All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 2, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
01:54:18
Ep. 131: Gavin Newsom, PayPal Going Woke, Nord Stream, & Trump to Trudeau - Viva & Barnes LIVE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You're all wondering, who could it be that is going to be the intro video that will make you vomit in your mouths if it's not Trudeau, not Freeland, not Gruesome Newsome, and not Kamala Harris?
Prr!
And everyone gets a free puppy.
Everyone gets a free puppy.
You get 800.
How do I get rid of this?
Everyone is going to get 400 to 600 bucks back after I get elected.
If I get elected, old people, you're going to get 2000 bucks.
Everyone gets a puppy and a unicorn after I get elected.
Not before.
That's Francois Legault, supreme leader, sunset thief.
Francois Legault, a man who I have an immeasurable amount of political disdain for.
You all know I have some bizarre thing where, like, the olfactory sense is the most important sense to me.
When I politically detest someone, I feel that they would smell bad if I ever saw them in person.
Don't care what his...
He could wear Fahrenheit.
I feel that the way the Fahrenheit would interact with his skin would make me hate Fahrenheit cologne.
But by the way, sorry, spoiler alert, that wasn't.
That was a double fakie.
That's not the intro that was going to make you barf in your mouth.
That's just the intro to remind everybody it's tomorrow.
Oh, jeez, I don't want to get the date wrong.
The elections, I think it's tomorrow in Quebec.
Let me double check.
I don't want to be accused of Quebec election 2022.
I do not want to be accused.
Not sure who to vote for.
October 3rd.
It's tomorrow.
Okay, good.
Tomorrow is Quebec's 43rd general election in Quebec.
Good old Frank.
The sunset thief, supreme leader, the man who locked us in our homes for five and a half months, shut down non-essential businesses, compelled the essential businesses that remained open during COVID to section off with saran wrap non-essential items, promising free money.
That's your money that he took from you that he's going to give back to you if you vote for him.
$2,000 for you old folks who vote in large numbers.
He wants to serve you.
He'll lower your taxes after he gets elected.
He's had however many years to do this?
No.
If he gets elected, you're going to get money back, your own money.
And you old people, you might get someone else's money.
And he's going to lower your taxes after he gets elected.
The election is tomorrow.
I never tell anybody who to vote for.
I would just say what you're going to get if you vote.
For Frankie Legault, you're going to get Supreme Dictator, who thinks he can tell you where to go, who to see.
When you can operate your business, what you have to put in your body, what you have to put over your face.
Totally unscientific rubbish.
Unconstitutional rubbish.
He's running for re-election.
It's election day tomorrow.
You vote for more of the same, you ratify all of that man's unconstitutional, unscientific, abusive conduct, or you vote for something different.
Okay.
That was not the intro that's going to make you puke.
It's coming now.
And by the way, yes, we are going to rumble.
I'm going to give the standard disclaimer about all of the disclaimers and whatnot.
This.
I'm going to get mad listening to this again.
Listen to this, people.
You will not...
Hold on.
Stop.
You won't believe what you're about to see.
This evening, this Sunday evening's vomitous intro is brought to you courtesy of...
Omar Algebra, Justin Trudeau's Minister of Transport.
You're going to puke into your mouth when you see this.
Let me just...
Spoiler alert.
How did I describe this?
It's purely psychopathic.
It's psychopathic.
The only thing I regret about this tweet is that I did not put a dash in, God damn, I should not have used the Lord's name in vain.
I'm superstitious, not religious.
I shouldn't have done that.
Doesn't matter.
Psychopathic.
If I saw someone like this on the street, and they interacted with me the way Omar Algebra is interacting with this rebel news journalist, I would be afraid for my life.
I would think this person is out of their mind.
I don't want to overblow it or exaggerate it.
Listen to this.
Conservatives brought forward a motion to denounce.
Mr. Algebra, yesterday, conservatives brought forward a motion to denounce the threatening tweets of a accredited journalist.
Why did some liberals say that?
How are you today?
Do you not care about the safety of politicians in the House of Commons?
How are you today?
I'm great.
How about you?
Are you able to answer our question?
I'm enjoying this walk.
I am enjoying this walk.
I am enjoying this walk.
Are you doing well?
You know, conservatives always answer our question.
Why can't you do that?
I'm glad you're doing well.
You're not able to, eh?
I'm really happy for you.
And I wish you success in your career.
This is not funny.
What changed the science between now and in two days in terms of lifting the right cap?
Or was it just political science?
Oh, you took your glasses off.
What?
You took your glasses off.
Yeah.
That's good.
Sorry, you're not able to answer.
Is it intelligence or just you don't want to?
If he had just done this from the beginning, it would have been better.
You know, you always talk about affordability.
Liberal parties say they want to fight for affordability.
Yet you're planning on raising the taxes, on continuing the carbon tax.
Why won't you cut the taxes?
Watch this.
Have a nice day.
Why won't you cut the taxes?
A Queen's wave.
He's royalty.
He's royalty.
The guy doesn't have to answer questions from journalists.
He doesn't have to answer to the citizens.
All right, sir.
Have a good day.
Good luck with this parliamentary session.
He gets to act.
He gets to act.
Like a raging psychopath.
I'm saying a raging psychopath.
Almost humorously, but not so much.
Imagine asking this guy a question.
And then he answers, hey, how you doing?
How are you doing?
Are you enjoying?
I'm enjoying this day.
There's a part of me that thinks that Omar Algebra thinks that this is somehow more polite than giving the finger to the journalists.
I would prefer it if Omar had given the middle finger to the journalists.
Because...
This is a middle finger.
It's just that he thinks it's cute.
He thinks it's funny.
The excuse I no longer have to answer to Rebel News journalists because they're not journalists is old and tired and expired.
That could be any Canadian citizen.
And Omar Algebra, as an elected official who represents Canadians, doesn't have the luxury of answering these questions.
He has the obligation to answer these questions.
But look at this pompous, arrogant...
In your face.
Denounce the threatening tweets of an accredited journalist.
Why did some liberals say Nate's that?
Hey, how are you today?
Do you not care about the safety of politicians in the House of Commons?
How are you today?
I'm great.
How about you?
Are you able to answer our question?
I'm enjoying this walk.
I am enjoying this walk.
There's so many things I want to say that I can't say because it would be like movie references that might be politically incorrect.
This is unhinged.
I'm enjoying this walk.
It's like he short-circuited.
It's like something in his brain just clicked and he short-circuited.
He's a robot.
He got a little water between the wiring and he's just short-circuited, just like putting words together.
Why do you refuse to denounce journalists that threaten conservative politicians?
Are you doing well?
You asked that three times.
Is that just not in your mandate?
You know, conservatives always answer our question.
Why can't you do that?
I'm glad you're doing well.
I'm glad you're doing well.
Look at that face.
Like, we can do whatever we want, and we're going to get away with it.
We have no accountability for what we do, and we don't have to answer to you peasants.
You're not able to, eh?
I'm really happy for you.
And I wish you success in your career.
Does Omar Algebra go home and say, man, I handled that really well.
I'm proud of myself.
I'm sure my parents would be proud of me.
I'm sure my children would be proud of me.
I handled that like a champ.
How are you doing?
How are you doing?
I'm doing well.
I'm really enjoying this walk.
But it's this queen's wave at the end that is the kick in the groin after the kick in the teeth.
Look at it.
He looks at the camera.
Hi.
Hi, Ma.
Hi, Ma.
Yeah.
Peasants.
You are worthless peasants and I don't have to answer to any of you.
It enraged me.
That actually made me unhappy last night and it made it difficult for me to sleep last night.
Hey, hey, how are you?
Let me just see what...
Hey, I'm enjoying this walk.
I mean, just don't answer the question then.
Just ignore him if you think that that's an appropriate thing to do.
The wave.
Oh, what's that?
Hyperinflation in Canada.
Sorry, not hyperinflation.
Just massive inflation in Canada.
A crushed economy.
A vaccine passport that we just rescinded because of science.
Hi, Ma.
I'm waving.
Viva, the rumble stream is not working.
Some video playing over and over again.
Hold on.
It shouldn't be.
You should probably refresh it.
Hold on one second.
Let me see here.
Livestream.
No, no, dude, we're live.
We're live and we've got almost 6,000 people watching on Rumble.
So refresh your screen because that short video that plays over and over again is the placeholder until the stream goes live.
So that's enraging.
Omar Algebra.
Hi, hi, how are you doing?
I'm doing well.
I'm enjoying this walk.
Middle finger is just as rude and at least it's honest.
For shame.
Okay, now let me just read some super chats and then we'll get into the standard disclaimers.
I am sure Omar had this tactic all planned out as the best way to avoid answering questions since he cannot really answer any of them.
The guy can make Santa Claus-related government propaganda.
The guy can pretend.
To meet with truckers.
Virtue signal all he wants.
Answer a question.
It's not a luxury.
It's an obligation.
I don't care that it's rebel news.
I don't care if it's true north.
I don't care if it's OAN.
You are answering those questions not to the journalists, but to the citizens.
And you have to answer to the citizens.
You don't have the right not to, although the way these politicians conduct themselves, they think answering to the people they represent is purely discretionary.
Consent not required.
I saw some super chats, which is going to remind me of standard disclaimers, people.
No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification advice.
We will be taking the stream over to Rumble exclusively.
I'd say at about the 30 or 40-minute mark, depending on when's a good time to cut into it.
What else?
Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
They're like super chats.
Rumble takes 20%, so better for the platform, better for the creator.
Best place to support Robert Barnes and myself, if you like the work that we do, is vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
If for whatever the reason you don't like Robert, you're wrong, and you should like Robert.
There's YouTube memberships, but really, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Like our sub stack if you want to support the channel.
What we do, that's the best place.
Like five bucks a month.
And 50 bucks a year if you get a year at one time.
Tons of exclusive stuff.
Tons of locals, exclusive streams, barns, stuff.
It's phenomenal.
Okay, now, because I do streams every day, but I forget that Sunday night is the big night, and a lot of people don't watch the daily streams, I take for granted everybody knows how we fared during Hurricane Ian.
Tcraft5604 says...
How did you guys fare during Hurricane?
Ian loved your cameo in Cast Castle, Couldn't Stop, Cast Castle on TimCast.
I did a funny cameo, I think.
So first things first, we, you know, but for the grace of God, the hurricane went around to the west and then made landfall to the northwest.
I mean, literally, like, just, you know, that's how the breeze was blowing that day, around and made landfall at Fort Myer, Tallahassee, who did not fare so well.
We were fine here.
We had a tornado warning at 5.15 in the morning Thursday morning, I think.
Scared the bejesus out of everybody in the family.
But other than that, we did well in that we survived and had minimal damage.
We had no damage here, but elsewhere there was some minimal damage.
But up north, northwest, they did not fare so well.
There is a fund that has been set up to help for anybody who's inclined to do it.
And let me just...
Let me just get it.
It's called the Florida Son of a Gun.
I'll share the link.
I donated last week.
Our kids and the local community kids today did a fundraiser selling lemonade and slime on the street today, and we raised $770, and nobody took the slime.
Like, you got parents out there.
By the way, this is a great tactic, parents.
Sell slime.
You will get parents to give you money and demand not to take the slime because any parent out there knows, Slime is the biggest pain in the neck on earth.
That is not a beer.
That is pineapple something or other.
So, you know, as luck would have it, we did fine.
We're trying to see what we can do to help the people up north.
I was going to drive supplies up or do whatever I could, but then I had a discussion with someone who said, don't go unless you're packing heat.
And I said, look, if that's the criteria for going somewhere, I'm going to stay back and do things a different way.
Let me see what you got here.
Show me the candy before I get into the van.
I'm no dummy.
Okay, I don't know what that is, but that's fun.
A blessed good evening, all about the money in regards to the tyrannical lifting of the COVID border travel.
Let's not forget that the Blue Jays are in the MLB playoffs as well.
JRC, not unreasonable, not an unreasonable thought.
And we had a rumble rant, a $20 rumble rant, which says, Viva Frye, retainer for advising.
On a pro se insurance car accident case, Robert Barnes, retainer for representing a want-to-be pro se car accident cause.
I'll screen grab.
PayPal going woke.
Dude, we're going to talk about this tonight because I am one word from Barnes away from canceling my PayPal account.
Viva PayPal woke, censoring, banning people, five plus years, InfoWars ban.
We're going to talk about it, but on the menu tonight, PayPal going woke.
I'm going to ask Robert about the Nord Stream sabotage.
See what he thinks.
I think I know what he thinks, but I don't know what he thinks yet because I didn't catch him on the Duran last week.
Just a ton of other stuff.
Uvalde lawsuit.
There's too much, but I see Barnes in the backdrop.
So let us go.
Now, I know some people are still a little unhappy with some of the features on Rumble.
They're doing their best to fix everything ASAP.
Check your mic.
It has an echo.
I did clean up my office.
And so there will be more echo tonight because we took out the hide-a-bed that my mother-in-law slept in.
So there's a little more echo.
So we might have to deal with that until I find something to pad the room with other than padding.
Okay.
Robert, coming into the stream.
Sir, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
PayPal banned sales of guns and ammo.
We're going to get there.
Robert, first of all, book Cigar, because that's a new book behind you.
Yeah, it's a book called Smart Money, Michael Koenig.
True story of him working for Billy Walters, a legendary sports gambler here in Las Vegas.
Somebody who ended up being commuted by Trump.
On some questionable criminal charges brought by Preet Bharara of the New York under the Obama administration.
But it's his story about when he was working for Billy Walters delivering sports bets around Las Vegas.
It's a fun little story, well told.
People might recognize Michael Koenig.
He often is a journalist covering or commentator covering World Poker Tour amongst other subjects.
Oh, and the cigar is the wise man.
Oh, yeah, the wise man.
Well, very fitting, Robert.
Now, I didn't get into everything that we have on the menu.
Oh, yeah.
I'm about to say Floyd Abrams.
We have Stacey Abrams' lawsuit losing in the state of Georgia's election reform upheld, even by an Obama judge, because the evidence was that poor, as it turned out, for her case.
We got PayPal's new woke rules that go into place in November on Election Day.
We have, is Russia's annexation legal or illegal?
And what does the precedent of Yugoslavia have and the United States' own position on it and the International Court of Justice have to say about that as a matter of international law?
We got California passing every crazy law known to man.
No autopsies on people whacking babies.
We have, if you're trans, we'll maybe help kidnap your kid and won't recognize custody orders from other states, won't recognize subpoenas from other states, won't recognize extradition warrants from other states if what you're doing is getting medical intervention in kids' care.
We have the eBay executives who are caught stalking, cyberstalking, and harassing people who are criticizing.
A couple of bloggers who are critical.
That story is unbelievable, Robert.
It's unbelievable.
We got a monster verdict, almost $300 million against an energy company competitor.
We got a new antitrust law who passed the House of Representatives, but Jim Jordan's doing everything he can while he continues to pit himself out for big tech.
Not the good side of Jim Jordan, sadly.
Student loan lawsuits that were so impactful, the Biden administration had to reverse course, in part.
But not fully.
And the question is whether those lawsuits will survive those changes.
We got bar exam changes.
We got a $48 million COVID insurance verdict.
We got how to search a hotel room and get away with it by the police, according to Fifth Circuit.
We got the Facebook spying on your passwords that you enter in to access your websites and everything else you do in secret.
We got a big Uvalde lawsuit.
One part I'm sympathetic with, challenging the school.
Very interesting what they were talking about.
Certain things about locked doors might relate to a certain case in Connecticut that is not being talked about, or the issue not being talked about, but also going after gun companies, of course.
We got the lockbox raid that a federal court found reasons to excuse all the Fed's bad acts on it.
And we got Andrea Bocelli.
What is an unacceptable G4?
And we found out, apparently, according to Andrea Bocelli's lawsuit.
Robert, let's start with...
Let's start with Russia, Ukraine.
But before we get into the substance of the referendum, whether or not it's recognized by international law, despite what other leaders are vowing to never recognize as the results of a vote, the sabotage on the Nord Stream pipeline.
What is your best theory?
People out there are saying Russia did it, which it makes, unless I'm wrong, Robert, it makes absolutely no sense in any realm of reality.
4D, 5D false flag for Russia to give up their biggest negotiating tool against Europe.
What do you say to the people who say Russia did it and who do you think did it despite the fact that they basically announced in advance what they were going to do between Newland and Biden?
Who do you think did it and what do you say to the Russia did it folk?
Well, if you're looking up a culprit list, first of all, the nature of the sabotage is very difficult to do.
So it's very unlikely for it to be private actors, very unlikely for it to be an accident.
There was some speculation that it could be an accident.
But most reports concluded that it was not likely an accident.
And most reports concluded it was not likely capable to, at that level of sabotage, to be performed by private actors.
And then actually only a few militaries in the world had the kind of capability and capacity to do it.
So you start with the likely suspect would be a government and one of a very small hand, you know, on your hand, the number of governments who could pull it off.
So then you go to who had voiced opposition to Nord Stream 2. Well, one government more than any other, the United States government, obsessively had voiced opposition to Nord Stream 2. And as you note, both Biden and Victoria Nuland had been publicly promising, often with a smirk on Biden's face, that one way or another, he would stop Nord Stream 2. And even when asked, how would you stop it when you don't control it, and it's between Germany and Russia, he just smirked.
Yeah, I promise you.
And then he smirked.
So in terms of motivation, your first suspect would be the United States.
In terms of means, the most likely suspect would be the United States.
And then in terms of who benefits, most likely suspect would be the United States.
What this does is strip Russia of its leverage and forfeits Germany's ability to back out of the sanctions nightmare they've walked themselves into.
Where they're talking about handing out people blankets so they can stay warm in the winter and that kind of thing.
Don't take hot showers.
They're going to stink if they're in Germany, man.
They're going to smell bad.
But that's just where that's going.
So everything points to the United States.
Then you have reports that there was U.S. operations in the area.
Mapping out underground, underwater aspects, testing out underwater drones right next to where this happened just a few months ago.
You have this being controlled with a location of where the sabotage took place by U.S. military in substantial part.
So there's no reason to believe Russia would sabotage itself in this manner.
Every reason to believe the United States is the most likely suspect.
And the United States denials haven't been overwhelmingly powerful.
They've been a little bit weak.
So I think everybody in the world knows this was a United States military operation.
Everybody will live in, the American media and others will live in self-delusion.
I think kind of like the election fornication that took place, there was a Polish ex-defense secretary that publicly thanked the United States when this happened.
He is married into...
Powerful State Department families here in the United States.
And he only took it down later.
I think it's because there's a lot of people on that side of the aisles.
Amanda Milius, who we interviewed.
Darren Beatty, who we interviewed.
Darren Beatty, editor now of Revolver.
Amanda Milius, daughter of John Milius, director of the documentary Plot Against the President.
Has a documentary coming out on John McAfee.
Not long, another good set of documentaries.
We met her at the Project Veritas party in Florida.
Sweetheart.
She said that when she was at the State Department, everybody there was obsessed with stopping North Stream 2. So you have to be in complete denial not to realize the U.S. government went in and did one of the biggest acts of civilian terrorism for military purposes in a country we're not at war with in recent modern post-World War II history.
That's what the Biden administration is up to and willing to risk apparently nuclear war to get there.
I'm going to pull up one thing.
I was trying to find the clean video, but I can only find my edited video.
Listen to this.
For anybody who thinks...
Listen to this.
Listen to this.
This is Victoria Nuland.
We continue to have very strong and clear conversations with our German allies, and I want to be clear with you today.
I want to be clear with you today.
What happens after people say, I want to be clear?
Oh, be quiet you.
Comes out of their mouth.
Go.
If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.
Let's go to Biden.
If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer Nord Stream 2. We will bring it into it.
How do you do that?
It's between Russia and Germany.
How will you do that?
Exactly.
Since the project and control of the project is within Germany's control.
We will, I promise you, we'll be able to do it.
Robert.
That's how he does the smirk.
And apparently, according to German published reporting, the CIA tipped off the Germans that this would happen in the summer.
They just said, somebody is going to be attacking Nord Stream 1 and 2 soon.
So you could guess that, you know.
They probably considered that consent.
They were testing out how much German opposition there would be, and there wasn't much.
It's kind of pitiful for Europe.
We just smack them around, and they just cower in response.
But yeah, no question the Biden administration is culpable of it.
Now, in my view, this is an impeachable offense if Republicans seize the House after the midterms, which I think they will.
But whether or not they'll add this to the litany.
Of impeachable offenses that Biden is mounting up in record time is an open question.
And now, I want to bring this up because a lot of people bring this point up.
Mood point, it wasn't going to be used.
Wasn't going to be used versus cannot now be used are two very different things.
It was a political bargaining chip when it was functional, when it could be rendered functional.
Now it's no longer a bargaining chip for Russia.
So they've lost a very meaningful aspect of negotiation.
But, Robert, also, how does it get sabotaged like this?
Is it a death charge?
Are they dragging something over it to break it?
Oh, we don't know the means, but it needs somebody that has military capability to that kind of level of sabotage.
So I was on the Duran last week with the two Alex.
Alex is talking about this and a wide range of foreign geopolitical issues for about two hours or so.
People can go back and find that.
We discussed this as well.
But both people of our locals board, VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
Best board in America.
They brought up some people that had military training.
Some other people emailed me as well and explained how this could be done and why we were likely responsible because some of them were in the very units.
That had trained to do precisely this kind of activity.
So part of it's diving skills.
They may have incorporated drones.
There was a 17-18 hour gap between the two explosions.
One hitting the other.
It's an environmental catastrophe potentially.
It's interesting.
But the mainstream media is not talking about much of that.
And the European Union is going to blame Russia.
Just like the Donbass was shelling itself.
Russia was attacking its own, was shelling its own, or the nuclear power plant that was under control over.
Now Russia is blowing up its own pipelines and destroying its own leverage.
Seeing how much dumb stuff you can get American people and the people in the West to believe, sadly, many are still gullible.
So this brings us to the actual legal question now.
Russia held a referendum in the eastern provinces, I think the Donbass region.
Yeah, Donbass, Kherson, and Zaporizhia, which are Luhansk and Donetsk.
And that is whether or not they would like to join Russia.
Was it separate from Ukraine, become independent, or join Russia?
It was kind of both.
It was declare their independence from Ukraine and ask that Russia recognize them and join them in.
It was almost identical to the Yugoslavian.
Putin is deliberately using the Yugoslavian example.
And, I mean, that's where the legal question comes in.
The vote.
By the way, these elections can be challenged because it's Putin.
No other elections can.
Yeah, exactly.
I heard a lot of people had doubts about how this election was conducted.
Now, the election had a bunch of international observers.
And then afterwards, the EU started threatening anybody who participated in simply being an election observer to see whether the elections were done in an honest and accurate manner.
Nobody really disputes the election results.
Now, I think that the people that did not vote were mostly no votes.
So like in the Kherson region, I think that would have been much closer if everybody voted.
But Ukraine told people not to vote or they would consider them criminals if they retook the property and locked them up.
I mean, Ukraine was guaranteeing that this vote would go a certain way and guaranteeing intensifying opposition to Ukraine within those regions.
It was a very peculiar action for someone that purports to claim this population as their own.
Very unusual.
So it's pretty much identical to the international legal precedent set at the behest of the United States in the West that ultimately reached ahead with the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo case.
But its forebears were Croatia, the whole breakup of Yugoslavia, which Kosovo was part of too, which included Croatia, included Bosnia, Herzegovina.
It also included other neighboring regions like Slovenia.
The split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
All of the sort of post-Soviet breakups, there was a certain legal pattern we recognized as legitimate under international law.
We successfully argued to the International Court of Justice that Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence was not illegal at all.
And whether there's an independent part of a state is simply an internal state issue.
And that somehow, despite many years of U.S. formal legal promises to recognize territorial integrity, the United States government, maybe I'll post the extended brief U.S. government wrote to the International Court of Justice in 2009, penned by the W administration, reinforced by Obama, so it crossed political lines here, which said that, no, respecting boundaries doesn't actually mean respecting boundaries.
So the International Court of Justice said yes.
They said that you can declare independence.
That's a matter of internal dissent.
You can create your own government.
You can form another government.
You can join another government.
And then all that's completely legal.
And one of their premises was, as long as there's some kind of referendum involved, that really makes it legal.
And so that's exactly what Russia did.
They took the precedent.
Now, they argued against...
Everything that took place at the time, by the way, especially at Kosovo.
But they lost those arguments before the court.
They're like, fine, we'll use your standards and borrow them and imitate them.
So under our own standards that we've set, we can't make any legal complaint under international law against Russia's actions.
And I'll bring up, let me bring up a tweet from Justin Trudeau.
This question is particularly funny in the context of Canada where...
Quebec twice held a vote to separate a referendum.
Trudeau, the man himself who respects peaceful protests and women's rights, when it comes to recognizing this, Canada condemns Putin's latest comments about Russia's referendums.
The outcome of these referendums are not legitimate, and Canada does not and will not ever recognize them.
I repeat, Ukraine's territory will remain Ukraine's.
And basically, take that same language.
And you could apply it to Kosovo, to Croatia, to Slovenia, to Slovakia, to Bosnia, to Kosovo, to all those places.
And Canada took the exact opposite position.
They didn't say, we will always recognize the territory of Yugoslavia.
Just the opposite.
So ran to encourage it, incentivize it, reward it, support it, recognize it, and then put military bases there.
So Putin is just replicating our own precedents.
From an international legal basis, there's no grounds to critique Russia's annexation of those regions after the referendum that took place.
Now, I'm not a fan of this way of changing alliances, but there are two counterpoints in the American tradition.
One is, of course, the American Revolution itself.
We declared a right to declare our independence and found that that was a legitimate grounds to separate from another government and so forth.
Even more analogous is Texas.
Probably the closest historical analog in American history to Ukraine and Russia is Texas.
A bunch of Americans populated Texas while it was under the domain of Mexico.
The Americans decided they weren't being treated well by the Mexican government.
And so we supported their unilateral declaration of independence.
Hence, remember the Alamo.
We have a memorial to it.
That's why I get a kick out of America and say, oh, this is outrageous.
You could never do this.
Like, I guess you think we should not remember the Alamo then, right?
They're unaware of their own history or unaware of its clear analogy.
And then, of course, we invaded to protect the Americans in Texas and then declared its independence.
So Putin, what Putin is doing in southern Ukraine is not only identical international legal standards to the president, we helped create in Yugoslavia.
It's identical to how America got founded and how Texas even exists as part of America.
Robert, I mean, the vote, 95%.
I just get...
And then it's like 87. But if you include the non-voters, there were 30% in the Harrison region that didn't vote.
You could fairly infer those were mostly no votes.
And that's consistent, as Richard Barris, People's Pundit, put out.
You could have guessed this.
You could have forecast this vote if you knew what the 1926 census was.
Because it's the same Russian area dominate populations of that region.
Russian ancestry, Russian tradition, Russian language, Russian culture, Russian allegiances, Russian economic alliances, you name it.
It's most intense in the Donbass, the Donetsk and Lohansk provinces, but they don't occupy all of the Japarisi, I think that's how you say it, or the Kherson region.
Part of it was still occupied by Ukraine.
The parts that they occupied were disproportionately more Russian.
And now, Kherson, in a vote where people felt comfortable voting no, would have been probably 60-40.
But everybody knew Patrick Lancaster covered a lot of this on the ground, talked to people in all the different regions.
International observers were present.
A lot of the myths being propagated out there that people were forced to vote with guns on them and all this gibberish is just nonsense.
It's more bad propaganda from the West.
But what it reflects is Ukraine deliberately forced that population not to participate by what they said.
If you were pro-Ukraine, you couldn't vote.
So that always made sure that the vote would have a certain outcome.
And then the second aspect is there has been migration since the war.
My guess is that, and this was in the Patrick Lancaster reports, people that were pro-Ukrainian have left some of these regions since Russia's occupied them, and people that are pro-Russian have come into these regions since Russia occupied them.
So that's where, like, Kherson was like a 50-50 split, slightly pro-Russian in past elections.
Again, going all back to even the census of the 1920s, the rest of the region, the Donbass was like 95% for breaking off way back in 2014.
So everybody knew which way that was going to go.
And certain parts of those attendant regions were the same Zaporizhne region.
Hairston is the one that, if it hadn't been occupied, would have been a very close vote.
Someone in Rumble, on a Rumble rant, Mannix37 says, how can these elections be held in areas not occupied by Russia?
I mean, I think that's definitional.
A referendum will not be held in an area that is Right.
I mean, Ukraine, obviously.
I mean, they did hold referendums in the early 90s on these things, and a lot of these same regions didn't want to separate from Russia.
And then the Ukrainian government just ignored these.
So a lot of these populations have voted in the past.
The Ukrainian government has just refused to recognize the referendums.
In the early 90s, they refused to do so.
They refused to recognize the 2004 election that they didn't go their way.
So they had their first orange color revolution.
Didn't like it when it went that same way in 2010 and ultimately had the Maidan coup.
When they had the same referendums in 2014 in response to the Maidan coup, they didn't recognize them again.
So these populations have been voting, especially in the Donbass, over and over again to get out of Ukraine.
And the Ukrainian government has just refused to recognize them.
And what of Ukraine's now, I don't know, new application for NATO recognition?
It was already rejected.
It was political theater.
Zelensky's still playing tough guy.
It was funny he went out with one of those press conferences and the two people next to him actually have normal height.
He makes you look like Goliath, Fever.
Robert, I think he's still taller than me.
I doubt it.
He said he'll never talk to Putin, you know, that sort of thing.
Russia, Putin gave a pretty prominent speech that was followed by a lot of people.
I put it up as part of the Barnes brief at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, a summary of it, and a link to the whole thing.
Pretty extraordinary speech.
Whatever you think of it, it's going to be a very memorable speech in time.
It will be one of those top 10 speeches in the last 20 years, maybe even longer time frame, because of how seminal it is about the change and shift of where the world is going, and especially where Russia is going within it.
But they made clear they're never giving back this land.
So the only question now is whether Ukraine settles.
They won't, even though Kissinger is saying they should.
Because he can see the writing on the wall like anybody else.
They took back this abandoned town called Limon that had like 500 people in it.
All they wanted to do was hold up the Ukrainians for a while while they re-buttress their troops elsewhere.
And the Ukrainians were acting like it was the taking of the hill or something.
They're not going to win.
It's that simple.
Their efforts have been mostly unsuccessful, and Russia has now called up another 300,000 troops.
The big change for Russia is internal legally.
They now consider any attack on these regions an attack on Russia.
So they will label it a counterterrorism action or even a state of war, which frees them up legally.
They will probably start to target civilian infrastructure, electricity, anything that helps the military at all.
What we call dual-use infrastructure, so we consider it free reign from the get-go.
But Russia is more restrained than we have been historically.
And so Ukraine's in for a lot of trouble, despite us sending billions of dollars more.
I don't see their ability to catch up to where the Russians are.
They're trying to occupy regions that clearly don't want to be part of Ukraine anymore.
Probably never did, in truth, that have returned, in their view, to their homeland.
There's not much hope for success, but that won't stop us from spending lots of money.
Colonel McGregor was talking about sources close to Zelensky, talking about building a dirty bomb to set off someplace.
These people are insane.
But, you know, the Biden administration is equally insane.
So we'll see what happens.
But legally, from Russia's perspective, it will only get much more aggressive now in the conflict.
And the interwebs say that Zelensky is 5 '7", which is one and a half inches taller than me.
I bet he's 5 '3".
You should see him next to these normal-looking people.
I bet he's 5 '1".
I'm going to say 5 '1".
If normal in Russia or in Ukraine is normal in the States, you set me up against anybody normal in the States.
I'm a foot shorter to everyone.
He looks two feet shorter.
Maybe he's 4 '5".
It doesn't matter.
People, we're going over to Rumble now.
Here's the link one more time.
And we're going to start with...
I think we'll start with the woke PayPal policy when we go over to Rumble.
As I turn down the stream in YouTube in three...
Two, one.
Robert, I think we're alone now.
On Rumble!
And when it's done processing, I'm going to go put the link up in the pinned comment there as well.
Okay, Robert, what is going on with PayPal?
They're going to change their terms of service or amend them.
I didn't realize that these terms of service were even in there in the first place, but now it's going to allow for, it sounds like, unilateral.
So arbitrary, and I'll say arbitrary because it seems that the only people who have the discretion to determine whether or not they charge you a liquidated damages penalty of $2,500 and debit it from your account is PayPal itself.
They now have, what's it called?
Not a fair use, but rather, oh, the terminology for what they want to apply this to as a policy.
Things you can't say.
Acceptable use.
Acceptable use.
Tell us what's going on.
I mean, I'll ask the question, how is this even potentially legal that they have access to your bank accounts because that's how they put money in and take money out, that they can say unilaterally, if you continue to use our service, you allow us to unilaterally, arbitrarily, and I'll even dare say capriciously decide if you're in violation, at which point we get to debit $2,500 from your account.
How does it work?
Yeah, per incident.
So these are rules that go into place November 3rd.
If you use PayPal for activities that involve objectionable messages, misinformation, that affect user well-being, or that are unfit for publication, and you simply send, speak, communicate, publish, broadcast such messages, the language is so broad, it's not clear they're even limiting it to the use of PayPal.
And they're saying, do you use PayPal?
Okay.
Well, we're going to regulate your personal behavior.
I mean, that's what it sounds like.
They don't limit themselves with these broad, like, involved.
What does that mean?
Use PayPal for activity.
What does that mean?
So they're essentially creating themselves to where $2,500 per incident they get to deduct from your account or charge to your account.
$2,500 each time you say something that they consider unilaterally in their sole discretion, according to these new rule changes come November 3rd, is misinformation, affects somebody else's well-being.
I mean, this is basically woke rules to not only strip people, And cancel people of the ability to use PayPal, but to actually sanction them and fine them and penalize them $2,500 a pop for each time they say something PayPal doesn't like.
Robert, if I'm not mistaken, these terms were already in there to some extent, but are getting broader.
Not this woke provision.
So they used to have five provisions under their acceptable use policy.
Now they have six.
And the new one is this huge misinformation, user content, user well-being, saying things that may offend people.
They expand protected status to include sexual orientation and gender identity when that is not universally protected status.
So, I mean, they go and basically just say, I mean, when they say in our discretion, we consider it unfit for publication.
When we consider it in our discretion, misinformation.
When we consider it in our...
Discretion to be upsetting to someone concerning their well-being.
I mean, that's it.
The restrictions on harassment law are not there.
The restrictions on stalking law are not there.
The restrictions that would be connected to an actual individual are not there.
The restrictions connected to illicit incitement of illicit conduct is not there.
None of those are there.
This is a wholesale.
If you say something we don't like and you use PayPal, you now owe PayPal $2,500 for each time you said it.
In Quebec, I don't think it applies exactly to this situation, but there is a preclusion or a prohibition on what we call the conditions, the clauses purement protestatives.
So like purely discretionary provisions of a contract are generally deemed to be inapplicable, unenforceable.
Like it happens when I say it happens.
When I so choose.
This provision, first of all, people would be shocked to realize that it existed up until now, but for doing illegal activities, use PayPal to sell drugs, and they can penalize you $2,500 per infraction.
I was surprised to find out that that was already there in the first place.
But these types of purely discretionary clauses, are they generally deemed to be enforceable or unenforceable under United States law?
Oh, enforceable.
Very rarely are they unenforceable.
And there's no current law that really limits PayPal from doing this.
What it really shows is the need for states to look at the Texas example for governing big tech, which said if you own more than 50% of the market share of a particular area that people commonly use and need to use for their everyday activities, then you cannot have viewpoint-based discrimination.
And these same...
Provisions need to be applied to the financial services realm, to banks and to PayPal, because what PayPal is doing is overtly, openly weaponizing access to the financial system and financial services based on you conforming to certain political beliefs.
It is effectively a China-style social credit system being imposed on Americans.
Robert, in a similar vein, we're hearing about The Fed imposing a trial ESG financial credit system.
Do you know anything about that?
Yeah, and they're looking at, of course, a digital currency system.
And so both of those are meant to create the means by which the government...
Now, the Fed is limited by the First Amendment, depending on how they act.
And so that would be a restraint on them.
We have an outstanding...
George Gammon and I have an outstanding...
For a Freedom of Information Act request for certain information related to this that the Fed is stonewalling on that will probably lead to litigation this fall concerning.
But it's part of a broader pattern.
I have a lawsuit in St. Louis, Missouri that concerns the...
A prominent bank, US bank in this instance, targeting someone for their political beliefs and discriminating against them in a whole bunch of transactions that involved eight-figure, nine-figure transactions.
So, I mean, if they're willing to do it to somebody that they have a 20-year successful relationship with...
Who's putting up businesses that help poor populations, impoverished areas, develop and get jobs?
Then you know they'll do it to everybody else.
They've already been doing it to gun companies.
They've already been doing it on environmental grounds.
ESG is a disguised mechanism for a social credit score to be superimposed on stocks, corporate executives, and increasingly it will be applied in the financial services realm.
And the Republicans need to wake up.
And reform legislation to make sure that financial, if anything's a common carrier access kind of duty, financial services arguably is more of a common carrier than electricity, than phones, than water, a bunch of other things, because they're as essential to everyday life.
Well, it's not just that.
You can't pay for water.
You can't pay for electricity if you don't have access to financials.
218 Frederick, as a rumble rant, says, enjoying the show, rumble on, and find and truth.
It says, Timcast.com now uses Parallel Economy as its payment provider.
Worthwhile to check it out.
Robert, this would be one of those every fear hides a wish.
I wouldn't want PayPal to do this, to debit $2,500 from my bank account because they have access to it because I gave them access to it so they can put money in, not capriciously take money out of it.
Will they face a lawsuit, or is this going to be one of those legitimate things?
If you continue using the platform, you've tacitly consented to this.
That's how most courts will see it, sadly.
Okay, now FairFrozen55 says, don't trust PayPal, PayPal asshole.
Okay, they didn't spell that one the way the meme is spelled, but yeah, I might have to.
I'm trying to think of what practical use I still have for PayPal, but that's outrageous.
All right.
Well, I guess a good segue for big tech behaving badly.
Robert, not Amazon.
eBay.
No, no.
Which one was where they had a team of stalkers to go harass?
Oh, that's eBay.
That's eBay.
Robert, I don't understand how this happens, how people think.
Like, this gets sanctioned at the highest levels of a multi-billion dollar international corporation.
eBay, for those who don't know, and I didn't know until Robert sent me the link.
What was it?
Seven employees of eBay were either arrested or actually convicted?
I mean, yes.
Some were charged.
Some weren't charged.
Some pled guilty.
Some were convicted.
But it involved some of their highest-ranking executives and the head of their security division.
So, the 30,000 foot overview, we can get into a little bit of detail.
They decided to go after two internet bloggers who were posting negative reviews, I guess, of product or protocol of eBay.
I guess they had enough traction and enough influence that it was impacting or causing a ripple effect onto eBay.
They actually, within eBay, internally discussed, what do we do?
And they basically said, go after them.
Criminal harassment, doxing, sending them packages of like, what was it, bloodied pig's head, cockroaches, vandalizing their cars, like straight up Cape Fear level harassment that was sanctioned, like authorized, approved by at least one executive of...
It appears multiple executives and most importantly the head of the security division.
And they were bragging about this internally.
I mean...
Bloody pig masks, spiders, cockroaches, bogus pizza orders, funeral wreaths.
Funeral wreaths being said.
Trespass, vandalism, plans to break in and plant GPS devices on their cars.
I mean, you name it.
I mean, it was classic cyber-stalking behavior.
Then there was witness.
Because for those people who don't know, there is both state and federal criminal laws that prohibit using the electronic system to stalk and harass people.
I remember people being surprised when we were designing the rumble rules, and I was explaining, you know, you can't actually stalk and harass people.
But there are specific limitations on what that means.
That can't be as vague as what PayPal calls it.
It can't be just dissident speech.
It has to be something that is intended to intimidate, injure, or harass as measured by an intention to and the effect of causing someone to fear for their well-being, not just ordinary well-being, but fear for their lives, fear for their physical safety, that they will suffer severe emotional distress.
So these have always been the restrictions.
There's always been laws on the books prohibiting stalking and harassment.
And some were too vague and were struck down in First Amendment grounds.
But most have these clear where what you're doing is trying to make somebody's life miserable that you have no lawful justification for.
That's what they did.
And the media has mostly not covered the scale of this.
This involves some high ranking.
And some of the executives managed to dodge responsibility, got sweet parachute deal, golden parachute deal.
$57 million to one of the executives who then got hired.
At what was like a big brother, big sister type organization.
Boy Scouts.
By the Boy Scouts.
And they knew about it.
They knew this guy was a complicit in this.
I mean, or at least accused of it.
And so you have, but the fact that they felt, what does it tell you about the security division of these big companies?
That they thought this was naturally part of their job.
To intimidate, harass, spy, surveil, make people live in fear of their lives, their well-being, their future.
It really tells you something about how these big companies operate, but probably not nearly as good as the FBI case the media ain't talking about.
Well, which one are we talking about now?
So that's in L.A. So in L.A., a high-ranking National Security Division FBI agent is on trial in a case that even large publications in L.A. haven't been covering.
And people think that, you know, I do a lot of hush-hushes.
At fevabarnslaw.locals.com.
Have one up right now on Bill Barr.
Have another one up on MKUltra.
And people think, man, those are crazy alternative theories.
No way any of that stuff can be true.
And I use James Elroy's books, American Tabloid, the American Tabloid Trilogy, the cold 6,000, Bloods Are Over, to say this is a model and these are who these people are.
Well, all you had to do is sit down on this trial and you can see I understated it.
So this is a guy who, FBI agent, while he was a national security agent, For the FBI, which means he's part of the deep state.
That's the deep state division currently harassing Trump.
Same group of people.
This guy is on trial because he was caught in a massive scale corruption.
And to give you an idea, this guy's walking around like Alder James.
Walking around, he has Rolex watches, Gucci belts, driving fancy luxury vehicles, has a Ducati.
Motorcycle, which he probably forgot that he had been given by the person.
He was wired into the Armenian mob, was feeding intel and information to the Armenian mob.
And not only that, there was a fake lawyer.
One of the people associated with him took the law test for somebody else who could never pass the bar exam, but in that guy's name.
So that guy got a bar license when he was never even the guy that applied or took the test.
They have a law firm where all the money was being laundered.
The lawyers have been taking the fifth.
What's interesting about this law firm, guess who it's one of the biggest key donors for?
It is one of the biggest Democratic law firms in the country.
They have long, extensive conversations with Gavin Newsom that they talk about in these texts.
Somehow the prosecutors are avoiding what those conversations were about.
Big Hillary Clinton backers, big Barack Obama backers, but especially part of the Clinton groups.
So this is the Clinton, Gavin Newsom, mob-based, mob-fronted, FBI-orchestrated.
This involved a border of Homeland Security agent, a border agent, a local sheriff.
You're talking about every level of law enforcement, every level of political protection racket for an Armenian mobster with this.
And the Fed was living high on the hog.
I mean, they were taking limos.
With hookers to Vegas.
They were doing Vegas party houses.
They were doing coke all over the place.
The guy's partying like a madman, had a vacation house in Lake Tahoe.
How does an FBI agent have a vacation house in Lake Tahoe?
And yet they only did this because the Armenian guy got caught.
And so he figured, I'm going to rat out everybody.
And so he rats out everybody.
But then you hear these stories, and the media is trying to suppress it as much as possible because it implicates...
Democrats.
And knowing that, it even involves sexual cults.
It involves this polygamous cult that was running a biofuel scheme out of Utah and Idaho.
I mean, it's like, wow.
It's like all of my hush-hushes combined in one trial.
Robert, is the Armenian leaker, the guy who spilled the beans, is he still alive?
Oh yeah, he's testifying in court.
He's going to survive.
He was also trying to steal from his boss, the big Armenian mobster he was protecting, who was apparently a big secret financier through questionable law firms of high-ranking Democrats.
And none of them somehow have been prosecuted.
Somehow only the FBI guy is because they had no choice under the circumstances.
But they're trying to limit the scope of the case from getting to where the real truth lie, which was deep institutional corruption.
It is amazing.
I would take a poll to see who's heard of this because there's been no coverage whatsoever.
And then, you know, you'll get your, I got into a Twitter back and forth, although I think French has stopped responding to me.
You know, the David A. French's who say the FBI wouldn't have, you know, they have their reasons.
They couldn't have gotten a warrant without a good reason.
So we have to trust the process.
Well, that was a federal judge's excuse in the lockbox case this week.
Well, just take this FBI case.
What's going to be the outcome?
You'll get a conviction, it'll be one bad apple, and then back to business as usual?
Yep, that's exactly what it'll be.
Watch.
It'll never go to Newsom.
It'll never go to the lawyers.
It'll never go to Hillary Clinton.
It'll never go to Barack Obama.
It'll never go to many of the other complicit parties involved in this.
Robert, actually, this was not on the menu, but maybe you'll have something to add.
It made the news last week because I guess the culprit is transgender, but the spy, the transgender doctor who was leaking medical information to Russians, were you following that story at all?
I just saw the story, and I don't know enough about it to confirm any details about it.
I just saw it, but I don't know what else.
What else it entails.
So I can't speak to it beyond that.
All right.
We'll see what happens with the FBI.
I don't know if you've done a hush-hush on Webb, the guy who committed suicide by shooting himself twice in the head.
The Deep State and Drug Series is definitely coming.
MKUltra is a little bit about that.
Montreal features in the MKUltra hush-hush.
McGill University and the Allen Memorial Institute.
And people really didn't know what Bill Barr and his daddy were up to.
That was a fun hush-hush to write about.
Alright, FBI, we'll see where that one goes, but Robert, what does that segue into?
The LA Lockbox case.
So the FBI gets caught lying and stealing a bunch of people's records and information for a period of time stealing their property until they were forced to give it back.
And what does the federal judge say?
Eh, the FBI meant well and dismisses the entire suit.
They meant well.
Yeah, they lied, but we probably would have signed the warrant anyway, so it's okay that they lied.
And yeah, maybe illicit motivation was part of it, but they might have had a good motive for what they did, and as long as they do, you can't sue.
So, I mean, this tells you the scope.
This is why they do it.
They get away with it.
The courts...
Greenlight it.
The courts rubber stamp it.
They approve of federal law enforcement corruption, including many conservative judges rush to approve of government corruption when it's in law enforcement.
And sadly, that case, hopefully, maybe it'll be reconsidered by the Ninth Circuit and reversed because there's a problematic ruling that when you can prove all the things they could prove, which is hard to prove, and yet still you can't get your day in court with a trial by jury.
Because they find every excuse imaginable to pardon the misconduct and malfeasance of federal law enforcement.
And this was the...
We talked about this a while back.
This was the vault company that, for whatever the reason...
I forget the reason for which they were the object of anything, but...
They supposedly had some potentially illegal...
The source of property and wealth stored there.
But under that pretext, they went in and seized everybody's.
Everybody's security boxes.
They opened them up.
They didn't itemize them.
They didn't do an inventory.
They then...
Was there an issue of...
They lied to get the warrant.
They misled the federal court.
All of those things.
They were always planning on find evidence of the crime, then prosecute them later.
That routine, rather than have probable cause first, then do the search.
That's how it's supposed to work.
They got caught doing it, ultimately had to get back a lot of the property, but were not able to sustain their forfeiture proceedings, as far as I know.
And so the people brought suit, saying this was a massive Fourth Amendment violation, and the court went through every hoop possible to basically say why you could never sue the feds.
I mean, they're making it harder and harder.
Federal courts are making it harder and harder to hold federal government officers accountable.
And Robert, someone, Tyranagast in Rumble Ranch says, please note Venmo is owned by PayPal.
I don't know that that, I didn't know that.
So if it's true, beware, I guess.
Robert, I'm going to my list.
What does this segue into?
Well, if you want to get away with it, the Fifth Circuit also provided additional advice this week.
So somebody went to a hotel, suspected there was a, in this case, criminal illegal immigration case.
There was evidence of criminality in a hotel room.
But they didn't have probable cause, and they didn't have exigent circumstances.
So they go with the hotel manager to the door.
And here is what purportedly the agent said.
The agent said, oh, that man inside has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
We don't have probable cause, so whatever you do, please don't open that door.
And hotel managers like, heck fire, I don't listen to you feds, banged open the door anyway, and then they went in and found the illegal evidence.
And the Fifth Circuit said, that's just fine.
The agent was doing the honorable, honest thing, taking at face value.
That's what really happened.
What everybody knows, what that is, is the federal agent shows up, or local cop, whoever it is, shows up and says, whatever you do, Don't open this door that has a scary criminal inside that I can catch.
Right?
That's what that is.
The hotel manager ignored a federal law enforcement agent.
I don't think so.
But that's the kind of gullibility the federal courts expect us to buy about these lying cops and feds.
Well, what state was that in?
That was in Texas Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
If we move from Texas, I guess this will be the good segue.
We'll go from Texas to California because that may be where a lot of youth who want gender-affirming procedures are going to be going now that California has signed into law.
This went through the House and this went through the Senate and it got signed off on by Gavin Newsom.
People are...
Robert, you'll say whether or not they're blowing it out of proportion.
I, from what I understand, don't think that they are.
This is going to be a piece of legislation that is going to basically turn California into a sanctuary state, a safe haven, not just for teens, children in the state who want to get gender-affirming therapy surgeries, but for other out-of-state teens who can now go there to get...
It is life-altering, despite what some people want to make it out to be.
Life-altering, gender-affirming therapy.
And without any sanctions, without even having to necessarily answer to objections of either or potentially both parents, what does this legislation actually entail, practically, pragmatically speaking?
And what's it going to empower teens to do?
Either with the consent of one parent, notwithstanding the objection of another, or potentially on their own entirely.
Well, it's like a city of refuge.
It goes beyond traditional sanctuary laws.
It provides for California courts and California police and the California Attorney General to refuse to recognize a court order concerning child custody, concerning child care, concerning extradition, any subpoena for simple information.
To disregard all of it and refuse to enforce it if the subject matter concerns medical intervention for trans treatment.
Because most states are banning this.
Texas has even called it child abuse.
It also appears to create a safe haven for people who engage in criminality in these other states.
It doesn't appear to be limited.
Right now, one interpretation is you can go to California and get treatment that is illegal in your home state in California.
But it goes past that and says we're not going to recognize court orders from another state that concerns this as a subject matter.
We're not going to process arrests.
We're not going to process extradition warrants.
We're not going to process court subpoenas.
We're not going to enforce another state's subpoenas.
We're not going to enforce another state's child custody order.
None of it.
That's the part of the law that raises critical constitutional questions because it appears to attack the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution that required states to recognize the actions of another state, including their court judgments.
You can get away with being real slow to handle extradition because there's a lot of discretion there vested in the executive.
But not...
Disobeying a court subpoena of another state, refusing to enforce it, refusing to allow it to be recorded as a state-enforceable subpoena, not enforcing child custody orders.
That impacts the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, which is part of actually federal law in certain contexts, and every state has also passed.
So a major constitutional problem, because this is truly Civil War-type stuff, a civil version of it.
And a lawfare version of it.
But when you're saying, we don't agree with you, other states in America, we're now not going to recognize your courts anymore.
For subpoenas, for custody orders, for arrest orders, for extradition.
We're not going to recognize them because we disagree with your laws on this subject matter.
Well, civil war or just de facto secession.
This is basically California saying, piss off, what do we call it?
Republic.
We're going to go rogue.
But Robert, what I don't understand is, I guess conceptually, how can you carve out one aspect where you're not going to recognize the courts of another state where you otherwise recognize it in other contexts?
If you didn't have to constitutionally, then it would be a different matter.
You could pick and choose when you're going to recognize a foreign court order.
But under the U.S. Constitution, each state has to give full faith and credit to another state's laws and courts.
And so that's the problem.
I think that the law is unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
I think it violates that.
And it's been litigated in a range of contexts, but I think California doesn't care.
They'll let it be fought first in the courts, and they want to see how much they can get away with.
But it's one thing to say it will be a sanctuary city for people that want a certain kind of treatment that's illegal in their state.
It will be legal here.
Okay.
That's probably within their prerogative.
It's quite another to say we will refuse to recognize another court's orders.
That's part of a state of the United States.
That's a serious constitutional problem.
And de facto legal secession.
This might be a very ignorant question, but what laws would there be federally that California as a state could not bypass by doing what they're doing?
Oh, laws enforcing the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.
That require interstate recognition of child custody orders in particular.
Okay, interesting.
And require, you know, subpoena enforcement across state lines involving child support matters.
Could there conceptually be a federal law that would govern trans therapy for...
Not that I know of.
Not unless they somehow pretended it was part of the Civil Rights Act.
But I don't see that.
It's quite shocking.
Yeah, it's as rogue as you can get in the legal sense.
And it's not overblown.
I mean, this is basically saying we're not going to recognize court orders of other states if we think it has to do with something that we want to now create a safe haven for in our state.
Yep.
On the subject, it was not on our menu, but...
While we're talking about California and the insane laws, I read that bill that would propose no autopsies for babies that are, you know, born...
Up to 28 days after birth.
Has that gone through the...
Yeah, they passed that one too.
Okay.
My understanding.
And Robert, I mean...
Baby killing is back to being legal in California.
Well, it's even one step.
They're saying, oh, it doesn't allow for post-delivery abortion.
Yeah, but you just can't do an autopsy on any post-delivery, on any baby who died within 28 days of birth, is my understanding of it.
I read it, Robert.
That's my understanding, but I definitely don't defer to my understanding on things like this.
First of all, I'm too neurotic.
I've got to be misunderstanding something, but it does say, from all reasonable understandings, I'm going to look at the chat in Rumble, no autopsies on whether or not it occurred.
Before or within the 28 days after.
Exactly.
That's how I read it.
And they pretend it's about something else, but it's clearly legalizing infanticide.
The way it legalizes it is by not allowing autopsies that are the factual basis of any criminal investigation to even occur.
That's the game they're playing.
They're like, well, we didn't legalize anything.
We just prohibited you from having the means to investigate and indict it.
Well, it's the same thing, de facto legalization.
Robert, actually, someone asked a rumble rant here.
It's from Matt G. Hammond.
Will other states not say they cannot provide bail to people because of the threat to fleeing to California?
Well, this will come up in family disputes now, where this issue is a dispute in states that don't allow this.
They'll say there's a major problem because they'll just run to California to get their procedure, and California law doesn't allow your court order to be enforced there.
I mean, the latter part is what's really wild.
But it will be coming up in these disputes and cases.
And, yeah, it's stunning.
Stunning.
And there's some other dumb law, California.
Oh, yes.
Also, California passed a law that said if you're a doctor...
You could lose your medical license for saying things that the official narrators disagree with, for saying misinformation.
Now, that's already being challenged in a case we talked about previously when it was a de facto policy and not yet de jerry law.
And I assume they will add it.
That's clearly a First Amendment violation, in my view, and should be struck down on the same grounds the pending suit currently has good grounds.
So we'll see.
But they're just passing one nutty law after the next.
It's out.
They just say, like, if you don't like it, leave the state.
But this is like, this is a state going absolutely rogue, where I can see people looking at California and seeing the modern-day embodiments.
What's the word?
Not personification.
Embodiment of Sodom and Gomorrah.
This is like a state now.
In the name of tolerance, it's like we want to be...
To get a tattoo, you still have to be 18. I don't even think parental consent to get a tattoo in California would bypass the rules.
Or just be in Tahiti and think it was a good idea at the time.
Well, you were an adult, Robert.
I mean, you should have.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, I was.
I've seen patent people get tattoos of the rings.
I mean, first of all, the ring, not that I plan on getting divorced and I don't, but worse comes to worse, you could take off a ring, but that tattoo, it's a...
All right.
What do we have next, Robert?
What's up with Stacey Abrams?
So, yes, Stacey Abrams had brought a big suit all the way back to 2018 that also attacked Georgia's new laws as the case progressed, saying that Georgia's laws are wraithith, wraithith, wraithith.
And her grounds was it requires things like identification, requires things like you be alive, requires things like you not have duplet, you can't be registered multiple times, required you actually be part of the state.
Things like this.
And she was like, all these rules are racist, racist, racist.
A liberal Obama appointee held a lengthy bench trial and said, there's no evidence that this has even negatively impacted any voter, least of all that it's disparately or discriminated against anybody.
And so ruled against Abrams across the board.
She lost entirely.
So Georgia's election laws are completely intact.
It's right to screen its voter rolls intact.
It's right to require certain proof of identification for purposes of either registration or voting intact.
And it's other reforms past this past legislative session completely fully intact.
So a big win for those on the election reform side.
Big loss for Stacey Abrams and the Democrats.
All righty.
Let me see what the next subject is.
Robert, which one do you want to go to now?
The next big one is Uvalde.
Before we get into the heaviness of Uvalde, let's just go over quickly the Facebook spying on its users.
Oh, yeah.
So, Facebook, it's not yet certified as a class action, but they're being sued over allegations that they bypassed Apple's privacy security features, where I don't know how the mechanism works, but when you open an app, Facebook would not go through.
Apple's security system.
They would open new browsers so they could track the user data of the individual who...
Everything.
Not just secretly record all your communications and conversations that you're using on the direct messenger app of Facebook or direct messaging on Instagram or while you're on Facebook or Instagram.
Maybe you'll don't realize all those direct messages are tracked and traced and all that.
But they were planting a device under your phone or laptop so that they were tracking every place you went, including being able to steal your password at all the different sites you were going to.
So they were stealing a bunch of information.
And in particular, it was pernicious because Apple had put in a process to prohibit that, had marketed that they had prohibited that.
And it turns out Facebook found an easy way around it.
May raise questions about how sincere Apple was really being, but put that aside.
Facebook caught, again, violating privacy rules.
And it's a reminder to everybody out there.
It's like people like, oh, you know, Rumble has these functionality issues compared to YouTube.
Yes, YouTube operates at a different scale, but that's because you are the product on YouTube.
They are grabbing all of your information and monetizing it on a regular basis.
If the product is free and it has all the wonderful bells and whistles, you're the product.
Without your full notice and knowledge in violation of a range of state and federal laws, which has now led to another big class action against Facebook for poor little Mark Zuckerberg, who fell out of the top 10 this year in billionaires because the stock market's getting shellacked by the dementia candidate in the White House.
And Robert, it's like Facebook, they just paid penalties for these things.
YouTube just paid penalties for these things.
Not that Facebook and YouTube are the same entity, but it's like...
They get slapped on the wrist with penalties that represent a day's worth of profit, and they just go back and do it again.
And this explicitly bypassed Apple's security features by allowing whatever they were surfing to open up in a separate browser that didn't go through the Apple whatever system.
And they just tracked all of the user data despite people thinking it wasn't happening.
Well, it's the importance of the antitrust bill that's just a process built currently that passed the House of Representatives by the bipartisan majority.
A bunch of Democrats and Republicans joined in.
And it's mostly a process bill.
It just increases the fees they have to pay when there's a big merger.
What that does, that will fund and buttress up the antitrust department so that it has a few more personnel capable of actually enforcing antitrust laws.
Second, it requires, it finally allows states to seek remedy in local courts because their cases are being dragged into select federal courts that were very protective of monopolies.
Changed federal law on that.
And then require that if there's a big merger, you have to disclose whether you have any money with China.
Now, what is Congressman Jim Jordan, the great Republican congressman, as people tell me?
As I said, he's really good on a lot of issues.
But on big tech, he's in their pocket.
He has been fighting this bill.
Why does he want big tech to hide their ties to China?
Why does he want big tech to continue to engage in monopolistic practices?
Because a lot of this stems from big tech monopoly power.
They're invading everybody's privacy because they know they can just pay small fines to get out of it because they have monopoly-sized market power.
If they didn't, their competitor would use this as an advantage to take them out.
Their competitor can't because the competitor's too small.
And so this is a good sign that the antitrust bill was passed.
Matt Stoller, who we'll be talking to later in the month, is a big antitrust guy, comes from the old Democrat side of the aisle, but a great antitrust guy, said this was a great piece of legislation, but highlighted that Jim Jordan, again, continues to be in big tech's pocket, as he has historically been, and it's a major weakness of Jim Jordan being someone that people can trust in positions of power within the Republican Party.
With respect to the antitrust bill, I understand the rationale behind China in particular, but why limit it to China and not force big tech in any merger to disclose whatever ties it has to any foreign entity?
China's a national security issue because of its size.
The national security angle was their predicate, so that's why they incorporated China.
They could incorporate more countries, but they would want a national security angle to justify it.
All right.
So that's I mean, that's some good news, I guess, in terms of, you know, I now appreciate the benefit to local state courts as opposed to being, what's the word?
Not deferred, but rather punted out to federal courts.
We've seen how the federal courts tend to side.
So if you get your local state court in your local district, you're not skewing the system, you're just ensuring that it operates without being skewed by being deferred to a federal court.
When does it go into effect?
It hasn't passed the Senate yet, so it's only passed the House of Representatives, and Congress took time off.
Couldn't get around to passing that bill, banning them trading in stocks and putting it in.
Like, golly gee, I would love to, but Nancy Pelosi, again, better than any hedge fund.
Her rate of return has just been fantastic for decades.
And same with Bill Burr.
The corrupt senator from North Carolina, Republican senator, famously cashed in on the pandemic.
A bunch of senators and House members on both sides of the aisle cashed in because they got inside Intel.
The lockdowns were coming.
It gave them an incentive to support the lockdowns because they bet or shorted stock based on knowing the lockdowns were coming.
So they had no incentive to undo the lockdowns.
They were going to get rich off of it, just like Amazon did, just like big tech did, just like a lot of people on the stock market did, so on and so forth.
So it's extraordinary what they can get to and what they just can't find the time for.
But, you know, we'll see how all that progresses ultimately.
Now, in terms of federal policy and courts and litigation behavior, two good student loan forgiveness lawsuits were filed this week.
One by a student who pointed out that because he was going to be taxed on Biden's loan forgiveness plan, and he was already part of another loan forgiveness plan that would not tax him, He had standing to challenge this patently unlawful action of student loan forgiveness without going through the House or the Senate.
Predicated solely on this, somehow it's an emergency power.
Again, whenever you start opening the door at emergency powers, they're always going to abuse it.
That's what some of us said at the time.
Then a bunch of states brought a lawsuit saying, hey, this actually screws over private banks under our control that will hurt us.
So the Biden administration was so scared of both suits and so knows that it can't win a legal challenge to this actually being a lawful action that they changed overnight the loan forgiveness plan to exempt the people suing them.
So basically, the more people that sue them, they'll figure, okay, we'll carve them out.
We'll carve them out so that we can still have the PR victory of this.
Who knows how many people will be left at the end of the day.
Even though it's already expensive proposition is currently proposed, it has certain income limitations and other things.
Now it can't be private bank tied.
Now you can't be part of another program, so on and so forth.
Now, again, I'm not a fan of standing.
I find it a questionable doctrine at core.
But putting that aside, there is always an argument that you did have standing at the time you brought suit, and it shouldn't be considered moot because it's capable of repetition yet evading review.
But I don't think these federal courts will say that.
So they're going to have to find new grounds, new plaintiffs to sue to challenge this unlawful order.
And again, I know how you feel about standing, and I know how I feel about mootness where the issue is susceptible of repetition, like suspending the border restrictions.
In this case, I could definitely understand how they're going to say, look, we've changed the policy.
The argument that we might enact policy similar to will always exist.
Compared to, like, suspending something?
So they say, yeah, these people have now permanently lost standing under this legislation, and so they have no standing.
That much I could understand probably happening.
Who would then have to be the next ideal candidate with standing?
Well, I don't see...
I still think that anybody that's taxed could sue.
Because it seems to me like that you don't have to be...
Like, the current person's suit was, hey, I wouldn't be taxed under my current plan, and now I will be.
But everybody's being taxed on this that gets any student loan forgiveness.
I think that's an injury, right?
And the government can say, well, you're getting a net plus because of the amount of forgiveness.
But I can see a lot of people saying, I never plan on paying back the student loan.
I mean, that could have been delayed.
I'm going to have to pay this tax if they put me in prison.
Whole different animal.
Whole different kind of debt.
I think anybody that will owe tax on this can sue.
So I think that ultimately, it was creative credit to the people looking to challenge this, because when I initially thought of it, I was like, I don't see who can sue.
How is anybody hurt by it?
Well, actually, because a bunch of state governments said they were going to tax it.
People don't know this.
I hate this law.
It allows you to be taxed on loan forgiveness.
I don't think you should be taxed on loan forgiveness.
I get that it could be abused as a loophole and all that jazz.
But people got hammered during the housing thing.
You lost your house?
And they forgave the excess part of the loan.
You got a big tax bill.
It's like, I lost my house and I get taxed for it?
How is this?
I still don't like that law.
But I think anybody who's going to have to owe tax, that's an injury.
That's only because of this legislation.
And the only way you carve all of them out is to get rid of it altogether.
Or to say it doesn't apply in states that will tax you.
Well, then you've gutted like 80% of the program.
Would not one of the best potential candidates for a lawsuit be those who paid off their loan, I don't know, within a short period or within a statute of limitations period before this policy was enacted?
They're not injured, though.
That's the problem.
You need somebody who says, because of this, I'm out of pocket something.
And not, had I known this was coming, I would not have done something.
Right, exactly.
Well, that's very frustrating.
What did you learn, people who pay your bills on time?
Why pay now when you can pay later?
Okay, that's cynical and disgusting.
All right, we'll save one or a couple of lighthearted cases for the end so we can, you know, change the mood after the Uvalde lawsuit.
But, Robert, massive lawsuit coming out of Uvalde.
I don't know of all the plaintiffs, but I'm fairly certain one of the plaintiffs was in a viral video.
And someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I think she was in one of the videos where she wanted to go in and she was told that she can't go in, they can't do anything, stay outside, and they were screaming and...
I think she's one of the plaintiffs.
Hernandez, I think, is the name.
But basically, the lawsuit is injured parties, to say the least, suing the school.
Yeah, I think it includes people who are relatives to those who either survived the shooting or the survivors of those who died in the shooting.
I'm going to try to pull up the lawsuit while we talk about this, just so I can reference it.
Big, big case.
Big suit.
Big suit.
It was 60-some-odd pages.
And because it's heavy.
It's heavy substance, but also in factual background.
And they're suing.
So you have plaintiffs who have suffered harm, no question.
Suing the school, suing the security company of the school, suing Uvalde Police Department, suing the gun manufacturer, I believe also.
Are they suing the gun?
The gun salesman, the store that sold the guns, I think, as well.
Everybody, the part of the suit I support is the suit brought against the school district.
By the way, what it has in there, I'll say it now, Uvalde doesn't happen if the media covers Sandy Hook, honestly.
They want to blame Alex Jones for questioning the issues.
I'll be in Connecticut this week.
As a spokesperson for Alex Jones as he takes the stand again inside the courtroom.
I'll be outside the courtroom defending him in the court of public opinion.
We'll be going up there early tomorrow, actually.
What the big story of Sandy Hook always was is that the politicians pocketed cash meant for school safety.
And some people thought it made this stuff up.
It's mentioned in this suit in other capacities.
They said after Columbine, there were universal school safety plans put in place.
And here's what every school safety plan required.
And one of the things it required was the ability to lock the doors.
And what happened is you couldn't lock the doors.
The teachers couldn't lock the doors at Sandy Hook.
And that's why a lot of kids died who probably would be alive today, but for that.
But the politicians couldn't let that be known.
That's why they hid information from the Open Records Act and the version of sunshine, transparency, and freedom of information laws that they have in Connecticut, leading people to think other things that were mistaken, but correct in saying they're covering something up.
They were.
That's why they destroyed the school real fast, destroyed a lot of other evidence real fast, made sure that people, they hid or destroyed evidence that would have implicated them.
And had the world known, imagine all the way back then.
It comes out right away because the media does their job.
Rather than glamorize the shooter, demonize Alex Jones, they actually do their job and say, oh my goodness, the politicians didn't protect these kids' lives by implementing basic safety measures.
Don't you think Uvalde and all the other schools would have been like, holy crap?
We better make sure we have this in place now.
Every parent would be asking about it.
Teachers would be asking about it.
Community members would be asking about it.
By suppressing the truth of Sandy Hook like the mainstream media did and the political class in Connecticut did, they allowed Uvalde to happen.
And this suit details all the problems with how the school's safety was inadequate and breached basic protocol.
There's something called the state-created danger doctrine.
And I was wondering how they were going to get there, because this is tricky.
The courts have, again, gone out of their way to say no duty to protect, no duty to help, unless the state created the danger, right?
Now, that creates all kinds of perverse incentives.
Like now, if you're in the middle of a riot, as long as you stay out as a cop, you can't be sued.
So you can watch somebody beat up in front of you, it doesn't matter, you can't be sued.
If you intervene, even to save somebody's life, boom, now you can be sued.
It's totally perverse and distorted and reverse of our history.
But under the state-created danger doctrine, if the state creates the danger, so you're driving, the cop's driving down the road, sees somebody abandoned.
If he keeps on driving, can't be sued.
If he picks them up and then doesn't drop them off in a safe location, bingo, can be sued.
I don't necessarily like that distinction, but it's what exists.
In this context...
I brought many state-created danger doctrines and seen courts come up with excuse after excuse.
I mean, there was a county that created a pool that they knew was dangerous.
They had a sinkhole in it.
A little five-year-old kid died.
Courts refused to allow anybody to sue over it.
That kind of stuff.
So this is a tough, tough doctrine to bring.
But I was wondering what their anchor was.
And I was like, what's your anchor for their not implementing school safety, for the police not responding and standing down?
How do you claim that's a 1983 violation, given all these bad rulings that say the state has to create the danger, not just fail to prevent it, preclude it, or do something about it?
It's the lockdowns.
So their point is, these became problems once the school issued a lockdown, and they were brutal in the lawsuit.
But the way they describe it is this lockdown killed people.
This lockdown let kids be lined up to be shot by a shooter that they refused to take out with a school that he even got into because of their problems in the first place.
That they were target practice for a shooter because of the school system, because of the police response.
And so that part of the suit I robustly support, and I think they have created an adequate claim to get past motion to dismiss and summary judgment.
Part of the suit I do not support...
It's blaming the gun manufacturer.
Well, hold on.
Before we get there, because, I mean, people are going to know where you're going to go with this.
Just a few questions I have.
As a Canadian, Quebec lawyer with no knowledge, with some knowledge now, but the question I often hear is police do not have a positive obligation to intervene.
It was that Supreme Court decision of a woman getting sexually assaulted and cops drove by, didn't intervene.
Is there nuance to that?
Police don't have to intervene, but once they do, then they have obligations?
Correct.
And it is, in fact, accurate to say that despite that being their job as policemen or policewomen, they do not have a proactive, active obligation to intervene in the event of a situation.
No duty to protect.
By the way, it used to be the case, just the opposite.
In the riot context, if you had police in your community, that made it create an implicit promise to the community that you would protect their property.
If a riot occurred, the state or city, whichever it was, was strictly liable for any damage caused.
This is how we have great details of the inventory of damages from the Civil War riots in New York in the 1860s.
You know, where you got everybody's little desk and thing.
There's a lot of Park Avenue people.
A couple of the Irish...
Didn't like getting drafted, so they went up to the Upper West Side and decided to redistribute a little bit of the wealth themselves with self-destruction and some other means.
And then they changed it in the 1960s.
They liked the riots politically.
They thought it profited them.
Didn't want to discourage it.
Didn't want to deter it.
Used it as a pretext to write checks to their pals and buddies in these various non-governmental organizations and nonsense.
And all of a sudden, they reversed the whole laws.
Now, all of a sudden, you couldn't be responsible.
Unless you intervene.
So there's now no incentive.
That's why people wonder, why do cops stand by in riots?
This is why.
Because the only way they know, the only way they get sued is if they intervene.
And this has created totally distorted incentives.
But I do think they've got around it.
If the state didn't create the danger, no duty to protect.
If the state did create the danger, then there is a duty to protect.
Interesting and just...
Devastating at the same time.
But I'm going to pull this up because there's a couple of aspects of the complaint.
The products liability manufacturing defect is not related to the guns.
It's related to the security at the school, Robert.
Whereas the marketing defect for the firearms and going after the gun manufacturers.
So let's deal with that.
They're pulling...
The angle of what we saw happen in Connecticut, where they went after Remington and settled for $72 million.
Is there not legislation that shields gun manufacturers from crimes committed with firearms?
They mentioned it actually in the suit, the PLCAA, which is a federal law that passed that said you cannot sue a gun manufacturer, gun distributor, gun seller.
For the criminal, unlawful use of the gun, you have to show something else extraordinary, such as their direct complicity in the incident, which they're trying to claim generic advertising created direct complicity, which is ludicrous in my view.
And so this is an attempt to get around this.
Now, this even ever came about because, again, in the Sandy Hook case, the Sandy Hook plaintiff's lawyers sued Remington.
They got Remington's insurers to write a $73 million plus check.
And that was because the Connecticut courts are so politically rogue and corrupt, they refuse to enforce this federal law.
And the U.S. Supreme Court lazily sat on it, didn't rule on it, probably thinking they could rule on it after a jury verdict had come in.
But the insurance companies weren't willing to wait for that, so they wrote a check for the maximum insurance coverage.
Their fear was the jury verdict would come in over.
$73 million.
And then the insurance companies would be on the hook for that if they didn't settle when they could have within $73 million.
So every plaintiff's lawyer in the world saw that and was starting to smell blood in the water and money in their pocket.
And so that part of the suit, blaming Daniel Defense, I think it's called, for this criminal illegal use of the gun strikes me as nonsense unless they have a lot better evidence than they ever detail in the suit.
Their challenge is they claim they'll have evidence of direct negligent entrustment.
They probably won't.
They're also claiming it somehow violates the 10th Amendment and it's unconstitutional, this law.
I don't see how that applies.
But we'll see.
Maybe.
Now, what's interesting is a lot of liberals probably aren't paying attention to that aspect.
If it's the case that you cannot immunize a gun company...
Under federal law, because that preempts state law, state torts, unconstitutionally under the 10th Amendment.
Then you know who else wouldn't be immune?
I'd say certain drug companies better pay real close attention to this case.
Because I'm sure they're all cheering it on because they're all a bunch of quasi-commies anyway who want to take away gun rights.
But I won't mind terribly if the court says this is a 10th Amendment violation.
Because, by golly, you can expect some PrEP Act unconstitutionality changes will be coming very soon thereafter.
Robert, just for the Canadians out there, remind us of what the Tenth Amendment is.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So the Tenth Amendment is all rights not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved to either the states or the people.
So it applies in context where the federal government has gone beyond their constitutionally expressed powers.
And I'm curious to see that.
I'm sympathetic with aspects of the argument.
I'm not a fan of what it means is states should be passing their own to prohibit this targeting of the Second Amendment through lawfare, through selective lawfare.
States like Texas should already have similar laws on the books, frankly.
Now, I think the hard part for them is they're in the Western District of Texas.
I think it's the Del Rio or El Paso Division.
And that's the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where they're not going to have a lot of supporters sympathetic to the idea that the federal...
Gun liability law is unconstitutional.
However, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the argument, because I do think the idea of state torts and state courts should be the final resolver of these issues, more so than federal special immunity laws.
And I'm not a fan of any immunity law.
And so wouldn't mind if it got struck, but I'm sure there's a lot of liberal Democrats that haven't put one and one together to figure out who else would lose immunity.
If the 10th Amendment argument is upheld a year.
What was the rationale for that law in the first place?
I mean, nobody thinks you can sue- Federal protection of gun manufacturers who believe that the threat of litigation would preclude a critical industry from protecting constitutional liberty in America.
Okay, so the constitutional aspect to it is the critical factor.
Is the Second Amendment aspect, yeah.
That's interesting, because I'm thinking, like, why enact that for gun manufacturers?
Specifically, whereas you don't have to do that for car manufacturers because nobody's going to go sue Ford if someone uses their truck to ram into a crowd.
Not yet.
Well, I mean, that's where this would seem to be going, Robert.
I'm sure there's some plaintiff's lawyers in that.
I think that the Waukesha killer, the guy who ran through a parade, I think he went pro se this week.
That's not usually a good indicator of his acquittal rate.
But I'm sure there's people thinking, you know, some plaintiffs' lawyers are thinking, I wonder if I could sue the car manufacturer.
You know, so it's just the nature of where this is.
And there'll be continued lawfare waged against gun manufacturers until and unless the law changes in some places to make clear the Second Amendment requires certain protection for them.
And now in the lawsuit, in order to go after the gun manufacturer, Daniel Defense, they say, you know, they market it and seemingly market it indiscriminately.
It's the cinematic version of Runaway Jury.
Well, I would imagine, hypothetically, a gun manufacturer is so dumb that they do this.
Market it to criminals.
Say, look, it's so easy to conceal.
If you want to go rob a bank, this is your gun of choice.
That, I could imagine, would incur the liability of the gun manufacturer, but just generic advertising...
The exceptions were meant to be real direct.
In other words, you're deliberately delivering guns directly to gangs.
Things like that.
Not generic advertising, because that applies across the board.
So I think that's a reach where they're trying to go.
The exceptions to the law was meant to cover people that were deliberately, directly manufacturing for criminal use.
There's no evidence I saw in their complaint of that.
And because they're suing so many people on so many different bases, is this likely to face something of a...
I don't know what the word is.
A splitting of lawsuits?
Like, get some of the defendants in a separate lawsuit and then get the school and the cops?
They brought it all in one, so it'll be handled all in one.
I think the chances against some defendants are much better than others, but it'll depend on the judge they draw.
And it was the Del Rio division, Robert.
You were right about that.
So let's see.
Products liability failure to warn.
Products liability manufacturing defect.
I think that was the security aspect.
Some of the security at the school wasn't working.
They were leaving doors unlocked all the time.
And they knew that violated safety protocol.
And then they didn't go in immediately after they did the lockdown.
They just sat around.
Despite law requiring they immediately act.
That's who they should, in my view, focus on.
They're a plaintiff's firm, so they're looking for whoever's got a deep pocket to cash out.
But I think from a political perspective, they end up only aligning themselves with the left by adding in the gun manufacturer.
Yeah.
And Nighthawk28 with the $10 rumble rant says, if I get rear-ended, can I sue the car manufacturer for damage?
We're one step away.
So they're suing the school, the police, the security.
Gun manufacturers.
And it's a big suit.
All right.
To be continued with that.
And some people in the chat on Rumble, Robert, think or are implying that you might be pushing it with the analogy had the media done what they needed to do and ought to have done with...
Think of how big it would have been.
I think you're right.
I think you're a thousand percent right.
In other schools, even in Canada.
Where gun violence is not, school gun violence is not so much of the problem, but other types, they have metal bars on each door.
Bathroom doors, classroom doors.
They have security to get into the school.
Some schools even have security guards outside, and like, it goes without saying.
And so the idea that this, when people say they destroyed the school, and you had some people who I think might be...
Distracting the discussion, saying they tore the school down because it didn't exist or it wasn't an operational school.
No, that's the distraction.
They tore the school down so that people could not see or that we could not determine the absence of safety protocol that they ought to have implemented just as common sense.
And had that been scrutinized in Sandy Hook, maybe Uvalde has proper safety, security, locking mechanisms, individual locking mechanisms.
It would have gone global and viral.
The scandal would have been off the charts.
Every parent would have been calling up their school to see whether they made sure their doors could lock, what the school safety plan in place was.
None of that happened.
Now, what it would have also done?
Hard to blame the gun.
Blaming the gun would have faded because this is what would have dominated.
That's why they couldn't allow it to occur.
It's the other reason.
They had to cover up for the Democratic corrupt politicians and they had to keep the focus on the gun rather than on school safety.
And the other factor is, as you see these cases develop and the rest, what motivation is there to stop school shootings if someone's going to politically profit from them and lawyers are going to get rich off of them?
I mean, sadly, there's not a direct disincentive for them not to see it keep happening.
And maybe that's why they don't want school safety talked about in general, and definitely not as it related to San Diego.
I can't bring up the rumble rant, but Grunt167 says, Daniel Defense ARs are very Gucci guns, i.e.
expensive and well-made.
The fact that the shooter was able to afford two of them is glowy.
Let's set the second half of that aside.
Grunt, let me bring up the lawsuit because you make a decent point and they raise it in the lawsuit in terms of the suspicion of the company or the store that sold the guns to the kid.
Hold on a second.
Here, share.
Paragraph 68. Outback knew or should have known the gunman was suspicious and dangerous.
Oasis Outback's owner talked to the gunman and asked how he could afford $3,000 of guns and ammunition.
The owner noticed the gunman was always alone and quiet.
All warning signs of a mass shooter.
Conveniently, after the shooting, the store now claims the government did not seem suspicious.
But, I mean, you're supposed to be suspicious of a guy for having $3,000 being alone and being alone.
Well, it is.
But it does raise the...
I mean, I don't know how tightly knit the community is, how they know if this kid is an 18-year-old kid who comes in with $3,000 cash.
I could...
They go on in the suit to say he was dressed in black and, you know, other people said he was suspicious.
But, I mean, that's a...
I don't know.
It's highly subjective.
It's supposed to have objective data.
If he could lawfully purchase a gun, he could lawfully purchase a gun.
I am curious how he had the money for it.
But it's like, so now you're supposed to not sell the gun if you have any reason to be suspicious of the person?
I mean, they're trying to restrain gun ownership in America.
That's what they're trying to do.
And superimpose standards on it through selective lawfare.
And I think that's deeply problematic.
There's no evidence that they presented that anybody that sold them the gun...
Which is what negligent entrustment is supposed to be.
Knew that he would use it to kill innocent people.
There's just no evidence of that whatsoever.
It's a reach.
Somebody asked from our Locals live chat going on at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com Robert, why do we have to pay taxes for local police departments if they are not obligated to help us?
That used to be the legal standard.
The courts decided to carve it out because they love...
Covering up for their corrupt cops.
That's a good question.
Robert, one Rumble rant says, Facts matter.
Barnes, you're missing one hell of a Packers game.
We're 22,100 people watching on Rumble.
I think there might be more people watching this than the...
I'm joking.
I'm joking.
I'm sure there's plenty of people watching the Pats.
It's interesting that game is close.
I got some money on that game.
Who did you pick, Robert, if I may ask?
Say that.
What?
Who did you pick, if I may ask?
Patriots over to score more than 14 points, I think is my only bet in that game.
Some comments from locals.
It's sad that the Uvalde parents chose to sue the SUV, but not the police who diddled around for 77 minutes.
I think they are kind of suing.
They're suing who they think they can sue.
And they're focusing on the school district.
And they're suing the school district for some of the things the police did.
Because they're saying they're under their control, as I interpret it.
And it's because the state created danger doctrine.
They can't sue the police out of the blue because it's the lockdown that is the grounds by which they can sue.
And the police didn't create the lockdown.
The school district did.
That's why they're having to sue who they're suing.
It's because of the limits on our civil rights laws.
We discussed that.
We discussed that.
Oh, I don't know about China having police stations in Canada.
Do you see that story?
I saw that story, too, and I don't know enough about it.
I don't know what's meant by it.
When they say police stations, whether or not they mean, I don't know, do they have some office that's surveilling?
I don't know.
But I've heard the same story about the United States and Canada.
But I remember being very suspicious when I heard that Canada was training Chinese military for winter conditions.
That turned out to be true.
Some things turned out to be true over time.
The quarantine facilities, constructing new facilities turned out not to be true.
Like I said, you didn't need to construct new ones when you can convert empty hotels into it, but I've heard that story.
I don't know enough about it.
I think the only case we have left, aside from any rumble ramps, is Andrea Bocelli.
Well, hold on.
No, we got one before we get there.
I know nothing about that one.
The monster verdict, Robert.
Oh, yes.
This one is one where I don't understand how it came to be.
Monster, the energy drink, sued another energy drink company.
Big Bang or something?
Yes.
I don't know if it was Bang.
Oh, I don't know if it was Bang.
Another energy drink.
And won a $293 million judgment on verdict.
But I didn't understand what the cause of action was between Monster...
And this other energy company.
Now, apparently the energy company engaged in basically, I won't say fraudulent, but false advertising, saying they had some super creatine, water-soluble creatine compound in their drinks that made them the best drinks on earth.
I don't understand how Monster itself was entitled to any damages against this company unless they were arguing that they siphoned off their market through these unlawful, dishonest, fraudulent marketing.
You nailed it.
Okay.
293 million.
Sorry, go ahead.
Not bad.
Yeah, almost 300 million.
Monster verdict for Monster Energy Company.
I like the headline.
And I think there's still room for some punitive damages for the judge to decide whether or not.
Speaking of big verdicts, I don't know if we mentioned, do we mention the big COVID verdict?
I don't think we did.
No, I don't think so.
So a $48 million verdict against a COVID insurer refused to insure the Baylor Medical Center.
Concerning the lockdowns and related issues of COVID.
And I saw this argued extensively, mentioned it a couple of weeks ago in California.
California appellate courts are moving in this direction.
This was right before they screwed me on a case.
I had good arguments, and they'd already preordained that they were going to screw me.
Then they made me sit there for four hours and listen to all these other lawyers argue.
Then screwed me, like five minutes flat.
It was clear.
No cares.
Like, okay, whatever.
Just let me be off.
If you're going to screw me, just screw me without me having to waste four hours of my day.
The hour and a half taken to argue the COVID insurance policy was fun.
It was very interesting and educational and informative because it went through all these different issues.
But basically, lawyers have got smart.
They're labeling, they're saying anything that happened related to the pandemic, including governmental policies of lockdown, were because of the danger, the physical danger caused by the virus.
The argument is that the virus itself is physically inside the air supply so that it's no different from having being toxic gas in your facility, from having plumbing that doesn't work, from having water that doesn't work, from having any other air issue, like air conditioning not working.
They're saying that's physical.
And what it is is they tracked other cases in the past that looked at, oh yeah, toxic air problem, that's actual physical injury, the insurer has to cover it.
And so if the insurer did not have a special exemption, and they're also making the argument, there's insurance policies that have special exemptions for pandemics.
The fact that our insurance policy doesn't shows the insurance company knew they were covering a pandemic because they chose not to include that exemption in the policy.
So Baylor won, jury awarded almost $50 million, and insurers may increasingly find themselves on the hook.
And they may get whacked twice, whacked for the lockdown policies as courts start to shift resources and responsibility and outcome from individual businesses, too many of whom got hit, to the insurance providers, many of them Wall Street finance.
But of course, insurers are getting doubly whacked because the actuarial death rates for their death insurance policies have been spiking in ways that many tie, or unrumble, tie to the vaccine.
Not only that, worker disability claims are taking unusual double digit spikes that also appear to be correlated and caused by the vaccines.
▲
Export Selection