they went ahead with it from suit.
	And they said that, you combine pressure and immunity, then you got a state actor.
	You got someone who's really doing something because the government suggested they do it.
	And incentivize them to do it.
	And so the argument here is Section 230 acts as a carrot and the pressure of antitrust or other claims or regulatory or legislative hostility acts as the stick.
	And because Democrats can't keep their mouth shut, because so many of them have been very aggressive in their language, I mean, to the point where Congressman Schiff and Senator Warren are out there threatening Amazon not to publish books they don't like.
	I mean, that...
	It's like, come on.
	I mean, that was actually another Supreme Court case where the Rhode Island Commission that had no punitive power told people, we would rather you not have these books in your local bookstore.
	The Bantam Books case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	They said that was state action.
	So now the counterpoints to it is there's another case where it was not fully that degree of pressure and no immunity.
	And the Supreme Court said, no, that's not state action.
	So depending on which court you're in, And depending on which precedent they follow, you get a divergence.
	But there is case law out there that says pressure plus immunity equals state actors, and they're getting more and more evidence of that for Trump.
	Now, I think the hard part he's going to have is they're going to move to transfer the venue before, they already have, on venue choice issues, before they'll ever hear this, and he'll be stuck in California.
	I agree.
	I think he has an uphill battle.
	I don't think the complaint was as well-crafted as it needed to be.
	I think that put him a little bit behind the eight ball.
	This is a better brief version, but he really should have the best lawyers involved.
	He has some decent ones, but there are people that are borrowing from other people.
	He should have those people involved, ideally.
	Was this motion drafted by the same firm that drafted the initial lawsuit?
	Yeah, but with some additional lawyers, but not the ones that have known experience in this.
	But they clearly read through.
	Some of the material that some of the rest of us have put together before.
	And so they copied and pasted it.
	I mean, they did a good job.
	It reads well.
	It just, in my mind, should have been done within a month, not within a year of him being deplatformed.
	Some people in the chat are saying, you know, it's not about winning.
	It's about getting the story out there.
	And let them come down with a judgment that says, I think my prediction is they're going to avoid the substantive discussion as to whether or not...
	They are state actors on this particular issue or question.
	They're just going to say, you waited too long, so clearly there's no urgency.
	You don't satisfy the criteria for an injunction.
	Move to the permanence where you don't have to prove urgency.
	We'll see.
	But it's a compelling read.
	It's good.
	And it's just putting those facts out there for anybody who's paying attention that there's quite clearly, if it's not collusion, it's collaboration between the feds and big tech.
	And there's direction, there's back channels, there's all sorts of things that you probably won't know about if all you read is New York Times or CNN.
	But it's there and it's real and it's meaningful.
	The only question is, is any court going to stand up and say enough is enough or call it for what it is?
	I mean, I think one of these cases in the State Act or context, whether it's the Kaiser Permanente case, the Trump social media cases, or the Dershowitz Dominion cases, one of them is going to go up to the Supreme Court because they need to provide clarity about this.
	I mean, because what's happening is politicians are using what they perceive to be loopholes to pressure with legislative threats, get people into following a certain policy that they wouldn't instinctively.
	Because my guess is...
	And this is one of my issues with Trump complaints.
	I would have just alleged these things upon information and belief so that you can get past a motion to dismiss into discovery.
	My guess is that there's going to be internal communications at all these social media giants where they were in fact responding to the threats.
	There's back channels.
	It's just a question of people are going to say they're going to delete the emails, wipe the hard drives.
	There's no question because you don't come out and make public statements.
	Like Saki makes, like other politicians make, talking about backchannels without there being some correspondence.
	It'll probably not read in the sense of outright conspiracy.
	It'll just be like, hey, can we talk about what we talked about?
	How do we address what we talked about?
	But there's no question there's going to be stuff to discover and it's going to be beautiful.
	It's going to get a job and you're going to do it.
	You have plenty of Maxine Waters kind of statements.
	I mean, they should have probably included more of these kind of statements, but congressmen who said things like, Facebook better get the message about this misinformation or they're going to see the consequences.
	You know, that kind of language.
	That sounds like coercive pressure to me.
	And that sounds like that's what they say publicly.
	You know damn well they're saying stuff privately.
	But good segue into the Dominion lawsuit because I didn't read the lawsuit in this one.
	I just read a bunch of articles in what you sent me.
	This is...
	Ah, geez.
	Who's filing the suit?
	It's Dershowitz's counsel.
	He's not the lead attorney.
	It's what the media calls one of the big lie attorneys who's suing Dominion under RICO and basically saying that Dominion is, by virtue of the fact that they're sending cease and desist warning letters, like some 200, to anybody who wants to discuss or raise issue with...
	What, you know, what Dominion's role was in the election, even if they don't mention Dominion by name, people are basically being threatened into silence, so they can't even discuss for the purposes of determining policy on a going forward basis.
	Who's filing this too?
	It's poll watchers in, is it in Michigan?
	Yes.
	So it's, I mean, it's an intrigue, because the other thing they're alleging is state action.
	They're claiming Dominion is a state actor, so that this is a First Amendment violation, Fourth Amendment violation, etc.
	Also named is a high-profile PR firm and a high-profile Dominion's law firm, Claire Locke.
	And I'll emphasize this is just alleged, but Claire Locke is alleged to be a RICO racketeer criminal co-conspirator.
	And I don't say that because I have any dislike of Claire Locke.
	I don't say that because some of their lawyers appeared on Tucker Carlson and tried to cover up for congressmen smearing and defaming the Covington boys.
	No, I say that just because it happens to be in the lawsuit.
	And now, it's a RICO lawsuit.
	We're going to get into that in a second, which is racketeering the I. Oh, I forget.
	We'll get to it in a second.
	But when people were saying a state actor, it's not Dominion as a company, as a whole, at large, as a state actor.
	The question is, when they are mandated to carry out election voting, do they become a state actor for the purposes of that specific contract, that specific act?
	And so, the lawsuit is predicated on the idea.
	That they are, for those purposes, a state actor.
	They're acting under the guidance or direction of the government.
	And that when they send out letters of demand, cease and desist letter, warning letters, they're basically having a chilling effect on First Amendment rights.
	They're basically threatening people into silence to have any discussion whatsoever regarding their role in whatever.
	Getting into the RICO, because we've talked about it.
	We all know it's excessively hard to...
	Bring a suit, succeed in a suit brought under RICO.
	What is RICO?
	What are the criteria to succeeding?
	And how's it going to play out in this case?
	So what's interesting here is two components.
	One is that they're alleging lawfare is RICO under certain circumstances.
	So that's a separate issue.
	As to RICO in general, I'm one of the only lawyers in the country to successfully bring a RICO claim against a law firm and get it to a jury trial.
	So what you need to allege is effectively that you're operating a criminal enterprise and that you're using other entities to do so.
	They have that because they're saying the clear lock, criminal co-conspirator, racketeer, that's the allegations.
	Very interesting.
	And this high-profile PR firm.
	Are the other enterprises being used?
	And they have enough of the enterprise.
	Usually people trip up on the enterprise and other aspects of elements.
	They have those.
	The big question is, is lawfare, under these circumstances, a predicate RICO Act?
	So only certain federal crimes are considered RICO.
	So in the criminal context, they interpret it very liberally, RICO.
	But in the civil context, they interpret it very narrowly because it tends to be applied to powerful people.
	And all of a sudden, the courts are like, well, let's be reasonable with this law.
	When in a criminal case, they throw it all out.
	Logically, it should be reversed, of course.
	But the witness tampering is a predicate offense under RICO.
	Witness intimidation is a predicate offense.
	So if you have witness tampering and witness intimidation, because they're considered separate, then that's enough.
	You have two predicate crimes.
	So the question becomes...
	Would lawfare in general, and they allege extortion, would lawfare in general constitute this?
	And often, by the way, the RICO laws borrow from state criminal laws, depending on the circumstances.
	So in Colorado, they've actually litigated this quite a bit.
	When does a lawfare, which is basically threatening lawyers, lawyers doing things and claiming the law authorizes it, but the law doesn't, when can they be sued for extortion?
	When can they be sued for...
	Well, I'll get some clients now and then they'll come up with some bad idea and remind them that, no, no, that sounds like extortion.
	You know, here's what you can do.
	Here's what you cannot do.
	You can't say, you better give me that money or I'm going to disclose to the world.
	That would be extortion.
	You can say, I would like a settlement or otherwise I'll sue.
	That's okay.
	So there's a difference.
	Oh, you're on mute, Viva.
	I'm an idiot.
	I was just checking to see that we are live on Rumble, but yeah.
	Everyone has to appreciate the distinction between settlement discussions, pay me or I sue you, versus criminal extortion, pay me a civil settlement or I file a criminal complaint.
	Big difference!
	We've gone over it.
	Sorry, that's what I wanted to interrupt you for.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Now, these letters, Claire Locke decided to send generic intimidation letters to people.
	And again, these people like to go around and tell the world how they know more than everyone else about the law.
	They know more than everyone else about a lot of things.
	So anybody who had seen those letters knew those letters were problematic because they sent them out to pretty much everybody.
	They were clearly copy and paste.
	All they changed, it appears to be, was the name and the address.
	And that's the kind of thing you're advised ethically not to do as a lawyer.
	If you have a specific problem with a specific individual, you identify what the specific problem is, and you make sure what you're talking about is within your legal rights.
	Under the guise of sending a cease and desist letter, and under the guise of sending a document preservation letter, they sent these letters out to everybody, including people who had never talked about them before, so consequently could not have any discoverable information and be under any obligation to preserve or turn over anything.
	Nor could they be threatened with cease and desisting defaming Dominion when they never talked about Dominion.
	These were poll watchers who were reporting other anomalies by government agents.
	That's what they were talking about.
	They were talking about, okay, this person didn't allow me to observe the count.
	There was a weird timing of when a van showed up.
	It appeared there may have been ballots in there.
	Stuff like that.
	Allegations that were detailed early on in the Michigan litigation.
	All of those people were threatened by Dominion.
	And you often wonder, why exactly was Dominion even threatening those people?
	So Dominion was going through a list of looking at anyone, apparently, anyone who raised any questions about the election, and that does sound like state actor behavior too, and had their lawyers say, you better stop this, you're about to be sued imminently, and you better keep every document, information, email, text you've ever had about anything that could relate to this, because it's your obligation to keep it.
	Well, misinformation can be considered, Witness tampering and witness intimidation.
	So this case, it will run into hurdles with the judges in Colorado and federal court.
	But on the legal merits, it has more than a fighting chance to survive.
	And it's not a surprise to me that Dershowitz was of counsel, because that's probably what gave it that fighting chance to survive.
	Two questions.
	One was, if you have seen the letters of demand or the cease and desist letters, did they contain any threats of criminal sanctions or non-civil sanctions?
	No.
	What it said was, you must cease and desist.
	Legal action is imminent, and it's your obligation to preserve all this information to give it to us.
	The problem was none of that was really accurate.
	They were under no such legal obligation.
	They had not defamed dominion, and they were not subject to imminent suit.
	That's the problem with sending a generic template letter to anyone you want to intimidate.
	Now, the second question, it was someone who brought it up in the chat, so not my own knowledge or wisdom.
	If the argument is that...
	Going to be that Dominion is a state actor for these purposes because they are taking direction from or operating in virtue of a license for the purposes of elections granted by the government.
	Where's the distinction between, I mean, state actor and just state compliance, compliance with state prerequisites?
	All that really matters is, are they acting at the behest of the state to a sufficient degree to trigger constitutional remedy?
	So that's really the analysis.
	And here, I think Dominion's going to have a little bit of a tricky problem.
	I would have alleged a little bit more in the suit, again, say upon information and belief, what I think discovery will prove, as long as they have a good faith basis.
	Again, given who they were sending these letters to, there's a good faith basis they were working with election officials to suppress information concerning problems and anomalies and witness reports about the election results and the way in which it was done.
	Because otherwise, you know, somebody went through a list and looked at everybody who was saying anything in court bad about the election processes, period, and had Dominion send a letter to a bunch of them.
	Because there was no reason for Dominion to send a letter to any of these people.
	They weren't talking about Dominion.
	So that suggests collusion.
	That suggests acting at the behest of the state.
	And their license would give them the pretext by which they would do so.
	But in so doing, they would be a state actor.
	Okay, it's very interesting.
	I mean, I'm just skeptical because I don't think the lawsuit's going to go anywhere just because of the politics of it.
	No one's going to allow a suit to proceed against Dominion, which is itself filing suit left, right, and center.
	But who knows?
	I mean, it's interesting.
	I just, from what I understood of RICO, such an uphill battle, it's almost like people laugh it, not out of the courtroom, but laugh it out of the newsroom because of what's required to approve a RICO claim.
	Who knows?
	Oh, yeah.
	But, I mean, people told me that initially, too.
	And I took Buckhalter Niemer all the way to trial.
	Did I mention them?
	It didn't work out in trial?
	Say that again?
	It didn't work out in trial?
	We got a settlement, ultimately.
	Okay.
	Speaking of settlements, this might be a good segue into what I think is, at the very least, for me, the most fascinating lawsuit of tonight's discussion.
	Henrietta Lacks.
	Henrietta Lacks.
	The estate of Henrietta Lacks.
	I forget who she's suing, but it doesn't really matter.
	It's a big pharma company.
	I know you'll know who she's suing.
	She's suing them for anybody who doesn't know and for anyone who might know of the HeLa cell, capital H, lowercase e, capital L, lowercase a cell, which is a cell on which pharmaceutical companies have been doing research, deriving medical products for near, I guess it's over 50 years now.
	HeLa is derived from Henrietta Lacks, was an African-American woman.
	Who went into the John Hopkins surgery table hospital for cervical cancer at a time when apparently consent to having your bodily tissue removed and examined and experimented on by medical institutions abided by the criteria at the time which were not good.
	And so she went under the knife for cervical cancer.
	As a result of the procedure, she became infertile, but she passed away nine months later regardless.
	And apparently, scientifically, I don't know how this works.
	And my wife, who has a postdoc PhD, she knew of the HeLa cell, didn't know the origins, but was unable to explain to me in terms I could understand how she could have immortal cells, meaning that they continually regenerate.
	And so bottom line, African-American woman went under surgery, was not advised that her tissue would be removed for experimentation, scientific research from her tissue.
	They have derived such things as the polio vaccine, unless I'm mistaken, other treatments, a number of other very profitable medical treatments, whichever the defendant pharmaceutical company has been making a boat ton of money on for the last 50 years.
	The estate is suing now for unjust enrichment on the basis that there was no contractual reason for which they took her body tissue without her consent.
	Did whatever research on it and marketed whatever products they marketed off of it.
	And so they're suing for unjust enrichment.
	And I guess the proceeds of the profits of their ill-gotten gains from whatever they did.
	It's fascinating.
	What did I miss?
	And what else does the general public need to know about this lawsuit?
	Well, that it did violate informed consent terms at the time, legally.
	It was just doctors didn't care.
	I mean, in the same way that forced sterilizations continued to happen all the way through the mid-1970s, I mean, Native American reservations, they told them they were getting women, they were getting one procedure, and they're actually forcibly sterilizing them without their knowledge.
	That's what the good Bureau of Indian Affairs health departments did.
	And they were doing it, of course, to inmates all the way through the 1970s, etc.
	And the same place you find MKUltra experimentation, you'll find this kind of breach of informed consent, or other government experimentation, giving people cancer deliberately, things like this, to test their radioactive responses, etc.
	And what they all have in common is their politically disadvantaged communities.
	So it may be orphans or inmates, or just come from communities that didn't have much political power at the time, whether it was poor whites or African Americans or Native Americans.
	And sometimes Mexican-Americans.
	It's probably not a coincidence that people that come from those same communities have the highest rate of hesitancy concerning the current government experimentation project that's afoot.
	And remember, the drug currently that's out there is still an experimental drug.
	The FDA-approved one is still unavailable, according to the FDA.
	But so I think the theory was interesting.
	I like the theory.
	The theory was unjust enrichment.
	Which was, you know, and people forget unjust enrichment.
	It's my theory for going after social media if certain cases start to break the right way, that what they've really done over the past decade is enrich themselves off other people's content based on the assumption, the condition that they would continue to allow that person access to their own audience.
	And so it's the same theory of a different kind, which is that all these companies have got rich off of her biological material.
	And I think there's two major precedents to be set here.
	One, I like unjust enrichment applied to a broader possible context.
	But also, this is about our biological material.
	If we don't own our own tissue, our own body, what do we own?
	I mean, that's the issue in the vaccine mandate context.
	That's the issue here, too.
	Because if they can take our tissue and apply it for their own profit without either consent or return of the money they've made off it...
	That's a rather precarious position to be in.
	Well, Robert, if you know, let me know.
	But if anyone in the chat understands how the cells continue to reproduce or were referred to as immortal cells, which was apparently singularly unique, I'd love to understand it.
	But some legit criticism, apparently, like, you know, the family only sued once they realized.
	But, I mean, that's sort of how things work, is you only can sue once you realize you've been exploited.
	Oprah Winfrey produced a movie about this case.
	And then paid Henrietta's heirs, relatives, nothing for the rights to the story.
	No comment.
	Yeah, Oprah Winfrey is kind of like the person that Dave Chappelle describes in his latest comedy thing where he goes on a righteous rant against a lot of politically correct ideologies out there.
	And he talks about one man who was set free and what he did later.
	That's kind of Oprah Winfrey.
	So if you watch the Dave Chappelle story, you'll know what I'm referencing.
	I don't know if Dave Chappelle, the new one, is kid-friendly, but I might watch it with the kids anyhow because I don't care about that type of stuff.
	I might still do it.
	It's Dave Chappelle.
	So yeah, there's still a lot, but kid-friendly, not so much.
	So here, Asik says, HeLa cells are immortal due to being cancer.
	Cancer developed techniques to get around the normal genetic constraints.
	They're widely used in academia.
	This is neither approving, confirming, or whatever.
	Thank you very much, Asik.
	Will you consider introducing Ron Dyson?
	Sorry, I thought that...
	I'll leave it up.
	I didn't mean to bring it down.
	I thought that said something else.
	So they used her bodily material to do research.
	No consent or no informed consent, whatever consent existed at the time.
	They make tons of...
	Is it not like royalties?
	I was thinking, is it not like royalties replaying someone's music on your station?
	Or...
	Reusing their music in your commercials, deriving profit, but not remunerating the original artist.
	Is there any way to get around what they did?
	Or are they going to say that consent was given, a fair compensation was given or whatever at the time?
	Is that the way they're going to get around it?
	There was no fair compensation given at the time because it was stolen.
	Their original argument was that they didn't know when they got it that it was stolen in the way that it was stolen.
	But that doesn't...
	It's not a defense for unjust enrichment.
	And so I think their only defense is going to be, and this is why the case has great consequence, is they're going to argue that someone is not entitled to their own medical tissue.
	That's what they're going to be required to argue.
	That somehow they have intellectual property rights in somebody else's biological tissue.
	And that's why I hope Henrietta's estate wins.
	Because that would be a precarious precedent to set, to allow people to steal from our own bodies and then use it for their own personal profit and use.
	The question's going to be, you know, like, of everyone who freezes their, not stem cell, but the umbilical cord stuff, anybody who submits their DNA, I mean, it's a wide-reaching potential for this.
	F name, I name says...
	Immortal cells are no longer rare, but hers are best understood.
	They lack the suicide clock that removes pieces of DNA with each replication.
	Very interesting.
	It's fascinating, but look, if there's ever been a case of unjust enrichment, or at the very least, I don't know what other claim there could be.
	There's no contract dispute.
	Maybe there's criminal sanctions, whatever.
	If she was still alive, there are claims that obviously she could have brought, but the estate is probably limited to the financial claims.
	And it would be astronomical.
	Which is the company?
	For goodness sake, I was trying to find it on my phone.
	I can't remember.
	It's a big tech company, biotech company, but it's not one that's big in the news.
	So it's just the one that's currently making the most money off of it.
	Millions, I'm sure.
	Millions of dollars.
	Outrageous.
	Speaking of stealing things from people, that might be a good transition into the Nazi art case.
	So this was the one I didn't get the slightest overview, Robert.
	Inform me.
	I'm going to ask you questions as I have as we go along.
	So it's been going on a while.
	The case itself.
	So in 1939, after Kristallnacht, a Jewish gallery owner, art gallery owner, realized that they needed to get the heck out of Dodge.
	I always recommend people have a plan B before the Kristallnacht of the world happened.
	People should have that ready to go already.
	But that would be another story for another day.
	And another conversation not on YouTube.
	As to how to prepare for that.
	So they realized they were up against it, needed to escape.
	But the Nazis required she sell an art piece that they had directly purchased from Pissarro.
	That was a beautiful art piece of the Rousset Honoré.
	I have no idea if I've pronunciated that correct.
	You know the French.
	All I know is you're going to get flack every time you say pronunciate, even though I think we looked into it and it might actually be a word.
	It's a word.
	It's a word.
	If it's not a word, it should be.
	It's in the Barnes Dictionary, which is probably more accurate these days than the Webster's Dictionary.
	Robert, I'm writing that down.
	The Barnes Dictionary might be on a shirt sometime soon.
	Let me just add that to the list.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, so basically, so she was forced to sell it for the exit visa, the cost of the exit visa.
	So the Nazis stole it.
	So she survived.
	Her sister did not survive.
	After the war, she went through, there was a U.S. process, there was a U.S.-European process to get back property that was lost.
	She went through that process, and the court recognized that she was, or the body that was set up, recognized that she was entitled to that art piece.
	That it had been stolen from her, but they just assumed it was lost or destroyed.
	What she did not know is that it was circulating in the We Love Nazi Looted Art circles, which included some high-end circles in New York.
	It ended up being purchased by a wealthy son of a German baron, the Tyson family.
	I think it's T-H-E-I-E-S-S-E-N.
	I just like to pronounce it, as others would say, like Tyson.
	Because it kind of reminds, Tyson Foods kind of reminds me of that.
	So Tyson family, this was the big German industrialist family, the Armaments family, the main one propped up and pushed the Nazis into power, then kind of regretted it later because Hitler didn't stop with the Jews.
	He went and turned to the Catholics, and that turned out not to be so good.
	But that was the family.
	I mean, these are people that, you know, discriminated against Jewish people, participated in everything, were the keys to the reason the Nazi party succeeded.
	So that gives you an idea of who this guy was.
	You know, you could say, I mean, it was that and a Hungarian royal family connection that somehow has ancestral ties to John Kerry.
	So you got a real sort of, you know, you basically got a real bastard there.
	So it turned out, by the way, he might have been a literal bastard.
	Because that ended up being a separate suit years ago, years later.
	So, but this Baron...
	You know, it has a bunch of inherited wealth.
	He goes around buying up a bunch of art.
	His father had bought up a bunch of art.
	He ends up using it.
	I've actually been to the museum.
	It's a beautiful art museum.
	It's an extraordinary collection in Madrid.
	And so what happens is this woman, of course, dies.
	Her son is either a son or a grandson.
	I think it's maybe the son because it was the son who had played around the art piece when he was a kid.
	That the piece that was stolen is actually not only around, it's sitting in a museum in the Madrid owned by the King of Spain because that was effectively donated to, established by this baron's family.
	So they initiate litigation and Spain fights it every way they possibly can.
	Now you would think the museum might feel a little bad having Nazi stolen art on the walls.
	Nope.
	They said under Spanish law...
	Adverse possession trumps everything.
	And because we didn't know about it at the time, it's okay.
	Now, it turned out they may have been lying about that, but adverse possession law is so strong in Spain that it's very tough to get something back, even when it's stolen.
	The rest of the world recognizes if you have something that's stolen, you've got to give it back.
	It doesn't matter if you were innocent or not.
	And so they fight procedurally over one issue after the other, after the issue.
	It goes up and back and down, up and back and down.
	Because it all started 10 years ago.
	Finally, it goes to trial.
	After all of these, the family finally wins each procedural battle.
	But the court does a sort of twist and says that under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, I think it's FSIA, if I recall right.
	And what that says is that as long as you meet certain procedural jurisdictional requirements, you can sue any foreign government on the same terms you could sue any private citizen in any state.
	Well, the question becomes whose law applies?
	Does the law of California apply where there is no adverse possession right, where you're not allowed to keep stolen property?
	Or does the law of Spain apply where you are allowed to keep stolen property?
	Leave it to the Spanish.
	Come up with that.
	It's like a Franco regime kind of thing.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But so it goes up to the district court says, no, the law of Spain applies.
	So the Ninth Circuit says, yeah, the law of Spain applies, because traditionally, when there's a diversity dispute, like, you know, the reason why it's in federal court is because the parties are from different jurisdictions, and technically that's why this case was in federal court, but it was under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, that that means federal common law applies about choice of law, and federal common law would recognize the law of Spain.
	We're out in the law of California.
	You're going to have a federal court in the United States apply Spanish law.
	Presumably, you're going to have to have Spanish law experts come in to explain to the federal courts how it applies?
	Well, here it wasn't to dispute what the Spanish law was.
	That was the last big hurdle for the estate, and they didn't get past it.
	The Ninth Circuit affirmed it.
	Every other federal circuit court has disagreed.
	They said the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act...
	Explicitly says that as long as you get to the jurisdictional hurdles, that then you should treat them like any other private citizen in that state.
	And under that provision, federal common law wouldn't apply.
	California choice of law principles would apply.
	And California choice of law principles would apply California substantive law to property rights in dispute on behalf of a California resident.
	And so that U.S. Supreme Court has taken the case, which means the U.S. Supreme Court is going to clarify.
	The question is, do they go the Ninth Circuit route or do they go the other circuits route, knowing if they go the Ninth Circuit route, they're going to help Nazi looted art stay in the hands of folks that might have some more familial ties in that row.
	Now, and I mean, look, it seems like a limited point of law in terms of application, but what would be the political or economic repercussions if they acknowledged that stolen art could be returned to the rightful original owner or the estate?
	Like, what are the political economic ramifications of getting it right versus getting it right, getting it right, or the other way around, you know, allowing the spoils of war to grow?
	I think...
	I think stolen property always belongs back to the owner.
	And that is the law in most countries around the world.
	Spain is one of the few that doesn't recognize it.
	Which is kind of interesting.
	Maybe they got good cause.
	They've had a lot more stuff.
	Apparently they've stolen a lot more stuff than has been stolen from them.
	Even in countries that recognize it, typically there has to be a statute of limitations.
	It can't be forever.
	Is it 100 years?
	Federal law in the United States, they passed a specific law to deal with this.
	For a Holocaust recovery, the statute of limitations is six years from date of discovery of whatever your claim is, rather than the original incident, for the reasons...
	Because so much of this was thought to be lost or destroyed and has been showing up over the last 10 to 20 years.
	Because it was just people keeping it secret.
	Like the museum...
	And the family tried to pretend they had bought this art piece in Paris under different circumstances.
	When it turned out, they bought it in New York.
	And on the back of it, it had the name of the Jewish Art Gallery, Berlin, 1939.
	So they knew where that art came from.
	They knew that it was still in Nazi art.
	And they were just hiding it all along.
	And the rich and powerful have been doing it for quite a while.
	So I hope they're held accountable on moral grounds.
	Legally, I think under the law.
	I'm not in favor of any of these immunity laws.
	And so I think anybody should be subject to the same laws under the state government, under the state rules as anybody else.
	And there shouldn't be one set of rules for governments than there is for anybody else.
	So I still support that.
	So I'm in favor of an interpretation that would go that route as a policy issue.
	Now, in terms of the law, I think they have the better of the argument.
	But it is close because there is procedurally, generally federal common law does apply in diversity disputes.
	But it does seem like the point of the statute was to allow state choice of law principles to apply.
	And I think that that would better represent better policy and a better moral outcome in this case.
	And just so we all know, the value of the piece in question, do you know offhand?
	Over $40 million.
	Okay.
	That's worth a lawsuit then.
	All right.
	Now, Robert, I know we need to get to Kyle Rittenhouse, but I don't want to get to it yet.
	I want to get through some too...
	Let's call them mundane subjects, which are still kind of funny and interesting.
	You know, when I said in the past the U.S. is a litigious society and it has its pros and its cons, one of its pros is in fighting for constitutional rights like they've been doing compared to Canada, which hasn't been doing it.
	The con is when you sue Subway over the tuna content of their sandwiches.
	So, for anybody who doesn't know, there was a class-action lawsuit filed against Subway.
	Not for the good reasons, because class action or meaningful lawsuits for the Jared Fogle stuff, yes, that's Sue and Sue a lot.
	This was allegedly over the advertising for their tuna wraps, and it was a class action lawsuit for false advertising as related to the content quality of their tuna wraps.
	They said they used the best tuna for their wraps.
	Whereas the lawsuit alleged they used lower quality tuna.
	I forget which one it was, Albacore or whatever.
	They sued.
	Subway sought to dismiss on the basis that the lawsuit itself lacked the requisite specificity to survive a motion to dismiss.
	They didn't mention what advertising it was, what specific warranties and representations Subway made as to the quality of their tuna.
	And they succeeded in having the motion dismissed.
	Not with prejudice.
	Sorry, without prejudice as to their rights to amend.
	Look, it's one of those lawsuits.
	It's kind of funny to read.
	But it did raise some interesting questions as to the threshold for false advertising, the threshold for succeeding on a claim of reliance on advertising.
	Do you want to elaborate and make it sound less absurd for non-Americans who might be watching, hearing?
	There was a class session lawsuit because Subway was misrepresenting the quality of the tuna in their wraps.
	So what it represents, the fear or concern is that somebody sues because there's an ulterior agenda in place and somebody's suing for some reason other than that person being the victim of misrepresentation.
	And when you see a suit where they can't allege what misrepresentation they saw that led them to go in and buy the sandwich that they wouldn't have eaten without that misrepresentation, It often means the lawsuit's based on somebody else that has a problem with Subway finding plaintiffs who are eager to sue in the name of that cause rather than actually being lied to.
	Now, the law on this is conflicted because of the tobacco cases.
	The problem with almost all the tobacco cases is proving when somebody first got addicted and what representation they saw that led them to think it was non-addictive or anything else was very difficult.
	Suing Big Tobacco was considered a dead loser.
	Plaintiff's lawyers were terrified of it.
	I worked with the plaintiff's lawyer and the Mississippi Attorney General who helped brainstorm how to sue them in the name of the state for seeking Medicaid reimbursement that unleashed the tidal wave that changed that.
	As part of changing that, the courts changed the law.
	The court said, you know what, if you can show a pattern of misrepresentations in general, you don't have to show a specific time that you were lied to that you can remember or recall.
	However, the court since then haven't liked where some of these other suits have gone.
	They think are disguised policy disputes written up as a misrepresentation claim.
	And what they look for right away is, can your client specifically remember it?
	And they're bringing back those old rules, even though those old rules conflict with the tobacco cases, as this court recognized.
	So the reality is the politics, the perceived politics of the case, heavily shapes which set of misrepresentation rules they apply.
	I just found it amazing because, like, Robert, you'll tell me, how do you find a plaintiff, like someone who's so angry at Subway that they say, I'm going to sue because it had albacore in it and it wasn't yellowfin or skipjack or whatever it was?
	It's probably alternative health people that are opposed to processed food places in general, would be my guess.
	My guess is that's who's probably behind the suit.
	So they're looking for reasons to sue anybody that does a lot of processed food.
	And they thought they'd come across something that worked, that Subway advertised one thing and sometimes you're getting something else.
	There's a lot of cheap sushi places that should definitely be out of business.
	I have not eaten at Subway in years, but I do not recall ever seeing any ad.
	Touting the quality of the tuna in their tuna subs.
	Maybe I don't watch enough TV because we don't.
	But someone else in the chat brought up good segue because we haven't discussed it and we've been meaning to.
	They said this sounds like it was filed by Rapinoe.
	Robert, let's do the Women's Soccer League lawsuit for a second because I've been doing videos with Nate Brody, another great YouTube lawyer.
	Everyone should check him out.
	And I meant to shout out Nick Ricada, who I believe is the one who...
	First, or at least very methodically brought up, some of the arguments for state actor lawsuits or pressure brought on for First Amendment claims.
	He also highlighted Subway's original sin, which was not cutting the sandwich in the correct way.
	This is true.
	For anyone who's old enough to remember, Subway, once upon a time, when they had the labor power, I don't want to get in trouble, they used to cut a V down the sub.
	Now they just cut a line down.
	It makes it impossible to eat.
	And Nick is right about this.
	But let's talk very briefly.
	The Women's Soccer League team claim against the United States soccer...
	I forget the acronyms now.
	The women's team was suing for unequal pay.
	Nate Brody has been covering this left, right, and center.
	They lost the federal suit in front of Judge Klosner, who was the judge in the FBI vault seizure case.
	Who issued a very good ruling in that case, stuck it to the FBI, stuck it to the government, in this case came to the conclusion that every claim that the women's soccer team made in terms of unequal pay, in terms of not getting paid the same amount as men per game, all of it was factually incorrect, dismissed the claim, it's under appeal.
	I guess the first question I have for you, Robert, broadly speaking...
	In law, when a lower court comes to a determination of fact versus law, what does that look like?
	What are the consequences in law?
	And how does that materialize in a judgment?
	And then apply it to this case, because did Klosner come to a determination in fact or in law or a mix of both?
	So, I mean, it had legal consequences, but I took it as a factual determination first, which was that if you understood the situation, women's soccer players were being paid better than the men.
	You know, given the share of revenue, in fact, the interesting thing about all of this is that given the way soccer revenue is shared, really what U.S. women's soccer want to do is screw over third world women, women in poorer countries, in terms of their share of revenue, because that would be the net effect of it.
	So, you know, Megan Rapinoe.
	What was it?
	Subway that needs to dump her?
	I believe Subway dumped her, yes.
	That was a good connection.
	That was the connection in my head.
	And the chat.
	Yes.
	She was helping destroy Subway's brand like she's helped destroy women's soccer brand.
	And so basically she's, and people don't know, she's Mrs. Purple Hair or whatever color it is this week.
	You know, all political all the time.
	I'm saying this not to be mean whatsoever.
	There was a meme, in as much as there was a meme that overlaid George Soros' face with Hillary Clinton, there was a meme that overlaid Rapinoe with Joe Biden.
	And it's like one of those things, once you see it, you can't unsee it.
	But the internet's a cruel place.
	I'm sure they've overlaid my face with a horse's ass.
	But, you know.
	The short answer is women's soccer paid better than the men's share of revenue.
	And the only reason why women's soccer make less gross revenue than men's soccer is because not many people want to watch women's soccer compared to men's soccer.
	It's that reality.
	It's not because they're getting discriminated against.
	They're getting discriminated in favor of them.
	Because they're getting a higher share of their pool of revenue than men's soccer does in the U.S. And so it was always a ludicrous suit that really was saying, we deserve to get the same pay as someone who gets 10 times more fans.
	No, you don't.
	And there's no scenario.
	I mean, if that suit was allowed, you'd have all, you know, the WNBA could sue the NBA and on and on and on and on.
	And the real net effect of it would be...
	To get rid of women's sports.
	Because, I mean, you can't share revenue in that way and maintain support for the men's sports.
	So it was always a frivolous suit, and I thought the court identified it as such.
	And I don't think they need someone that's so politically in the bag for them as to make up law that has too many consequences.
	You're not, as Trump said when somebody asked him early in the campaigns, 2016, he said, am I going to get equal pay?
	You know, there's this little wokester who was all, you know, all excited, you know, the way she posed and everything.
	And Trump just said, yeah, you'll get paid equal for equal work.
	And that is, in fact, that's the reality.
	Equal pay is, the idea that people are not paid equally is myth.
	It's just not true.
	You know, I mean, I got plenty of lawyers.
	Heck, I'd bring all those suits.
	I'd bring them tomorrow.
	You're paying women less than men for the same work?
	I'll sue you.
	Those suits don't exist because it doesn't happen.
	The reason for the disparity has been explained by Christina Summers and others many times over.
	And this was just one of the more frivolous cases brought for politicized purposes that the press deliberately misrepresented in ways that's only hurt the brand of women's soccer in America.
	And that's the bottom line.
	That's what they're probably going to appreciate is that, you know, once they lose the suit and then it moves on from women's soccer to the broader argument of gender inequality pay, yeah, fine, you lost your suit.
	You played on the goodwill of a lot of people who were watching a lot of CNN who's still pulling the line, but you've damaged the goodwill of the soccer league.
	You've damaged your own reputation, but now try to piggyback off whatever other cases there might be, because there might be cases of gender pay inequality out there.
	It's not to deny it at large, but in this case, the judge came to the conclusion it didn't exist in this case, and on the contrary.
	And if anybody watches the CNN documentary, you don't have to.
	You can watch Nate Brody's video that's coming out soon with Me, Legal Bites, and, oh jeez, Alita.
	I forget which one is Alita, Legal Bites, and Legal Mindset.
	We're going to do a good breakdown of the documentary.
	It's rubbish.
	It was rubbish through and through, but you still have CNN trying to pull the rope or toe the line.
	Toe the line.
	T-O-E, the line.
	Robert, one other...
	There's some clip site going around on YouTube called, I guess, Law Nerds that's clipping different stuff from some of our episodes.
	And they actually combined...
	One of our dialogues with Mel Gibson in one of the Great American Revolution movies.
	So that was good.
	I like that.
	And that was hold the line.
	Hold the line.
	And just so everybody knows, if you get a DM from me or a comment saying invest in crypto, it's not me.
	Report the channel for impersonation.
	I've reported it.
	I think they keep creating them.
	I guess it's a sign of success.
	But no, I do not solicit or tell anyone what to invest in any more than I give anyone legal advice online.
	A very quick one, because it made the news.
	Clint Eastwood successfully sued a Lithuanian company for using his likeness in a marijuana ad.
	And people are touting it as a success.
	He got judgment for whatever millions of dollars.
	He's going to get his legal fees covered, $95,000.
	Robert, am I wrong?
	This is just a default judgment against some Lithuanian company that's going to go belly up.
	He's not going to see a red cent that he lost in all of this.
	No, I think his goal was to stop people from using his likeness.
	It always reminds me of a Sean Connery letter to Apple.
	I think it was Apple.
	Where he said, you know, you're such a scummy company.
	Quit using any reference to me and quit asking me to vouch for your company.
	And it was this great, righteous Sean Connery letter.
	Back when James Bond was really James Bond.
	Not like the James Bond, this last film.
	But yeah, it's important for people to remember.
	I see it as related to Henrietta Lacks' case.
	Your likeness, your body, your bodily tissue over time, all of that should be your property, not anybody else's.
	And anybody who misappropriates it for their profit should have to pay economic consequences for doing so.
	So credit to Eastwood for deterring and discouraging that from taking place on a go-forward basis.
	Also, I guess Eastwood's not the biggest pot fan.
	He might be, but I had a joke.
	I don't even want anyone thinking the joke is quasi-serious, but he's not seeing a penny from this.
	This company, foreign country, is going to go over to Lithuania with a judgment from the United States, get into whatever red tape there.
	If they even contested, by and large, they'll have no assets, zero.
	Yeah, that's correct.
	And speaking of foreign judgments, the Polish dispute that continues ongoing with the European Union reached the Polish high courts.
	This past week who ruled that Polish law, not EU law, determines a wide range of dispositive factors in Poland.
	And it's shaking the European Union to the core because if other courts follow it, it would restore state sovereignty to a wide range of legal disputes that the EU has been trying to encroach upon.
	So credit to the Polish courts for making that brave and bold determination.
	Well, I mean, that is an amazing thing.
	It's like, once people don't appreciate is that once you resign yourself to an international community, you lose all forms of state autonomy.
	And it's great, you know, until such time as the overarching entity no longer respects the state or the provincial or whatever individual autonomy existed prior to the union.
	It's, you know, you unify for the greater good, and then you lose all your rights for the greater good.
	Speaking of cultural independence and respecting the right of states, the Obama-appointed Austin federal court judge, who I thought had already been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in saying that there is no basis to enjoin the Texas abortion ban law because that law empowers only state courts to adjudicate it.
	He decided, eh, Supreme Court's wrong.
	And Vox even wrote this article about how wonderful it is.
	This federal judge tells off the U.S. Supreme Court.
	I don't think that's the way our system's supposed to work.
	So he enjoined the Texas abortion ban, was going to dictate what every state court judge in Texas could do, what every state court clerk in Texas could do.
	And it took all of 48 hours for his decision to be reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	These judges are appointed.
	They are appointed for life.
	They can't get removed unless they do the most egregious thing ever.
	What are the consequences?
	And I imagine within their silo, they'll be celebrated as having, you know, been the subject of political reprisals.
	There's no ownership of responsibility.
	It's just blame it on politics and then move on with your own self-righteousness.
	I mean, it tells you where some federal judges are willing to go.
	They're willing to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court, not only on prior precedent, on the precedent in their own case, and just pretend it doesn't exist.
	Because they know some of the time, a higher court won't say anything about it.
	But it shows the complete lack of respect for the law, in my view.
	And I get the judge has strong political sentiments on it.
	That wasn't a reason to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court, which is not his privilege or prerogative or his power.
	But, you know, it shows.
	And speaking of courts abusing their power.
	State courts in New Mexico got caught deciding that when they went from a manual filing system to an electronic filing system, they were going to screw the press and keep them out of it for a little bit longer.
	So this is another cool one where I say, like, you know, the Litigious Society of America, constitutional rights, good.
	Subway sandwiches, bad.
	This lawsuit, unless you knew it existed, you'd never know it would have existed, but it's meaningful.
	Is that...
	I don't know.
	A press agency is suing the court system because they implemented a digital filing system.
	And thus, in implementing the digital filing system, we're effectively able to delay the processing through which anyone who wants to report on newly filed suits could get access to the suits.
	And it's a phenomenal...
	New Mexico, sorry.
	So when they filed in New Mexico, typically...
	Anybody who wanted to get access to newly filed suits could get access within a reasonable time.
	When it was done manually, according to the lawsuit, they could get access to these suits within five hours.
	They implemented a digital system, and for whatever the reason, there were additional delays in the registering within the system of newly filed suits.
	And it was causing delays to news agencies, this one in particular, I forget the name, it doesn't matter, to get access to newly filed suits.
	And sometimes they would have to wait.
	From what I understood from the lawsuit, upwards of two days, a day or two days.
	The court system said you only get access to newly filed suits once we have registered them within the system of the court.
	So if there's a default, if there's an issue in filing, if the filing contains confidential information, we need additional time to weed out lawsuits that are improperly filed so people don't gain access to suits that they don't have the right to gain access to.
	This news outlet, or whoever it was, filed the suit, said they are delaying our...
	Which amendment?
	Is it First Amendment?
	Yeah.
	I mean, the right to court access, you can argue, is covered by other amendments, but the biggest one is the First Amendment.
	So they say you're denying our First Amendment rights.
	We want to get access to this.
	They asked for it immediately, not contemporaneously.
	What's the word?
	Like, basically instantaneously.
	The court said, look, you never got instantaneous access regardless because it always had to go through a filing system.
	So there will be a First Amendment violation if you don't get access to it within five hours.
	But it's amazing.
	Who even thinks to file these suits?
	They fly under the radar.
	What is the implication of the suit?
	And if I missed anything, let the audience know because it might be fresh in my head, but I may not have related properly.
	So it's Courthouse News, and what they like to do is track court cases all across the country.
	I had that Bivens case I was talking about got disclosed a little earlier than I wanted because Courthouse News was on top of it.
	They're like, this suit is great.
	And they called me up and I was like, oh, you guys already read that?
	So I was like, that was supposed to come out in another couple of days.
	But my view is there's reasons to be suspect of what the court clerks are up to.
	That maybe they're wanting to keep certain suits from public disclosure by stamping something on them, trying to call them sealed when they're not supposed to be sealed, not allowing them to be filed maybe because of whatever pretext they find, some minor rule violation or issue that's really about some political motivation.
	I don't trust their motivations in this context because the idea that going to digital means it would slow down your process.
	They didn't produce any evidence of why that was.
	And so my guess is it was an attempt to keep the public from knowing about court cases as long as they could.
	And they just got caught and didn't get away with it.
	I mean, and it wasn't an outright win.
	The judge did say, look, you don't get instantaneous access because there still has to be a vetting process.
	Make sure no one didn't maliciously file a confidential image or whatever.
	So, you know, you'll have to wait your five hours.
	But basically, if someone files a suit.
	Even if it's improperly filed or even if it makes allegations that might be sanctionable in law, it's not necessarily up to the clerks of the court to say, no, we're not releasing that, and so you're entitled to see it.
	And so if there's, I guess if there's abuse of the judicial process, it's not going to be the clerk's fault.
	It'll be whoever, the litigant who filed the suit, which is improper or contained improper documents.
	But it's not up to the clerks to start making these executive decisions to deny.
	To Courthouse News, what they can get access to.
	But it's amazing.
	You realize there's people following for new filed suits so they can break the news first.
	And it's a beautiful system and it keeps people honest and it keeps the system honest.
	You often find out information you couldn't find out any other way or get into the public domain by any other means.
	But speaking of public access...
	The city of Boston set up a flagpole as a public forum, effectively, that anybody could come up and for a couple of hours put up whatever flag they want.
	And all kinds of flags had flown there.
	And then a Christian group just wanted to put their flag up, and all of a sudden, no, no, no, that's not acceptable.
	And their excuse that was bought by the liberal district courts there in Boston and by the liberal First Circuit Court of Appeals there in Boston was that that was just fine, that discriminating against a Christian organization was fine because really...
	That was compelled government speech.
	This wasn't a government speech poll.
	This was a government public square where anybody else could speak.
	And anyone else who put up their flag before wasn't putting up a government-sponsored speech.
	They were putting up a government-sponsored public square to allow private speech.
	The U.S. Supreme Court looks like they will take that case as well.
	And that's good because that likely means reversal because there's long – it's my old debate with William Kunstler back at Yale many years ago, which was there was a tendency of the left to confuse religious – that you can't establish a church to mean that the whole point was no state church to mean that you could suppress religious expression.
	That was never the point.
	The point was the state was not to be involved one way or the other in religion.
	Not that they should exclude religion from the public square.
	And hopefully the Supreme Court will make that clear in this term.
	All right, let me bring this one down.
	I just want to read a few Super Chats that I snapped pictures of and didn't get to read.
	The Yellow Jacket says, Vaccinated RN here.
	My employer is mandating vaccines with no option for testing in Arizona.
	AZ.
	Is there anything I can do to support my coworkers at risk of losing their livelihoods?
	Robert, I mean, this is not my domain.
	Yeah, I mean, in all of those contexts, there are plenty of...
	I mean, right now, religious accommodations, in my view, cover everybody, even people who don't think it does.
	And that will be the most robust means of objecting to the vaccine and preventing your employer from discriminating against you in any way, shape, or form.
	They're going to have to prove business necessity of the vaccine.
	And in my view, for the reasons I explain it, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, you cannot do that.
	They will not be able to prove that for a lot of reasons.
	Now, it gets into medical reasons.
	I go into great detail in the Tyson Foods complaint about that, so we won't discuss it here on YouTube.
	But I am very confident.
	And again, so far, no employer, to my knowledge, in American history has won.
	A vaccine mandate that discriminates against those who have religious exemptions.
	So that's the place to look.
	That's the place to go.
	And the federal government's putting out this, like, proposed list of questions until you actually see them.
	You know, wait until you actually see them.
	My old great-great-great-great-granddaddy said, who my brother, his middle name is named after, Colonel Prescott, don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes.
	You don't have to file something until you see the actual policy or form they ask you to sign.
	But the religious accommodations will be the way to go.
	Anything else is going to be uphill, just realistically.
	Doesn't mean you can't win in time.
	Just means you're probably not going to win anytime soon.
	And you have to deal with the economic consequences in the interim.
	All right.
	Now, Stephen Evans says 9,000 watching, 3,000 likes.
	Come on, man.
	Dude, that's an amazing ratio, even as is.
	But let that not be a deterrent to go hit the thumbs up.
	Now, Lieutenant L.T. Smash.
	Which is one of the best Simpsons references ever.
	If anyone's seen that episode, you'll know.
	Viva Fry and Barnes, please help.
	Wife and I are fed subs.
	And the jab mandate will lose our jobs as of November 22nd.
	Need a lawyer in Denver area that will help.
	Thank you.
	And never miss the stream.
	Robert, I don't know if anybody in the chat...
	For everybody, look at the religious accommodations.
	Find the policy.
	Find out if there's religious accommodations.
	Assert a religious objection.
	Again, there's many people that have many reasons for their religious objection.
	My view is informed consent counts.
	My view is people who believe their body is a temple counts.
	My view is if you have objection to aborted fetal cell use, that's what the Project Veritas whistleblower disclosure was about.
	That counts.
	And that's established by multiple government and medical health authorities.
	That's not in controversy.
	Some people get confused and think that it means aborted fetal cells are in the vaccine.
	That's not the case.
	It is that they were used in the production or development or discovery of the vaccine.
	Oh, to a couple of the locals' questions, some of them are about...
	One person asked, what should people be looking for that people aren't paying attention to?
	Most of the big things people are paying attention to, but I think this Kaiser suit does raise questions about, are they using testing and these disclosures not only to establish a legal precedent that corporations or the government can control your body?
	But are they using it to gather private medical information they're sharing about you in other ways that would raise major privacy questions and issues?
	That would be something to continue to pay attention to.
	Because if Kaiser's involved in that, that raises big, big questions.
	Because Kaiser has a lot of access to a lot of people's medical records beyond their employees.
	And they appear to be engaged with third-party...
	And I'm hearing more and more stories of that.
	So that would be one of the key things to take a look at.
	And by the way...
	I'm going to leave this one up while I read this one.
	This is Ross Lloyd who says, I'm an active duty military getting out soon.
	You both have inspired me to go into law and fight the corrupt system.
	Do you have any advice on picking a law school in the U.S.?
	GMU thoughts, Robert?
	And then we're going to get to this one.
	Oh, I was reading this.
	Thoughts on law schools in the U.S.?
	I mean, I don't know how it works.
	I'll bring this one up in a second.
	Say that again?
	Thoughts on law schools?
	Where should anyone look to go?
	I don't think you should have to go to law school, but that's another story.
	I don't believe in licensures in general.
	It depends on which law.
	If you want to work in a particular legal market, look at where your law school places well.
	To give an example, Wisconsin places well in San Francisco.
	You wouldn't necessarily think of that.
	Let's say you like the Bay Area.
	I once upon a time did.
	It's not quite the Bay Area I remember right now.
	But that was a utility that I evaluated.
	So what kind of practice do you ultimately want to do?
	Where do you want to work geographically?
	And that often both has a role.
	Otherwise, if there are certain professors or styles of learning, and Wisconsin taught what they called law in action, which was to look beyond the black letter law and look to the public policy the law is supposed to serve and the street reality of how it actually works.
	And that was one of the reasons I went there.
	My brother was also there getting his PhD in philosophy at the top and misled me about the weather.
	Well, yeah, we talked about that on the sidebar with him.
	But yeah, those are some factors.
	Otherwise, the best experience you could get is not in law school.
	It's while you're in law school, clerk or intern for free.
	Offer your services for free.
	That's what I did.
	Now, people end up paying me because I was in a unique position.
	But look for who do you want to work for or what kind of work do you want to do or if you just want to explore that.
	I clerked for an Indian tribe, clerked for a corporate law firm, worked with a personal injury law firm, clerked with a public interest law firm, clerked with a street lawyer.
	I did all that while I was in law school.
	I saw civil trials and criminal trials and all kinds of litigation in state and federal court in multiple states across the country before I even ever graduated.
	And that gave me a great advantage at knowing what kind of law.
	I wanted to look at and pursue.
	So that's the best way to go about it.
	Look at volunteering your services because there's always value to a law clerk because you're already at least learning aspects of the law.
	But the best way to really learn it is to intern a clerk for a lawyer that does the kind of work you want to do.
	And this is very Gary Vaynerchuk type advice.
	And for anybody saying I should always get paid because I'm not working for free.
	Even clerking for free is not working for free.
	It's a symbiotic relationship.
	You're getting experience, which has value to you.
	And unfortunately, what you have to offer as a first-year law student is very minimal.
	So to come in demanding pay for work that you're experiencing, you don't yet have, that's how you get it.
	It's symbiotic.
	You're gaining something and they're gaining something.
	That's how it works.
	Now, we're not going to answer this question, Robert, because I am going to be in touch with Ariadna because I have been.
	Ariadna is going to come as a sidebar one day.
	But for now, Hi, Viva.
	So happy to make it live.
	Hey, Robert.
	Did you catch me on Tucker Carlson's Sui New York Times?
	Taylor Lorenz, defamation and libel.
	Confidence of interest, malice, public figure.
	I'm so excited to hear your thoughts.
	You're not going to hear it tonight, Ariadne, but we will be carrying on this discussion sooner than later, so I'm going to get back to you after the stream is over.
	But if we don't get to this in our last five minutes, people are going to blow a gasket.
	What's going on?
	What's new in Kyle Rittenhouse?
	Oh, yeah.
	So a couple of things.
	Linwood is back to...
	Linwood and John Pierce are both busy trying to figure out how they each can steal the bail money.
	So Linwood had some lawyer right saying, you know, Fightback Foundation wants the money.
	John Pierce is still trying to pretend that he's going to get the money.
	And so, you know, that disaster sideshow continues to happen.
	But more and more people are seeing who Linwood is.
	I mean, we were the first to talk about it.
	I mean, it was that famous meme.
	Of you and I, called Lynn Sanity, from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, of walking Lynn into the Nuthouse, where he has belonged for a while.
	Was that a Talix meme, if I do recall correctly?
	I believe that was Talix.
	Oh, yes, yes, that was Talix, from our local board, great meme maker.
	We have him, Captain Mike, a bunch of great meme makers that are fantastic on the board.
	So there was that side show.
	I'm in charge of that aspect, and I'm confident that we will make sure that money goes to where the donors originally gave it for, which was the legal defense and the safety and security of Kyle Rittenhouse.
	In court, many good rulings.
	I mean, there were some rulings we talked about that really happened two weeks ago, but some people are catching up on, which is all of the prosecutor's efforts to try to smear Kyle with a bunch of nonsense about things that allegedly happened before.
	The incident in Kenosha, before he had to defend himself in Kenosha, we're all excluded.
	So none of that stuff's coming in.
	Additionally, the Daubert hearing was held.
	In the Daubert hearing, the government didn't have an expert yet.
	They came up with their expert at the last minute.
	I presume they're going to only try to keep him as a rebuttal expert because the judge was like, why is your expert only being disclosed now when it was due months ago?
	For the ignorant person out there, myself included, what do they need an expert for?
	Self-defense or cause of death?
	In the U.S. court system, you're allowed to use an expert for any subject or topic that's beyond the ordinary knowledge of a juror.
	Here, there are many potential topics that were beyond the ordinary knowledge of the jury.
	We could have utilized some other experts.
	But it's taken the path it's currently taken.
	I mean, in my view, they were a right to use an expert to describe Antifa violence and a range of things.
	For a range of reasons, because of where the case has gone, that's not going to be necessary.
	But one of the witnesses is a use of force expert.
	And the use of it, and people can go and watch the whole, it's on Law and Crime.
	There's also a breakdown by Nick Rickey and some others.
	And I think the dude with the, I'm blanking on his name, Matthew and the Blonde.
	Oh, Christensen.
	Matt Christensen.
	That's what happens when your co-host is named The Blonde.
	Much easier to remember.
	Sorry, Matt.
	But he did a good breakdown as well.
	The expert testified.
	People can watch it very, very well.
	And you get to see a real expert who independently assessed this, who usually testifies for the government, gets up and says that this was not only a classic case of self-defense.
	But once you understand the circumstances, the danger that that gun presents to Kyle, given that other people are grabbing it and trying to remove it, given the other sequence of events that are happening, breaking it down in slow motion, then it reveals why Kyle has a robust self-defense.
	The government expert wasn't even ready, might be ready in a week or two, and I don't think is going to be a very effective witness, and I presume is only going to be a rebuttal witness since they failed to timely disclose it.
	Last but not At least in that respect, it will likely be jury selection will be done in person.
	The trial begins the first week of November.
	And I'll be up there, of course, helping with jury selection and a whole bunch of other aspects with the trial.
	And we'll have some friends helping me out.
	But maybe we'll disclose that a little bit later.
	We're going to put a top-notch team.
	Tim Pool's been worried.
	Understandably so, because there is real juror bias in Kenosha due to the media lies that have been spread about Kyle Rittenhouse.
	But we are going to have an extraordinary, maybe the best ever jury selection team put together for anybody, anywhere, anyplace, anytime.
	And if we get a jury that properly presumes Kyle innocent, he will be adjudicated innocent.
	Oh, one last component.
	The gun charge will likely be dismissed as being void for vagueness.
	The court denied the motion on the current grounds that had been brought.
	But made the point that, he goes, when you have a bunch of judges having to spend lots of time and a bunch of lawyers trying to figure out what the law might mean, then that means that law is void for vagueness.
	How can an ordinary person know that they are criminally punished under this law when we can't even figure out what it means necessarily?
	So it's a very good common-sense approach from that court that's taken a common-sense approach to pretty much everything, and so that charge will likely be dismissed, and only the other charges will go to trial, and Kyle should, and I believe, will be acquitted of all charges as long as we get a fair jury, and we're going to do everything possible to make sure he gets that constitutionally protected, impartial jury that presumes him innocent as the law requires.
	And now, two questions about the jury.
	Do we know if, I mean, I asked the question, I feel absurd asking it.
	Are there going to be vaccination requirements for the jury?
	Oh, no.
	None of that in Wisconsin.
	I think mask mandates are even gone.
	No one was wearing a mask in court.
	That was the second question.
	I mean, are we going to have a trial by mask, or is it going to be, you know, people are going to see the witnesses and their actual faces and their actual responses?
	I'm not certain yet that the court's made final determination on that, but my understanding is everything's going to be normal.
	They're not going to be treating it like we're in some weird setting.
	What is interesting is the state said, the government, the prosecutor said, there's some witnesses who want to testify.
	They were pretending they were going to call 150 witnesses, which was a joke.
	The court was like, that's nonsense.
	Tell me how many real witnesses you're going to call.
	And the prosecutor's like, okay, maybe around 27. So it would be a lot less, of course.
	But some of these witnesses apparently don't want to be shown.
	They don't want anybody to see him.
	Why is that?
	Are they worried about people looking at their social media?
	Are they worried that there's going to be, like in the Roger Stone case, where the jurors didn't want people to know things about them because it would have exposed their bias and prejudice?
	There's a public right of access to these proceedings, and the fact that some of these witnesses want to hide.
	Nobody raises questions about what their real motivation is.
	They said they don't want to be harassed.
	There's lots of legal ways to protect that.
	Anybody who harasses any witness is going to be prosecuted.
	Any prosecutor witness, that's a guarantee.
	Nobody's going to harass any witness.
	But if you're hiding something, don't think you can hide it and get up and testify on the stand without being cross-examined on it because all the lawyers know who you are and will be able to dig that up.
	But I think it's an effort for some witnesses.
	To try to lie and get away with it on the stand.
	And when exactly do we expect jury selection to start?
	This is first week in November?
	First week in November.
	I believe it's Monday, November 1st.
	I'll be up there a little bit before then.
	But it'll be...
	Well, you're ready to roll.
	And if the...
	Again, all we need is a jury that presumes Kyle innocent under the laws the law requires.
	If that is the case, the facts will prove Kyle is innocent.
	Okay, fantastic.
	Now, how do we end this, Robert?
	Give us some inspiration for the week to come, what we should be looking out for in the week to come, and everybody knows where to find us.
	But yes, end us of the weekend with some words of optimism.
	Sure, great credit to all those pilots.
	School bus drivers, ferry operators, who rather than go along with this attempt of corporations and governments owning and controlling your body and denying you the informed consent that was supposed to be established 80 years ago, 75 years ago at Nuremberg, took personal action by taking strikes, by taking sick outs, by doing anything they can in their power to resist this usurpation.
	of individual rights by governments and corporations alike.
	So credit to them, and if more people continue to do that, nothing shuts down a government or a society trying to do something wrong than a general strike.
	So it's time for people to stand up and step up, and many are, and credit to them for doing so, because there's a lot of folks that would love to that are not in a position to do so.
	So credit to people like pilots and ferry operators and others who are willing and able and ready and have done so, and hopefully continue to.
	All right.
	And with that said, everyone in the chat, you know where to find us, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're on Rumble if anybody doesn't like one platform and prefers another.
	Thank you all for the support.
	Thank you for tuning in.
	The comments, even the negative ones, even the ones that keep us in check and keep us honest.
	Thank you very much.
	Sidebar this Wednesday will be Greg Hartley from the Body Behavior Panel, Body Language Panel.
	So they've been doing some interesting interviews lately.
	It'll be a lot of fun to talk to him.
	Longtime military interrogator.
	So there's a lot of fun stuff to talk about with him.
	And then next week will be Scott Adams.
	And then a week after that, Chase Hughes.
	Week after that, Chrissy Meyer.
	So a lot of folks.
	And then a few weeks after that, Robert Kennedy Jr.
	So we got some fun stuff of folks coming up.
	Amazing.
	And I'm going to be getting an interview with Avi Yamini in Australia from Rebel News talking about the land down under that's gone mad.
	Some amazing stuff coming up.
	I'm looking forward to all those sidebars.
	I've got to go do some homework, but some of it's going to be quicker than other stuff.
	Robert, thank you very much.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone else in the chat, enjoy what's left of the weekend.

▲