All Episodes
Previous Next
July 25, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
01:28:35
Alex Jones Jury Selection; Tamara Lich Bail Hearing & MORE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, by the way, I'm going to make some...
We're going to break this down, and then we're going to read the article.
But now I'm just noticing it.
Let's just see how many of the doctors or students, I should say students, getting up and leaving in protest.
Because of the speaker's position on the big A. Let's just see how many of them are wearing face masks.
Just one right there.
One, two, three, four.
Those four right there.
And we're not going to talk about hive mind.
There's one, two, three, four.
I can see one in the back there.
One over there in the back as well.
And it doesn't seem that they have to be wearing masks in the crowd.
There's some people not wearing masks, this elderly gentleman right there.
But let's just appreciate what we're witnessing in terms of ideological intolerance.
Childish inability to hear not that which you don't like, something totally potentially irrelevant from someone you don't like.
And these people are supposed to become doctors.
That's very loud.
We'll get to the story on this in a second.
Good afternoon.
Amen.
Getting up and leaving.
Future doctors.
Okay.
A video can be taken out of context, people.
Can't watch a 25-second video and then go nuts.
I saw the video.
I had to get some context.
Let's just go to...
Apparently Fox News is no longer News Guard certified, according to Tim Pool.
Which is very interesting because I presume USA Today that just got caught for fabricating or falsifying 23 stories still has a rating of 100.
University of Michigan.
Here we go.
University of Michigan medical students walk out of Pro-Life speakers keynote address at white coat ceremony.
Video shows dozens of students and parents exiting auditorium as Dr. Kristin Collier approached podium.
I'm just going to say one thing before I make sure.
It's a joke.
The thing about NewsGuard is just whether or not other people can rate you as not relying on certifiable news.
It doesn't matter.
The story doesn't matter.
Audio's good.
Everything's good.
I haven't heard anybody complaining.
Here's my one-liner.
All of those students should be kicked out of school.
Or they should be forced to take a class on maturity, being adults, and what the world has in store for them.
I would seriously be very inclined to find a way to penalize those students, not in a punitive way, in a remedial way, because it is entirely...
Not just unacceptable.
Not just juvenile, childish, intolerant.
You want to know what the definition of bigotry is?
Hold on.
Hold on.
Let's just get...
Bigotry.
Definition.
Obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction.
In particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership to a particular group.
What else could this be described as?
As students...
Walking out, not because, as far as I know, the professor or whoever was giving the keynote speech, it was not a speech on the issue.
They were walking out because this teacher espouses certain beliefs that they find so morally objectionable that they rudely, in the middle of a...
What does a keynote address even mean?
Get up and walk out.
Let's hear this.
Let's hear this.
Dozens of incoming University of Michigan medical students...
They have no business being doctors.
If they think that this is appropriate, the arrogant, juvenile, pompous children that they are to get up and walk out, presumably, the person who's speaking might teach them about the actual practice of medicine.
If they think they have the moral authority as students, know-nothing pipsqueaks, who are there to learn how to be doctors, they think at this point in their lives, they're...
Lives in which they've accomplished nothing except having gotten into medical school, they have the moral authority and audacity to get up and try to prove a point to someone who's going to teach them.
They shouldn't be allowed to be doctors.
Because, by the way, I couldn't rely on them not to do something very bad to a patient who they might find out espouses beliefs that they don't like.
They get up and walk out of a keynote speaker because of her beliefs.
How are they going to treat patients?
Who actually espouse beliefs that they find morally reprehensible.
Can't be trusted ever again.
They can be trusted to be forced to learn the lessons of life.
One line from the Amy Winehouse documentary that I'll always remember is that life can teach you a lot if you live long enough.
I lost my story.
Life can teach you a lot if you can live long enough.
And these kids need to learn a little bit about...
What life is going to hold in store for them when they think that they have the right to do this.
They have the right to do it.
But the school also has a right to say, I no longer trust your judgment to actually treat people equally and impartially as a doctor administering medical aid.
Okay.
Dozens of yada yada yada.
After dozens of incoming Michigan students.
Walked out of a pro-life keynote speaker's address after a previous petition to get the speaker removed, failed.
They're there to learn medicine, nothing else.
Shortly after, Dr. Kristen Collier, a pro-life assistant professor of medicine at UMMS, took to stage Sunday to address the new students at their white coat ceremony.
These kids think that the world is there to serve them.
They think that they are kings and queens to be served.
By those who are there to teach them.
Because the teachers are in a subservient position.
The teachers are there to teach them.
They are the kings.
They are the queens.
They are the monarchy.
And the actual professors?
They're the peons.
Several dozen people got up from their seats and headed for the auditorium doors.
A video of the walkout amassed many likes.
So you've got to get the context.
I want to acknowledge the deep wounds our community has suffered over the past several weeks Collier started her speech, which would have been a veiled reference to the controversy surrounding the protests or the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning Roe v.
Wade.
The deep wounds our community has suffered.
Now I'm starting to get irritated with Dr. Collier starting with an apology.
That she does not need to offer on a pretext that is an inaccurate pretext of what is going on.
The deep wounds our community has suffered by virtue of the fact that the Supreme Court has said, states, it's up to you, figure it out on your own.
And by the way, the apology, it worked really well.
You saw the response it got from all the people.
Oh, let's just keep going.
I've made the point after this just for the story.
We have a great deal of work to do for healing to occur, she continued.
The National Review reported.
And I hope that for today, for this time, we can focus on what matters most.
Coming together to support our newly accepted students and their families with the goal of welcoming them into one of the greatest vocations that exists on this earth.
The protesting group included students donning their medical white coats.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
They don't deserve to wear them yet.
They are students.
They know nothing.
They're there to absorb information, not lecture other people, and try to silence their professors and some parents.
The school said 168 new medical students attended the initiation ceremony and took the white coat pledge and the Hippocratic Oath.
Do no harm, but walk out on those who are supposed to teach you.
The petition to remove Collier, who is also the director of the UMMS Program of Health, Spirituality, and Religion, was ultimately denied by the school's dean.
Doctor, you know what?
All of those students, you want to be principled students, and you want to show the world what's what?
You should drop out of UMMS law school.
Medicine.
You should drop out of the school.
Go prove a point.
Find another job.
Find another school.
You're going to be doctors.
You're going to have to treat actual criminals.
You're going to have to treat actual bad people.
You're also going to have to treat people who believe things that you find offensive.
And if you think that this is appropriate as to the level of respect and courtesy and above all else, what's the word I'm looking for?
Humility.
To show to the people who are going to teach you how to do what you need to learn to do, to do what you want to do, this is how you think it's appropriate to teach them?
Find another job.
Find another vocation.
Outrageous.
Okay.
Standard disclaimers, people.
Superchats.
YouTube takes 30% if you don't like that.
Simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
They have Rumble Rants.
Rumble takes 20%.
Better for the creator, better for the platform, yada, yada, yada.
You missed my 417th super chat.
I admit, the only thing that will make it better is if you give me some legal medical advice immediately.
Bambuga, I love it.
No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fornication advice.
Okay, I won't belabor.
I won't drag it on.
You all want to know what's going on with Alex Jones, the trial.
I don't have all the news.
I don't have the latest news.
I had the latest news this morning when I went.
It's no longer the latest news, and I was trying to figure out what to do in terms of...
People, you know that I live in perpetual fear of a proverbial eye in the sky, or a proverbial judge in the sky, or in some cases, an actual judge.
So I went there this morning for the fro, yeah.
I went for a jog this afternoon.
It was 101 degrees, but it was a dry heat.
How far did I go?
I did a lot.
Jeez, I've done 18,237 steps today.
Thank you very much, by the way, Varing Redbeard.
I live in perpetual fear of a proverbial eye in the sky.
Call it what you want, or a camera in the sky of being recorded all the time, and sometimes an actual judge.
I showed up to court thinking I would just go in and sit in the courtroom and watch the jury selection.
I was told at first that there wasn't enough room to get in for jury selection, so I was sort of meandering with the crowd, just not mingling, just observing.
This is the courthouse in Austin.
There was not as much media there.
In fact, I don't think there was any media there, except for the cameras for the Austin State Court to run it live.
I see Barnes has popped into the house.
Let's bring Barnes in.
This is a surprise.
Oh, Robert, do you see me?
I do.
Sorry, I think your audio might be high there.
Robert, I'm going to relay my experience this morning because I was there.
I go into the main lobby.
They asked me if I was there for jury selection and I didn't understand that they had a whole table specifically for people for, what do they call it?
Free speech systems.
It's called Ponzer versus free speech systems.
So people don't necessarily even know why they're there.
But the jury selection...
Everyone went upstairs.
They're waiting around in the hallway for court to start.
And the marshal said, I shouldn't go in because there might not be enough room.
And it's really just for the jury members.
And so I just sat there for a little bit, looking around, gauging the people that were there for jury selection.
I got into a discussion with one person, but didn't ask him anything about anything.
He said, are you here for jury selection?
He said, yes.
And I said, you ever done it before?
And he said, no.
I think.
And then he went on to explain that the questionnaire that he got said that the questionnaire had some interesting questions, some weird questions, whether or not you know what QAnon is, where you get your news from if you watch Infowars.
This individual didn't seem to know who Alex Jones was, which I found surprising.
But because the sheriff said I shouldn't go in, I went for a walk to the Capitol Hill.
Building is beautiful.
Then I came back and I witnessed a bit of it before going into lunch.
And I told Robert when I got back, it was the defense asking, picking out certain jury members.
They all looked very, very diverse.
So old, young, white, black, Latino, Asian, a few.
Women, men, old.
And I would say maybe 10% were wearing face masks.
Maybe.
Probably less.
But when I got there to see the jury selection, the plaintiff's attorney was asking, If they would have a problem awarding damages, Robert, in the absence of a ledger, you know, identifying a quantum.
And the plaintiff's counsel was throwing around a number in the order of $100 to $200 million.
Would you have a problem with that type of award?
And he was going between punitive damages and emotional distress.
And Robert, I mean, I think we discussed it yesterday, but...
He might be fudging concepts here under Texas law?
Yes.
To my knowledge, there is no punitive damages claim because they did not follow Texas law for preserving such a claim.
And Texas has specific...
I mean, honestly, the case shouldn't be here under Texas law because you're supposed to give a certain kind of notice and opportunity to correct and retract before you even file suit.
It's not clear they even complied with that.
But you have to give a particular kind of notice to even have access to punitive damages, and punitive damages are also capped.
My understanding is there is no punitive damages claimed here.
So what they're really doing is...
They're disguising their punitive damages claim, which they're legally not entitled to, as emotional damages.
And they're planting that idea in the juror's head.
And what they want the jury to do is to say, we hate Alex Jones, so we're going to award a crazy verdict that does not reflect an actual number of monetary compensation for actual emotional injury.
My view is that these plaintiffs have not suffered meaningful emotional injury from anything caused by Alex Jones.
The evidence for that is that none of them, in a timely way, ever submitted a correction request, a retraction request, an apology request, any of it, which is completely unheard of in a defamation case.
Who's heard of a defamation case where you never file a request to let somebody know, hey, by the way, your statement's not accurate, or your statement is hurtful?
Never happened.
Now, the reality is that had they done so, they likely know that Jones would have timely responded and fixed any issues, as he has done when he got things wrong in the past.
So that's why the whole case, in my view, is a made-up case.
It's not real injuries.
Jones didn't cause Sandy Hook.
Most of what InfoWars covered said Sandy Hook happened.
Jones didn't send people to harass people at people's homes.
Any of that.
But what you're seeing in the jury selection...
Is the plaintiffs are getting away with questions that generally courts are not supposed to allow.
You're not supposed to say, hey, jury, which one of you are with us and which one are you against us?
Which one are you going to give a crazy verdict?
Which ones won't?
Usually, I mean, judges have shut me down when I've asked any question that could sound like I'm asking a leading question for a verdict.
But this judge is so biased.
That when one of the jurors was like, $100 million for hurt feelings?
The judge, according to published reports that I saw, suddenly lectured that juror and everyone else.
Oh, this isn't about hurt feelings, it's about emotional distress, about defamation.
Another juror, when they asked, they're like, hold on a second, we don't get to decide defamation?
What's going on here?
I actually caught something along those lines when I was there.
Someone said, well, it was an Indian woman.
Indian from India, but not...
Native American.
Dots, not feathers.
Well, you won't catch me making that decision.
That's from The Simpsons, I think.
I got it from a Native American friend of mine.
He told me, oh, no, Bob, feathers, not dots.
I was like, okay.
I was like, is it okay if I say that?
He's like, absolutely.
I'll say, okay, I got permission.
I think it was a joke in The Simpsons back in the day when those jokes were acceptable humor.
So she said, well, are we going to be told what defamation is?
And this was the plaintiff's counsel said, well, you don't need to worry about defamation.
He's already been found guilty of defamation and causing emotional distress.
Now it's a question of quantum.
Are you going to have a problem attributing a number in the absence of a ledger or, and I think he actually said, not verified, but demonstrable or quantifiable damages.
That's what he said.
And then he called up another juror and said, are you going to have a problem with Hypothetically, if we're talking $100, $200 million, do you have an aversion, a bias against that type of quantum for punitive damage or emotional distress?
And so they were fluttering between the two concepts.
Which is unheard of, by the way.
They're talking about a jury verdict for emotional distress that has never been awarded in the history of America, in the history of the country.
They want to bankrupt Alex Jones.
That's their goal.
Their goal is to censor him permanently, take him off the air, seize his web domain, seize his camera equipment, seize everything.
That's their goal by getting a lunatic verdict.
The law doesn't support and the facts don't support, which is why the judge had to help rig the trial.
And as far as I can tell from the public commentary I have seen...
Is rigging the jury selection as part of that process?
Yeah, I couldn't believe the number.
And I didn't ask a jury member because I don't want to be making headlines viva, tampering with jury while selections going on.
I asked the person who was recording the audio, I think, for the courthouse.
I said, who threw out the number $100 to $200 million?
Because that's like, on the one hand, feeling out.
For anyone who says, one guy said, I'd have to see a heck of a lot of evidence of damages.
To contemplate that type of award, okay, thank you, sit down.
But worse still is that it creates the impression with the entire jury, because the plaintiff's attorney is pulling up one jury prospective juror after another in the entire room with everybody hearing the questions.
So now it's like the litmus test or the threshold has been set.
Well, if we only find for $5 million, it's a discount from the $100 to $200 million that we were tested on.
And it just seemed like poisoning the pool, but above all else, filtering out the ones who are going to be averse to a massive payout and just conditioning everybody to think, well, heck, if the lawyer is talking about $100 to $200 million, $1 to $10 million is going to be reasonable.
And this is just the first case.
I mean, they're talking about $100 million for just one plaintiff.
And, you know, they got another case coming in Texas and then another case in Connecticut with a bunch more people.
And again, it's public information that very substantial settlement offers in the six figures were made that became part of the public proceedings in the bankruptcy case and that they turned it down.
And now you have a sense of what...
This case has always been political.
It has nothing to do with people feeling emotionally traumatized by anything.
That is the pretext for a jury to shut down and silence Alex Jones.
That's what it's always been about.
That's what today continued to prove.
And unfortunately, I did not see evidence that an impartial jury...
Will be formed in this case.
When plaintiff's lawyers are allowed to ask patently impermissible questions like that, and the judge is lecturing anyone who raises a question about it, that means that it scolds them for even second-guessing the wisdom of such a ridiculous, lunatic verdict.
Then that gives you an idea of what a complete kangaroo court this court is in Travis County, and that they're trying to railroad Alex Jones.
To try to, again, bankrupt him to the point where he is unable and incapable to be on the air.
I was surprised about one thing.
Even the marshals at the courthouse, some of them did not seem to know that the Alex Jones trial was going on.
People across the street at the diner didn't know.
One individual who offered anything to me seems to not have known who Alex Jones was.
Addressing some comments yesterday, people are under the impression that everybody knows who Alex Jones is.
We live in our own silos sometimes where we take for granted.
Everybody knows what's going on in the world.
Everybody knows.
By the way, I am getting to Trudeau talking about a 30% reduction in fertilizer.
We take for granted.
Everybody knows that.
Robert, what were the stats you told me about people who vote and where they vote?
Like 10%?
30%?
We have over 300 million Americans in this country.
And on average, you know, the only two thirds will vote in any election for the most part.
Less than half turn out to vote in most elections in the United States.
And so when you realize that, you realize it's not a surprise.
I mean, according to YouGov's own public polls, half of America didn't know who Alex Jones was.
And so that's it.
Now in Austin, that number will probably be less because he's been here for 25 plus years in the public arena.
But my guess would be one out of three people in Austin.
You've got a lot of people that have moved here over the past 20 years.
Still don't know who Alex Jones was.
And that's why, or is.
And that's why they had to fix the jury.
So even though they have a liberal democratic jury pool that leans in their direction instinctively.
They needed to fix the case because when I had just went around randomly asking people about this case, you know, diners, cab drivers, Uber drivers, everyday folks, if they didn't have a strong opinion already about Alex Jones, when I described the case, they're like...
This doesn't even sound like a credible case.
Somebody's suing him.
I mean, as one of the jurors said, over hurt feelings.
And they didn't even file a complaint or retraction.
They didn't ask him to fix it beforehand when it happened.
And they're wanting me to write a big check.
Most ordinary people who don't have a dog in the fight, so to speak.
Your ordinary jury, true impartial jury member of the community is the Constitution under both the Texas State Constitution and the United States Constitution applies here.
The average verdict was zero.
That was the average verdict.
And so that's why they had to fix the case on terms of not allowing him to defend himself on the merits.
That's why they had to fix the case in terms of him not being able to ask questions about what really caused injury.
And now they're fixing the case in jury selection.
And the goal is to have this narrative at later on.
A year from now, you'll have a narrative, well, a jury decided the case, and they found Alex Jones guilty, and they found a big verdict.
The media will just selectively lie down the road about what's really happening here.
This is one of the greatest disgraces in the history of the rule of law in America.
Again, the plaintiff's lawyer, when he said, well, he's already been found guilty of defamation and infliction of emotional distress.
So help me goodness, Robert, I can understand the emotional distress argument, and I can even be very sympathetic to it.
But the defamation part, it was...
Alex Jones said it was a hoax.
Defamatory.
And the way the plaintiff's lawyer said it.
And look, it's true in that if he's been found guilty by default, he's been found guilty.
And so it really is a question of only the quantum and not the substance.
So everyone's going to start off saying and thinking, guilty on defamation, guilty on infliction of emotional distress.
Very few are going to appreciate, and I'm not even sure that they're going to talk about it, that it was by default by being foreclosed from pleading.
They're not allowed to discuss it.
Not only that, he's not allowed to say it wasn't outrageous.
He's not allowed to say his conduct wasn't intentional.
He's not, and not only that, he's not allowed to ask them questions about whether something else has caused them emotional distress.
He's not, in other words, is he the cause?
Because for tort, you got three claims.
First part is liability.
Did you do something wrong?
Second part is causation.
And the third part is the damages.
The second and the third part is what this trial is supposed to be about, but the judge is also basically trying to gut his defense on causation.
Yes, these are plaintiffs.
Some of these plaintiffs have suffered emotional trauma, but it wasn't from Alex Jones.
It was from their child being killed by a shooter.
And there may have been other people responsible for that, school safety officials, school safety response, etc.
But that had nothing to do with Alex Jones.
Jones is not allowed to ask them whether anything else caused them emotional trauma.
He's not even allowed to bring up the shooter's name.
That's how bad it is.
And there's been more rulings like that and how the jury is going today, jury selection, that is.
They're trying to pick a partial prejudicial jury that has preordained a large amount of damages.
Yeah, and my understanding of what I heard, I did not hear all of it by any means, is that the plaintiff's attorney was basically suggesting, we're not going to have any evidence.
We're not going to have concrete damages.
You're going to have to pick a number.
So are you going to have a problem ascribing a number when there's going to be no...
Ledger was one of the words he used, detailing concrete damages.
Let me bring up a few chats because I love this.
I know this expression from back in the day.
When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around.
But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.
Mark Twain's.
All students should know this quote, and it's classic.
Where is it being streamed?
I had trouble finding it this morning.
I think it's Travis County number 459 or something.
So it's a live stream on the judge's specific YouTube feed.
I think it's Travis County 459 or something like that.
I'll find the link.
We'll blast it around locals and Twitter.
I think I found something this morning which had the links to the various courtrooms and I couldn't find it in time.
Yeah, so that's all that happened today.
They're going to whittle it down.
Quiddle it down.
Robert, is it a jury of nine or 12 in a civil case?
It depends on each state, but 12 is the norm.
Okay.
So that's the latest in Alex Jones.
It's another fait accompli.
In the case that my firm was involved in back in the day, where someone was found guilty by default, foreclosed from pleading, ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars.
They brought that judgment over to Canada, homologated it.
And the courts here said, that's not exactly how the system works here.
And without getting too much into it, it was not fully recognized to the best of my recollection.
This is a case where an individual was found guilty in the absence of a trial on the merits.
And whether they love Alex Jones or hate him, it seems very pretextual.
The problem is you have to say, well, the court found him in such egregious violation of his obligations of disclosure and discovery that they foreclosed him from even presenting a defense.
So it has to be legitimate.
But I've seen now how the courts have been working for the last two years.
And I've got questions because it's inconceivable.
He's produced more discovery than anyone ever has that I know of in a comparable case.
And no one has been able to point out an analogous fact pattern in any other case.
It's not supposed to be a default.
Default's supposed to be a very rare remedy, clearly inapplicable here.
Somebody who sits for days and days and days of depositions and produces millions of pages of documents, their personal emails, their personal texts, their personal finances, is not someone who has defaulted.
And what it is, it's the court usurping from the jury the trial by jury.
They've been trying to do this for a long time in a range of cases, take away the law from the jury, take away sentencing power from the jury.
Now they want to use, misuse, default process.
To take away trial by jury on the merits of cases.
It's...
What was my thought about this?
Oh, no.
Well, Robert, the retort.
Devil's advocate.
It's not because he sat down for five days, communicated a million pages.
If he shredded just one, that was the most determinate...
They don't even allege that.
They don't allege he did that.
They just alleged certain documents didn't get turned over in a particular time frame.
It's a lot of technical stuff for which was ultimately resolved, as far as I know.
Like, you read the opinions, and there's a complete lack of specificity as to exactly what was legally requested that wasn't ever ultimately turned over.
There's not a lot of information in the court opinions about that, and that's a sign.
That the judge knows that the bottom line...
Now, part of it is there are certain documents they requested that just don't exist.
Never did exist.
Because there is no business plan.
Anybody who knows Alex Jones for a week would know Alex Jones doesn't have a business plan.
God bless the man.
But that is not the way he operates.
He's a by the seat of his pants talk radio host.
He doesn't sit around grand planning.
Any kind of business plan.
That's just not the man.
But they wanted to say there was a business plan to make money off of Sandy Hook, to monetize it.
The problem with that was 99.9% of what Infowars ever published or broadcast said Sandy Hook happened.
So, you know, all the statements about, they took a small set of statements out of all the statements ever made and claimed that was the only statements that were made.
And that was false.
It was always false.
That's something else he's not allowed.
He's not allowed to present the context.
And now, legally, the perilous precedent here is they've now said, like to this question, if you had somebody shot in Sandy Hook and a big commentator said it was a hoax, you'd be traumatized.
Well, a couple of things on that.
One is, if you didn't hear it, would you be traumatized?
If you did hear it, wouldn't you write a letter demanding a correction?
Wouldn't you write a letter demanding a retraction?
Wouldn't you write a letter demanding an apology?
Would you say nothing at all for years and then conveniently sue and demand $100 million?
Is that what you would do?
And would you be more concerned about what caused your child to die than what somebody in Austin, Texas thought about the case?
So that's the problem they have with the jury, and that's why they have to keep that information out, and that's why they can't have an impartial jury, because when impartial juries heard the actual facts of this case, they were not awarding big verdicts.
That's why they've got to fix the case at every single level.
And sadly, what we saw today was, in my view, attempts to fix the jury itself in jury selection.
Impermissible, improper questions being asked that were leading to a particular verdict, allowing a making sure which jurors in here, like they asked anybody in here in the jury pool that was left at this point, that hadn't been kicked out, hadn't been excluded because they said, hold on a second, this sounds nuts.
Anybody that was left.
They asked him, do you think there has been any media bias at all, any unfavorable or unfair treatment at all of Alex Jones or Infowars by anyone in the national media?
And nobody in the jury pool raised their hand.
I'm sorry, that's not an impartial jury.
Any jury that has any familiarity with Alex Jones or Infowars knows they've been subject to repeated libels.
Nobody's been lied about more than Alex Jones.
Should he have a right to sue everybody that's lied about him?
There needs to be some robust free speech in the country.
Historically, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress is supposed to be even more limited than defamation in Texas.
It's supposed to be, I target you, I say something specific about you, I identify you, and what I say is factual.
Not, I question a narrative, and you may be connected to a victim of a crime.
Because think about that person's question.
If the standard now is I can say nothing that could upset or offend anybody who has any connection to a crime unless the government supports what I'm saying, you can't raise a question about any crime other than the government's narrative.
You can't doubt it at all.
If I'm challenging the COVID vaccine, can somebody who thinks they benefited from it or somebody who died from COVID now sue me because they're traumatized by my disagreement?
There's no limits to where that question goes.
That's how scary this case is.
This case could lead to the almost de facto criminalization of free speech in America if you challenge what the government says about a high profile crime.
Well, Robert, some would argue that that's already the case with, for example, Holocaust denial.
Where it has been criminalized in Europe, it's been criminalized in Canada, because people say...
But not in America.
People say whatever loony, dumb thing you want in America.
That's what makes it America.
As Ross Perot said, your crazy aunt in the basement can say whatever they want.
Now, probably only Ross was locking her up, but you're allowed to say that that is what defines America.
And so the idea that now you can't, because somebody out there might be offended.
I mean, this is creating a permanent safe space under the law.
For anybody who could be offended by anybody who disagrees with the governmental narrative, now you can be sued into oblivion and bankruptcy.
I'll bring this one up.
Talix makes a good point, and I'm going to show you that I don't have a double standard here.
Talix says, let's say, how come Jones is getting sued because he's in the media?
And said stuff.
And Rittenhouse cannot sue the MSM for many inaccurate statements.
Because the government, their theory is, the consistent theory is, if the government said it, then you can say it, even if the government was saying it was a lie.
So the theory against Jones is the government didn't agree with his statements.
He was saying things different than the governmental narrative.
And you remember from the deposition review.
One of the questions the lawyer asked is, don't you think it's wrong for you to say something that could offend somebody that's not been approved of by the government?
It was questions to that exact effect.
And I remember sitting there thinking, this is shocking where this is going.
But Rittenhouse can't sue because the mainstream media was repeating what the prosecutor said.
So that's why it's so problematic.
This is an attempt to create new heresy laws in America to say that if you disagree with the government, And somebody's emotionally offended in a permanent safe space, they can now sue you into oblivion.
I'll say this.
I think Rittenhouse should be able to sue.
I think the media should have the chance to defend.
And I think some of them should be held liable.
Should they be ordered to pay Rittenhouse $50 million?
$100 million?
My kid is crawling in to get her phone.
Get out of here.
No, but I think they should be ordered to pay something.
In Alex Jones' case...
I think there is an argument to be made that he caused emotional distress.
He's offered, as is disclosed in the bankruptcy, very generous settlements.
Settlements far bigger than most defamation plaintiffs have ever received.
And apologized.
He apologized.
Many, many times.
Over and over and over and over.
He apologized on Megyn Kelly.
He apologized on CNN.
He apologized on his own show.
He apologized on Joe Rogan.
He apologized in deposition after deposition.
I mean, how many times has a guy got to grovel and apologize?
Now, notably, the media just doesn't report that much.
And they've also repeatedly lied about it.
They said Alex Jones originated this, completely false.
Initiated it, completely false.
Instigated it, completely false.
Said it all the time, completely false.
All those things are false.
They have libeled him over and over and over again, and they've used this lawsuit to do so.
This lawsuit was also the predicate by which Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, the rest, YouTube, Google started shutting him down, silencing him, manipulating the algorithm.
Facebook put in a rule that said you could not even say the name Alex Jones.
That could be grounds for suspension unless you said you hated him.
And so, you know, I mean, it's just insanity what took place.
And what was the video on Instagram that kind of kicked off?
He said maybe Joe Biden might have some health issues.
You know, like, oh, that's fake news.
That's disinformation.
Well, he turned out right again.
So if there was an Alex Jones was right jar, it would be worth more than $100 million.
But these plaintiff's claims are not.
Some people don't like it because I'll say it.
I think it is extremely emotionally distressing.
Beyond.
It's pure horror.
It's one of the worst traumas ever.
It's not a right to go victimize everybody else.
That's my problem.
It's this victim mindset that's a distorted mindset.
By the way, it hurts legitimate cases.
It hurts legitimate civil rights cases.
These kind of cases, like McDonald's type cases, which if people look at the facts, it's different than what people thought.
But McDonald's was deliberately burning people because they could still make more profit off it.
That's what they didn't know.
What happens when you have these bad cases is it makes all other plaintiffs' cases look bad.
Because there are people who are truly targeted, injured by being targeted, etc., with false statements of fact about them.
Jones never talked about, I don't believe, either of these plaintiffs by name ever.
In fact, I don't know if he ever named a single plaintiff by name ever.
Well, okay, but we got it.
Let's...
The Kentucky Fried Chicken kids.
By the way, to the chat, I didn't hear it at the time.
I saw the highlights afterwards, and I saw outrage from some people, but not others.
But the Kentucky Fried Chicken decision, Robert, he's saying they're crisis actors, it's a hoax.
Or he didn't say this repeatedly.
He said it on one occasion.
In response to two, I think he said it twice in response to two different people who called in on the call-in show several years after Sandy Hook.
That's the core of their whole suit.
When people watch the actual videos of everything he ever said about this, they're like, why are we here?
This isn't the story I heard.
Even if my child had that happen to you, I wouldn't be that bothered by this guy.
It's because it's a complete hoax what they're talking about.
They're trying to pretend that that's all he ever said, that he initiated, he instigated, he originated, he sent people to people's homes.
All that was myth.
It was always myth.
And again, once, and ultimately he acknowledged he was mistaken, and other people at Infowars kept saying the opposite of that, kept saying Sandy Hook happened all the way through.
Infowars is also on trial here.
They're blaming Infowars, not just Alex Jones.
And yet the jury's not going to be allowed to hear what Infowars actually said about Sandy Hook.
Because the guilty by default and precluded or foreclosed from pleading applies to all the defendants, Robert?
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
They've done it across the board.
I mean, she made such bad rulings that the plaintiffs had to dismiss Owen Schroyer because it was obvious Owen Schroyer would get the whole thing thrown out, and that might lead to everything getting thrown out.
So, because they originally sued Owen Schroyer as part of all this.
And the judge was just, yeah, default, default, default, woo-hoo!
That the court, even the plaintiffs, even the desperate plaintiffs, I mean, one of the lead plaintiff's lawyers, Mark Bankston, I used to tell the local media that, you know, the way he got to law school is he had a free ticket to the nuthouse and the Uber driver dropped him off at the wrong location.
That's who some of these people are.
These people are not, you know, morally righteous, bringing the righteous cause nonsense.
And, you know, Bankston in particular was such a scuzzbag, tried to get me kicked out of the case, planted false stories in the press, all the rest.
And so that's who these people are.
They're bottom of the barrel, the worst of ambulance chasers.
They're not ethical, moral heroes of any kind, these plaintiff's lawyers, either in Connecticut, who hustled $77 million out of Remington, now want to hustle some more cash.
I mean, frankly, it looks bad for people who have been parents of victims of school shooters to see this very small group.
Remember, most of the people whose kids died there are not suing Alex Jones.
Most of them are not suing him.
Most of them are not part of this.
Only a small minority is.
And it's not a coincidence that the small minority that has been politically grandstanding on their kids' graves for years to take away everybody else's rights.
And now they want to take away First Amendment rights too.
I'm sorry.
Having a terrible tragedy happen to you is not an excuse for you to take away my rights or anybody else's rights.
Nor is it an entitlement to get fabulously rich off of it, which is what is happening in some of these cases or what they're seeking to do.
And the ultimate, let's call it irony or, you know, the punchline is that everyone says Alex Jones is a crazy, far-right conspiracy theorist.
He's a nutcase whack job.
And yet when he goes out and says things that people say are crazy conspiracy theorists, whack job things, then you say, I'm hurt by this outrageous, outlandish theory coming from this guy who's been labeled as a right-wing crackpot.
And it's been so traumatizing that a crazy person said something crazy and now I'm going to be offended by it.
And by definite, from little defamation law, it just couldn't apply.
Because they're not being...
If you think somebody doesn't exist, how does saying that defame them?
Right?
You know what I mean?
I mean, so it's not a classic defamation case at all.
It doesn't fit within the tort law of defamation.
It doesn't fit within the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
I mean, you can't bring intentional infliction of emotional distress cases under far worse facts than present here.
They just made an exception.
They made an Alex Jones exception to the First Amendment, Alex Jones exception to the constitutional requirement of colloquium for defamation claims.
Not only that, they're pretending all these people, by the way, are private people, that they were never public.
I mean, one of the lead plaintiffs in this very case was all over the news all the time.
Decided to grandstand, used his child's death, and emotional sympathy people had for that to try to take away everybody's gun rights, Second Amendment rights out of the gate.
They got family members running for state office in Connecticut.
Setting all that aside, unfortunately, Robert, do they not become special purpose public figures just by virtue of the incident?
By law?
Well...
Generally, if you're involuntarily made a public figure, you're not a public figure.
But that's when you do nothing to appear.
When you voluntarily appear on TV, appear in broadcast, appear in discussions, that's a different dynamic.
And that's what these people did.
They're saying they're not public figures for the purposes of this suit.
They highlighted that they can't talk about this either.
They're trying to create a completely fake narrative for the jury.
So Alex Jones is not allowed to point out.
His lawyers are not allowed to point out.
These are public figures, right?
These are people who voluntarily chose to ride the media circuit.
They're right.
They're entitlement.
But they chose to do that.
But that creates a very different image of them for the jury.
Alex Jones is not allowed to point that out, not allowed to introduce evidence of it, not allowed to testify to it, not even allowed to ask questions or make arguments about it.
So what are they trying to create?
The fake perception that these are quiet, private parents who've never gone public in their lives, never been political in their lives, their son or their child suffers, they suffer a horrible tragedy with the loss of their child, and then Alex Jones, and then they hear all the emotional trauma they have.
And the only person they're allowed to blame is Alex Jones because these are purely private people who are never public ever.
And the person who shot their child has nothing to do with it.
It's only Alex Jones.
So that's why they're trying to create this linkage that doesn't exist.
The causation component isn't here.
Their emotional trauma isn't from Alex Jones' statements.
So in order to create that linkage, they're excluding all context.
They're excluding all alternative sources.
They're excluding the fact that they are actually public figures.
It is interesting.
They didn't go after the school that I know of.
Only one plaintiff did.
It's not the plaintiff that's involved in this Texas case.
It's the next plaintiff.
Was there an outcome in that case?
Yeah, the court dismissed it.
Dismissed it.
Immunity, whatever other grounds were used.
Media gave no attention to it.
And they don't want that discussed in the court either.
So nobody's allowed to know what really happened, what caused these people's emotional injury.
They're only allowed to blame Alex Jones, and they're being allowed to blame him at a ridiculous rate.
That, again, is unprecedented.
Find another even $10 million emotional damages defamation suit in America.
You know, the only suits that go high in defamation are ones that damage a company's, you know.
Bottom line.
Here they have no professional evidence that I know of that they suffered, other than they're going to get on the stand and say how horrible that he could have said this.
But if you read the complaint, you could tell they weren't even willing to allege that he did cause it initially.
They were just trying to say he could have caused it, it would have caused it, not on this day I heard it, on this day I had this emotion.
You have to usually plead emotional trauma very specifically because courts are very skeptical of those claims.
But you can't point any of that out to the jury.
No, it's like the lawyer said.
It's done.
There's nothing to question.
And so, what did ordinary jurors, even liberal Austin jurors, relate?
This doesn't quite seem right.
I don't get to decide defamation again?
One person said, what are we here for?
We're not going to hear any evidence on the merits.
We're just going to pick an amount.
Again, almost unprecedented.
You find the damages-only trials in America.
You're going to find almost none.
I'll tell you an anecdote from my practice of law, Robert.
There was an injunction taken against my client on the basis that he violated trade secret, whatever.
One of the key issues in the suit was when the plaintiff became aware of the alleged violation because injunction has to be filed in a timely manner, especially when it's an urgent injunction.
If you have known about it for six months and done nothing, but maybe even arguably tacitly accepted it, it becomes relevant.
We have depositions.
I ask for correspondence attempting to demonstrate the date of actual knowledge of the plaintiffs to show that they didn't act in a timely manner because they didn't care at the beginning.
I get correspondence.
Nothing proves what I thought it was going to prove.
I stumble across, through a third party, a correspondence, which was in response to an email that I did in fact get from the other party.
I'm not going to say the council, but the other party.
It was conveniently the response redacted or cut off from the original email.
The response confirmed a date of knowledge, which was three to six months prior.
To the date alleged in the proceedings.
And I said, why didn't you send me this when I asked for it?
You only sent me the response and not that to which it was responding.
And they said, you didn't ask for it in that way.
I went to court to try to get sanctions.
I didn't try to get him foreclosed from pleading.
I tried to get sanctions.
Didn't even get that.
The judge said to me, I believe it was an innocent mistake.
And carry on.
Contrast it to Amber Heard.
Who hid all kinds of evidence and didn't disclose evidence.
She suffered no meaningful sanctions from that.
Corporations do this all the time.
Here someone produces extraordinary amounts of information in being denied a trial on the merits.
And the key thing people have to ask themselves is if you as a lawyer or as a judge had confidence that the jury Would rule the way you want them to rule.
Then you prefer the jury make the ruling rather than you as a judge.
And they clearly don't.
Even the plaintiff's lawyers know their case is so weak they had to manipulate the judge into manipulating the trial and rigging the case.
Because that's the only law.
Most lawyers would never do this because they know there's a massive risk of appellate reversal.
And these lawyers did because they know they couldn't win with the jury if the true Facts were known.
And that's all it's really about.
I'll answer this one.
Shane Souza says, Viva had an unfair and partial judge.
I'll say this.
Home turf advantage does play in law.
And my client wasn't exactly a likable character.
So, you know, the judges find a way to punish who they think is good and to...
Sorry, to punish who they think is bad and to reward who they think is good.
My client was bad.
But how bad?
Like, Alex Jones?
He said some questionable things.
How questionable?
Is it $100 million or, you know, $100,000?
Where did you get to go to get paid for being right all the time?
You know, on all of those things.
So, yeah, it's extraordinary.
Now, I did have a lot of questions.
I'll answer some more specific Alex Jones questions tonight on bourbon with Barnes at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
But I did see some questions in the locals' chat, aside from some advice on what to do in Texas.
One piece of advice I was supposed to make sure to relate to you is if you see any weird animal, do not pick it up or approach it.
That apparently they're there to kill you.
I'm not sure that was advice from a Texan.
But any word on the bail hearings?
Speaking of injustice in Kamido.
Yeah, let's get to that in a second here.
This question at large, Robert, explain jury nullification.
Well, I call it jury authorization.
So what they call jury nullification, historically in America, including go back to the Patrick Henry trial, give me liberty or give me death, the tobacco tax trial, jurors could control both, decided both the facts and the law.
The whole point of trial by jury, going back to the Magna Carta, was that jury basically made a moral judgment.
people, an impartial group from your community who had lived experience like your own could make a fair judgment after hearing the evidence of what should happen.
And what should happen could include facts, it included law, it included sentencing, it included damages, it included everything.
Our courts have been trying to strip juries of as much power as possible, have been trying to water down that right as much as possible, partially by summary judgment motions, partially by motions to dismiss, partially by discovery control.
Partially by jury selection processes and partially by only allowing the jury to determine the facts, not the law.
And that's partially why Steve Bannon was gutted of much of his defense.
And so I've never agreed with that.
So what's called jury nullification is the jury deciding the law.
The jury looking at the case and saying, morally, we think this is the outcome, even though the judge tells us we're not allowed to come to that outcome unless we go through these prior steps first, whereas we find certain things factually.
So that's often what you hear when you hear jury nullification.
And real jury nullification is disregarding the law and the facts for an immoral purpose, in my view.
That I disagree with.
But that's not what the court system typically means by it.
That's not what a lot of other people mean by it.
Now, the other aspect of jury nullification is many jury verdicts are unreviewable, depending on the circumstances.
And so that's the final judgment.
Robert, sorry, a hung jury on the damages, what happens?
Retry?
Yeah, retrial.
And again, I think this jury's for the first trial.
I think they're picking a different jury for the second trial in Texas, and then he has to face a jury trial in Connecticut.
It's all back to back.
Good luck with that one.
Holy cows.
I want to bring this one up, and then we're going to segue into Commida.
Places like Florida and Texas.
Ban BDS supporters from obtaining government contracts and from holding certain state jobs.
Not exactly banning Holocaust denial, but it's inching up to that line.
And I'll tell you this, I disagree with that.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
And the degree that they try that, I do think those BDS supporters will in many instances win First Amendment claims.
Now, my understanding when I've reviewed this, it's not quite as strong as some of the media presentation or some of the presentation has been, that how they define BDS is actually a little bit more limited.
So that it doesn't easily run afoul of First Amendment principles.
But I disagree with the idea in general that there should be any...
Because of your beliefs or thoughts, you should be denied state benefits or the right to the rule of law or anything else.
And I'm not a proponent of BDS.
I say vote with your dollar.
You can't ban people and you can't punish people for wanting to vote with your dollar and get other people to do it as well.
It's up for discussion.
It's not up for banning in my view.
Okay.
But speaking of...
I don't have a link for this.
I was listening to the hearing.
I caught some of, Alex Jones, I caught some of Tamara Litch's bail hearing today, the actual bail hearing, to determine if she stays in jail for having violated her bail.
This prosecutor, when I talk about, you know, there are lawyers, 5% of the lawyers, sorry, what is it?
It's 95% of the lawyers give the other 5% a bad name.
In my view, this is my opinion, hashtag not defamation.
The prosecutor Karimji cannot be trusted.
And so much cannot be trusted.
There was no real news today.
They argued the exact same points they argued on the non-compliance hearing to determine if she stays in jail pending the bail hearing.
They argued the exact same points.
It was a serious, in-your-face, egregious violation.
Tamara Lich can't be trusted not to violate the terms of her bail.
It was over the top.
She knew what she was doing, yada, yada, yada.
Defense says it was inconsequential, minor.
There were errors in law that justify overriding the prior judge's ruling, prior justice of the peace.
Did you hear any argument that was, unless you keep her detained, she won't appear for future hearings?
Absolutely.
Is that supposed to be what bail is supposed to be about?
Well, no, this was that, not that she will not show up in the future.
It's we impose certain restrictions, and now the restrictions become the justification for the restrictions.
Well, exactly.
The restrictions next is supposed to be appearance in court.
That's supposed to be the concern.
Are there any conditions of release that guarantee or that more likely than not, the person will in fact appear in court?
Not, okay, we imposed a bunch of conditions about that, and now their violations are of those conditions, but they don't actually relate to the reason those conditions exist in the first place.
It's the misuse of bail power in the world.
It's crazy because her bail conditions were egregious violations of charter rights, but all bail terms are necessarily a form of a violation to some extent or another, but it has to be a correlative, justified, proportionate.
Violation, not blanket restrictions.
She can't post on social media.
She can't correspond in the absence of counsel with named other parties.
She can't travel to certain areas.
She can't, over the top.
And then the alleged non-compliance was having shaken the hand and whispered something in the ear of one person that she's not supposed to correspond with at an event where she was accepting an award.
They want to put her back in jail.
She's been in jail now, I think her defense team said, for a total of 50 days, 5-0.
But you want to talk about sneaky lawyers doing disgusting things, Robert?
The prosecutor now says, we want to cross-examine Tamara Lich again and Vasserti again because we want to show that she just can't be trusted to respect the terms of her release.
Defense says, you've already examined her, cross-examined her twice.
Initially at the bail hearing, at the second time when she was put back in jail, and you want to do it a third time, she's still sitting in jail while you pontificate whether or not you want to cross-examine her a third time.
And I thought that was already over the top.
But then the lawyer, the defense counsel, pulls out an email from the prosecutor, Karimji.
Defense counsel last Friday says, look, we're not going to adduce any new evidence.
We're going to accept the record as is for the purposes of the appeal.
Please confirm that you don't anticipate or you do not intend to produce new evidence.
Prosecutor says, I confirm.
And then at court, not yesterday, because it's today.
At court today, then, like, midway through the day or later on through the day, says, you know what?
I actually, I also want to re-cross-examine Tamara Lich, which is going to cause more delays, going to keep her in jail until they cross-examine her.
And this is where I can't stomach this, where the lawyer says on a Friday, I confirm.
No new evidence.
Get to court.
Maybe he thought things were going his way and he could find another way to squeeze another day of incarceration out of Tamara Lich.
Bottom line, people, the judge is contemplating whether or not the Crown, because the judge says, I've got to be fair to the defendant, but I've also got to be fair to the Crown's case.
So it's a rule.
It's an obligation.
Not an obligation.
It's a right that the Crown gets to cross-examine the certee and the defendant.
And I want to respect their rights.
I don't release her.
And it gets to that point tomorrow.
I'll deal with that tomorrow.
But the judgment is coming at 11 o 'clock tomorrow.
I'm not making a prediction because I'm just wrong all the time on this.
I think the judge is going to let her out because it just sounded like the judge says...
Well, he should, right?
I mean, the Canadian law, he should release her.
Under human rights law, international law, he must release her.
She's been in jail and, you know...
Greenspawn, the defense lawyer, he's going to plead until he's blue in the face.
She's in jail on a non-violent, ultimately, at its base, mischief charge.
And then they throw on some perjury and whatever.
Non-violent, where a convicted grapist is out pending the appeal of his conviction.
She must be released.
Someone has to pull up their pants and say, it's time now to start setting this straight.
And maybe...
That's what I was going to ask.
Do you think the Alberta decision will help motivate this judge to go in the right direction?
I hope so.
The judge said, I've never seen a case with facts like this.
And he's probably right, because I've never seen a case with a vigorous prosecutor seeking incarceration and not justice.
I don't know how he meant it when he said, I've never seen a case like this in my decades of practice.
He has to, because it's a court of appeals decision, different province, Different set of facts.
But at some point, the overall theme here, the restrictions imposed on Pavlovsky were unheard of, unconstitutional, and unjustifiable.
I think the judge has to come to the same conclusion.
Any higher-level court has to with Tamerlich.
Robert, what's the deal with politicians now thinking we have to reduce fertilizer?
I don't know how it all happens in tandem.
Did we lose Viva?
It goes from...
Oh, there you go.
It goes from...
What's the country in Europe?
Not Norway.
Oh, Netherlands.
Netherlands, sorry.
They decide they have to reduce fertilizer for the environment, and now Canada.
Provincial agriculture ministers are expressing frustration with the Trudeau government over plans to effectively reduce fertilizer use by Canadian farmers in the name of fighting climate change.
Robert, how does all this stuff happen at the same time, just miraculously and inexplicably?
I mean, what is extraordinary is this effort by countries to sacrifice.
And this is why I say, I disagree with some of my friends on the left.
There's no Western empire.
There's no American empire.
It's just globalists against people who are not for the globalist vision.
And sometimes the globalists are in conflict with people who share aspects of the globalist ideas and ideals.
So, for example, China.
In its social credit system, its state control of almost everything, its censorship, all of that, shares a lot with globalists, its COVID lockdown obsessions, but sometimes will oppose particular globalist agendas because they care more about China than globalists.
That's really where the conflict is, and we're seeing that here.
It is not in the interest of the people of Canada to limit fertilizer use.
Canada, in fact, has some of the biggest fertilizer producers in the world.
And are making huge money right now because of the crazy sanctions on Russia.
And so it's not in the interest of the Canadian farmers.
It's not in the interest of the Canadian people.
It's not in the interest really of people anywhere to be having this kind of fertilizer restriction on the ability to make food.
And yet here you have the Canadian government doing it like many governments in Europe have done.
I mean, Germany shut down its nuclear production, nuclear energy production in ways that has been very counterproductive.
It's not developed other aspects of energy development.
It's put a lot into completely unproductive alternative energies like solar and wind.
These things are not answers to the modern energy issues.
Everybody that studied this knows this.
And so it shows climate change is mostly a big lie, always has been, but it's about globalists wanting complete control.
And Trudeau sees Canada's population as people to control on behalf of his globalist allies.
He does not see it as people to enrich or empower as their premier and as their leader.
And this is just one more obvious revelation about it.
Like, why would Joe Biden not want the U.S. to develop our own oil and natural gas?
It makes no sense.
Develop our own coal.
It makes no sense.
People always try to tell me that China and Russia really believe in climate change.
I've got a couple of bridges in Brooklyn to sell you if you think that.
Just look at their coal production in China.
Just look at the Russian oil and natural gas production.
They say that nonsense for the idiots so that they can sucker the West into being more dependent on China and Russia for energy.
But this is just another disastrous policy.
That farmers are starting to take the lead fighting back on.
They know it's a debacle.
They want nothing to do with credit to Canadian farmers fighting back.
And maybe they need another trucker revolt in Canada to allow farmers to have real farms.
And that's probably why, you know, related to our prior case, why they're making such an example out of her.
They don't want farmers repeating the trucker tactics because of how well it worked at drawing attention to the insane policies of the Castro Jr. regime.
Well, they had a slow roll protest over the weekend in front of the Dutch embassy in Ottawa.
One person was arrested the day before.
I'm trying to understand the idea of the global climate change.
I know that fertilizer has local problems in terms of increasing algae in waters because of the phosphorus or the phosphate.
It has local problems.
I'm not convinced that it causes global issues, but I'm not a doctor.
The federal government is looking to impose a requirement to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizers, saying it is a greenhouse gas contributing to climate change.
While the Trudeau government says they want a 30% reduction in emissions, not fertilizer, farm producer groups say that at this point, reducing nitrous oxide emissions can't be done without reducing fertilizer use.
I don't want to question the official narrative.
I just ask the question.
I know from where my wife comes from in the eastern townships, the fertilizer runs off into the water.
You get algae blooms.
It's a local type of pollution.
But algae blooms, I think, algae filters carbon dioxide.
It doesn't produce it.
So I don't understand the actual argument for the climate change aspect of this.
But it's clearly crippling.
It's clearly crippling.
At the very least in the Netherlands.
And it's going to further cripple Canada.
I can only say that the only explanation for this is cause another crisis for the government to manage because it's the only way not to talk about Trudeau's corruption, lack of ethics and incompetence as a government.
Keep people in a constant state of struggle and disarray and it makes it easier to govern.
It's nuts.
It's nuts.
They had a small protest.
Let me see if I pulled up that article here.
They had a small protest over the weekend.
I don't know that it amounted to much.
You might want to check out David Paisley, live from the shed, who's much closer to the ground.
Ottawa police made one arrest in Weekend's slow roll ahead of protests starting at Dutch Embassy.
Because they're going to start doing the same thing, and it's...
Well, and remember, this is what toppled the government in Sri Lanka.
The government in Sri Lanka tried this nonsense, and their president had to get on a plane and get out of Dodge.
Now, of course, the press were important to say that...
The Sri Lanka protest was totally safe compared to the January 6th protest.
It's like, huh, only one of them led to the president fleeing.
Only one of them led to the government collapsing.
It's just amazing the lies the media will go to because they realize, hold on a second, that Sri Lanka protest is kind of like what happened in January 6th, but we were okay with the Sri Lanka protest, so how do we justify this?
Well, we just make stuff up.
Like the Biden administration apparently is going to redefine the word recession.
Because traditionally, recession is two quarters back-to-back where the economy has negative growth.
And that is apparently what's going to happen in the second quarter.
Yeah, bless me.
In the second quarter.
And so now they're saying, well, that's not really a recession.
So they're going to redefine recession so that if you call it a recession, you are now spreading misinformation because they've unilaterally redefined recession.
That's the kind of insanity we're seeing.
Global climate politics has never been popular when the rubber hits the road.
People like Bjorn Lundberg and others, who are much more sincere and authentic at studying the problem, point out that almost all the solutions being prescribed and promoted are not needed and not useful and probably not net beneficial.
That it's mostly a power grab with a pretext.
I mean, there's a reason why all these rich folks are, you know, with all the planes and the cars and the houses and the houses by the water.
You know, they didn't believe in any of this.
If they believed in any of it, we'd see it reflected in their own personal lives.
We don't because they don't.
It's just a pretext to grab power.
But the problem is a lot of people aren't interested in paying the price for their power grab.
And that's why you're going to see more and more and more protests around the globe.
You've already had the British Premier have to resign.
You already had Italy.
You really have to resign.
You've had problems everywhere from Estonia to Lithuania to...
Other parts of Europe to, of course, Sri Lanka having already collapsed.
Panama is under major protest.
Dutch major protest.
United States and Canada looking at some protests related to these issues.
So these are not manageable policies.
They're policies that people have never supported, never wanted, yet the economy doesn't identify as a recession.
Exactly.
The insanity just continues.
A combination of Lewis Carroll and George Orwell.
Remember Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, and the follow-up book where Humpty Dumpty makes up a word?
He's like, how can you make up that word?
Humpty Dumpty says, a word is what I say it is.
That's what the world we're living in, that kind of crazy self-identification politics, combined with this global elite who has a Club of Rome-style agenda that nobody wants.
That's a disaster.
That's a debacle.
That's not rooted in science.
It's not rooted in good logic.
Al Gore was busy comparing people who object to climate change to the cops who didn't timely intervene in Uvalde.
I was going to respond to that, but I don't want...
There's nothing I could say that would not be hurtful in its truth.
That comparison, on the one hand, is disgusting, and on the other hand, is admitting...
That the cops absolutely blew it in Uvalde, whereas other people are not prepared to admit that.
And then just callously...
You want to talk about intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Go rub the wound of those grieving parents in Uvalde by comparing it to climate change.
Anybody who questions or second guesses it.
I mean, Al got himself, I mean, give Al credit.
He got himself fabulously rich pushing that inconvenient truth nonsense.
The inconvenient truth about the inconvenient truth is it ain't truth.
As we've all seen, just go back to some of the predictions he made.
And then Al, of course, got divorced, dumped the wife soon after that.
He's like, no longer running for president.
She's out of here.
Bring in the next masseuse for a little special Al Gore, Bill Clinton special.
And that's who these people are.
They're fakes, they're phonies, they're frauds.
And they're getting blowback at multiple levels.
And it's going to continue.
It's going to continue in the Global South.
It's going to continue.
But one thing I was disappointed is, We are not on Ukraine's hit list.
So Ukraine has a new hit list of Russian propagandists, and a lot of them are American journalists.
Glenn Greenwald, this is a Russian...
And by the way, if you understand Ukrainian law...
It means that if Glenn Greenwald ever finds himself in Kiev, they could arrest him and put him in prison for 15 years because they've identified him as a Russian propagandist under their criminal laws to punish that.
They put United States Senator Rand Paul has been put on a criminal hit list in Ukraine as a Russian propagandist.
That's how insane it is.
So you said we're not on that list, correct?
Yeah, I was disappointed.
I was like, I really wanted to be on that list.
I should have been on that list.
I deserve that.
I should be up there with Rand Paul, John Mearsheimer, and my buddies at the Durand, Alexander McCorris and Alexander Christopheru.
They probably don't want to be on that list.
They live in Europe.
No reason to dodge an extradition.
Are they on that list?
They're not on that list.
They're not yet.
But, I mean, when you put a United States Senator on that list in Rand Paul, you put one of America's most prominent journalists, Glenn Greenwald, on that list.
You put...
One of America's great policy thinkers, John Mearsheimer, on that list.
You get a sense of how insane the politics and policies of Ukraine are.
I wonder, did they put Trudeau on that list?
Because surely Trudeau is now a Russian asset for returning that wind turbine to Germany.
Now, that didn't stop the Ruskies from saying they still don't like certain aspects of it.
And they're just reminding the Germans who have the power.
They're like, maybe we'll turn it off.
Maybe no shower for you today.
And there's Germans seriously talking about, well, like, one, they're going to have wood, right?
That was an old Russian joke.
That was a Putin joke.
Putin's like, yeah, I was talking to the Germans.
He's like, we'll just cut off the oil and gas.
This was like 15 years ago.
And they're like, we'll replace it with wood.
He's like, have they looked at where all the lumber is in Europe?
And everybody laughs.
The irony here is, of course, they're talking about using wood in Germany.
Well, most of Germany's buildings, to be environmentally sensitive, took off all their fireplaces.
So they don't have any place to use wood.
So they don't have any means to heat their houses.
And the New York Times, of course, in between talking about...
Should we bring back cannibalism?
What an interesting article in the New York Times.
It's like every Alex Jones prophecy is just coming true.
One after the next.
While they're busy trying to take him out, all of his prophecies just keep proliferating.
But they're also talking about you need to not be addicted to air conditioning anymore.
And then, dear, Klaus Schwab was telling everybody we should get rid of...
We have people who shouldn't have private automobiles.
That's really kind of excessive for the ordinary person to have a private automobile.
So it's not only Z will eat to Z bugs and like it, it's now we're all going to be, what, taking bicycles or buses to work?
That's where it's going.
This was in Canada.
This is four years ago now.
I'm not sure that most people know this.
Montreal's wood-burning ban starts October 1. What do you need to know?
As of October 1, fireplaces or wood-burning stoves that don't comply with the city's new strict emissions standards are no longer legal to use.
This caused a bit of a stir in Montreal's Jewish community.
Because we were all afraid our bagel shops that use the wood stoves were going to go...
I think they got grandfathered in.
But that's a joke, people.
It's actually not a joke, but it's kind of a joke.
Tempted to build a cozy fire to ward off that autumn chill in the air.
Remember that as of Monday, October 1, Montreal's strict ban on wood burning outlaws the burning of any solid fuel in residences in all of Montreal's 19 boroughs unless it's complete.
This is...
I don't want to believe the global...
A plan for the people.
You're going to eat bugs.
You're going to own nothing.
You're going to like it.
But my goodness.
A buddy of mine here in Austin that's looking at me, he made a great film years ago called American Dream, which was about the Federal Reserve and all that, made in like a South Park cartoonish style, so to be more accessible to a broader audience.
I think it's like been translated into 100 languages, there's like 50 million views, all that stuff.
But he's looking at doing a sequel.
But he was talking about the sort of insanity of this kind of sort of woke mindset and how it's infected things.
But you see it in the climate change context, the degree that they're issuing contradictory things that just don't work.
You know, there's a reason why we rely upon certain things for energy.
It's because it's the most accessible, affordable means of doing so.
There aren't effective alternatives available.
The media has lied to people about that.
I remember when they suckered me into putting solar panels on the roof in Vegas because they said, hey, the sun's always out here and it'll help heat your pool.
It ain't never heated the pool because that thing didn't work one iota.
And not just that, Robert, where do you think the minerals come from those panels?
What do you think happens when those panels are thrown out?
And who builds them?
It ain't America, folks.
I want to see the stats.
I want to know what amount of global emissions come from wood-burning stoves.
What percentage of global...
Because I'll tell you one thing.
I was going to be crass.
I guarantee you it's jack squat.
And this is...
It's an easy fix for a government that thinks to do something.
They were starting to figure out, I mean, even Michael Moore admitted that a lot of this climate change stuff was fake in his Planet of the Humans movie.
Now, his solution was population control.
So he was along Bill Gates' line.
Well, let's just line him up and whack him.
So, you know, put that part of the movie aside.
The rest of it was pretty good about exposing how none of this really works, who really profits from it.
But take solar panels.
They're just starting to figure out.
That there's huge contamination problems for when the solar panel's life experience runs out.
So that, you know, after 20, 25 years, however long it works, all of a sudden it contaminates all these different things because there's no way to get rid of it effectively.
So it's like problem after problem after problem.
Climate change is not an answer to anything in terms of politics and policy.
And we're just starting to see the rumbles of it around the globe.
From the Dutch to Sri Lanka, it's spreading.
Yeah, this is your New York Times.
Hey, I guess, I mean, what did Hannibal Lecter come back and write this article?
Well, here's the thing.
Had a little brain with your fava beans?
The article itself is not promoting cannibalism.
It's talking about the obsession with, you know, films and whatever.
A renewed obsession.
The problem was that they changed the title because people were railing against them for, I think the original title was, There's a Time and a Place to Discuss.
There's a Time and a Place for Cannibalism or something along those lines.
The issue is this.
People's infatuation with cannibalism or the, you know, the, what's the word?
The macabre has always existed.
Hannibal Lecter the movie.
It's not a new movie.
Why are they now running this article in conjunction with everything else?
The media is the enemy of the people.
There's not a question about it.
You eat Z-Bugs or your neighbor's brains.
No Chianti and no fava beans because those produce gas, by the way.
Can't have father beings, you'll fart and screw up the atmosphere.
Robert, you're going live at 9 o 'clock.
Just so nobody thinks I'm, what's the word?
Myth-ing, Robert?
My kid, I said, we're not going to watch anything Kafka or Orwellian tonight.
We're going to watch Idiocracy.
I'm walking with my kid.
We were at court together.
She's getting an interesting experience out of all of this.
She got to experience it.
She got to go to see the courthouse.
People had asked which courthouse.
It's Travis County Courthouse, downtown Austin, Texas.
Four stories.
You said it's on the courthouse.
There's particular cases in the third floor.
It was on the third floor, at least for jury selection.
I don't know if that's going to be...
I suspect that has to be the courtroom for the trial because the judge is set up there.
I'm pretty sure.
Probably, yeah.
And then we, so everybody wants the long sleeve t-shirt.
Hold on a second.
Where do we get that?
It's on the website, vivafry.com.
It's comfortable, people.
But so we had a good day.
We saw the court.
We saw some of the hearing.
And you saw the great state capital.
That building, the videos posted on our locals, that building is magnificent.
Now, my only issue with it, Robert.
I don't like the government building monuments to it like they're gods because that building is as impressive as the church Marie Reine du Monde in Montreal.
The star on the ceiling is 218 feet off the ground in the auditorium or in that open area.
It's impressive and it's nauseating when you go up to the top and look down.
But it's government erecting monuments to them like they are gods.
I don't like it.
At the time, they were erecting this massive monument and it's impressive.
People are suffering.
People are living in poverty.
But they erect these monuments that shall endure forever.
That's actually the motivating, guiding factor of this state capitol building.
But it's amazing.
And among the most amazing buildings I've seen.
So yeah, if you don't see me on Bourbon with Barnes tonight, it's because I'm watching Idiocracy with my kid.
Robert, can you give me a brief history of the state of Texas and the interplay between Mexico?
Because in...
In the state capitol building, a massive painting in the Senate chambers of what was clearly a war between America, Texas, and Mexico.
What is the history that accounts for an amazing diversity in the state of Texas?
So a lot of them were folks from Tennessee, moved down to Texas while it was part of Mexico.
And Mexico invited them in to help settle the land because they needed people to settle, particularly some sparsely populated areas that needed some development.
So they came down.
Mostly most of Texas was settled while it was part of Mexico by Americans.
And so then the Texans didn't think they were being treated well.
And so they decided to declare their independence.
And Mexico didn't share that opinion.
And that started the conflict between Texas and Mexico.
Famously portrayed, and you still find the historical backing for it, at the Alamo in San Antonio.
And most of the folks who fought at the Alamo for the independence of the people of Texas against Mexico were from Tennessee disproportionately.
Much like the Battle of New Orleans, a lot of Tennesseans were there with Andy Jackson.
So that's why there's a strong Tennessee-Texas historical connection.
Davy Crockett was even at the Alamo.
So I've been to the Alamo a couple of times.
My Uncle Eddie used to, when he was stationed in the Air Force, was there.
And then ultimately, the people of Texas succeeded, drove Mexico back to what is effectively the current border, and declared their independence, and then ultimately joined the United States as an independent state.
As a state within the United States of America.
The population, and then that caused another wave of immigration.
And you've had multiple wave of immigrations within the United States to Texas, and then from Mexico to Texas.
And so the state itself is divvied up between the Hill Country and the central part of the state.
East Texas, very populous.
The Panhandle is very oil-oriented over in Lubbock and whatnot, kind of like Oklahoma extended south almost.
Then you have the big urban centers these days, which are their own political animal, Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso.
And then the southern and western parts of the state, in terms of along the borders, heavily Mexican-American.
The Gulf Coast has its own dynamic because it was a lot of port towns there.
And so you had some Irish and Italian immigration and things like that.
So you have its own culture there, too.
So Texas is a huge state.
Did you say it ended up being smaller or bigger still?
Still smaller than the Montreal province?
No, than Quebec.
I think Quebec is twice the size of Texas, geographically.
It tells you how huge that is, because Texas is one big old state.
I'm doing the math to drive from here to Albuquerque.
It's a long drive, but you drive 18 hours in Quebec, you still haven't driven the whole province.
That's insane.
My family were part of Austin's 300.
We were granted a land grant from the Spanish government to settle Tejas.
Tejas.
That's amazing.
Yeah, that's fascinating.
Do you think the sheriffs are the last line of defense against the globalist agenda, or is it down to the communities themselves?
It's both made down to the communities because the sheriffs will often, but it helps to have sheriffs willing to enforce the law as written, not as somebody wayward would want to do.
And almost all governments that have collapsed, corrupt governments that have collapsed, it's because their law enforcement mechanism, whether it be military, police, or both, refuse to go along with unlawful orders.
The Alamo as a battle.
Why is it so historically important?
Because they rallied against impossible odds and though they ultimately lost, the way in which they rallied became a rally cry across Texas and then ultimately the United States.
Remember the Alamo.
So, And it's a reminder to people that sometimes you fight a fight that you don't think you can win because the mere act of doing it can rally everyone else to ultimately win.
That sometimes you fight a battle that you might lose because you have reason to believe it will help you win the war.
And so Alamo's been famous, been portrayed in many books, many films.
It still stands there in San Antonio.
And was very seminal because of it.
In fact, when I've told people, if you really want to understand the Russian mindset on Ukraine, you have to go back in time and think about America defending Texans.
Because that's the most analogous.
Still not a perfect analogy, but it's a lot closer than the analogies we were hearing from the mainstream press.
I just put two and two together.
I realized Alamo Rent-A-Car is Alamo.
Robert, there was one other thing.
I guess we're going to end this soon just because I'm going to go make dinner probably for all of us.
Who would have ever thought that in 2022 the Western powers would be imprisoning their political opponents?
Our grandparents and great-grandparents must be rolling in their graves.
We've gone through this before.
This is like the 19-teens and 1920s all over again.
But we were supposed to have cured and fixed that problem, and now we're back to it, unfortunately.
It's just going to require, you know, the ultimate answer to evil people is that good people is good people, is righteousness.
And as long as people stand up enough and speak out enough, usually that's enough to bring about the change that matters.
Bobby Digital, it's interesting.
I had a discussion with someone, an Uber driver, who was quite religious.
People are seeing religious parallels here, but like I said, the Bible itself, symbolic representation of...
Human history, which tends to repeat.
And I'm sure we've seen times like this in the past, and we'll see it in the future.
One of the family's awesome.
That's cool.
I was in the dress school partying with Alex Jones on Saturday.
One of the great old buildings here in Austin.
So yeah, that's cool.
And then Bub Bullock, State Museum next to UT, is a great way to understand all the history.
I'm going to screen grab this.
And Britt Cormier.
And if you want to understand LBJ, watch some of Mark Robert with Eric Hunley.
They did a back-to-back on LBJ that captures a certain spirit amongst a part of Texas.
I'm not saying LBJ defines Texas, but, you know, there's aspects of it.
Like when you're driving around and you see all these homes that are pretending to be ranches and aren't ranches, because there's this sort of nostalgia for cowboy culture and ranch culture.
Still very strong here in Texas.
Robert, I bought a T-bone.
I bought T-bone steaks.
Ah, sweet!
There you go.
It's Texas.
It's a big, juicy steak.
They're not that...
They're good, but I got that and a nice Texas gin from...
I forget where.
It's a good Texas gin.
All right.
All right.
We're going to do that so that you can go live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
People, I'll be following up.
I'm going to see...
Tomorrow, I should be in a car for the better part of the day, so I'm going to be hearing...
The Tamara Lich judgment.
And then I'll pull over and do a little Viva on the Street summary.
And then Alex Jones, the trial is going to start.
I'm going to try to get back and maybe sit in on one day of trial.
But I have a feeling it's going to be like a Bannon type thing.
Can do it from abroad because I don't think it's going to be...
There's not going to be much to even witness during this trial.
Well, it's going to be how bad of a travesty of justice is it?
That's the only question.
This case is already a travesty of justice.
The only question now is how bad of a travesty will it be or are there enough honest, honorable people on that jury to limit the tragedy and travesty that this case has become?
Yep.
All right.
Well, let's do it.
Robert, everyone's going to see you later tonight and I'll be live again at some point tomorrow.
You know, on the road or a short video.
People, keep up the good fight.
See you soon.
▲
Export Selection