Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 16, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:08:59

Ep. 133: Jones Verdict; Pfizer Admission; Anti-Trust Law; Taylor Lorenz & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Rules of parking were not followed.
	People would park in any direction, would park on sidewalks, in a very pedestrian area.
	If you know the Byron Market, it's small businesses, storefronts.
	It's really clear where you're supposed to park and where is the pedestrian realm.
	So the surge of vehicles, pickups, is one of the aspects.
	And we saw that in different areas of my community.
	The Bikers Church in Vanier was one area, De La Salle High School was another one.
	Wait for the punchline.
	On Rideau Street and the Byron Market were other areas.
	Nicholas were others.
	So there's those incidents of people not following the rules of the road Parking.
	Parking rules.
	Pick up trucks, which is a different vehicle, which is a weapon in itself, but the weaponized description to me is really the rigs who take space on the street, the rules.
	Pick up trucks, which are a weapon in themselves.
	And you'll notice some interesting echoing of some of Justin Trudeau's prior rhetoric, taking up space, taking up place.
	Good evening, everybody.
	This is a highlight from day two of Canada's Emergencies Act inquiry, whatever they're calling it, the public inquiry.
	Into whether or not Justin Trudeau, not whether or not he should have invoked the Emergencies Act, just the legislative requirement that they explore for the sake of transparency, the circumstances surrounding Justin Trudeau's invocation of the nuclear weapon of Canadian legislation, the Emergencies Act, the substitute, the replacement for the War Measures Act.
	This is, what's his name, Mathieu Fleury.
	He's a city councillor for Ottawa.
	His testimony as to why it was necessary that Justin Trudeau invoke the nuclear option of Canadian legislation to suppress this protest as a national emergency, I didn't hear too good.
	What did you say, Mathieu?
	The rules of parking were not followed.
	I'm sorry, can you say that again?
	The rules of parking were not followed.
	One more time.
	The rules of parking were not followed.
	The rules of parking were not followed.
	There were pickup trucks parked everywhere.
	And pickup trucks are a weapon.
	Street and the Byron Market were other areas.
	Nicholas were others.
	So there's those incidents of people not following the rules of the road in pickup trucks, which is a different vehicle.
	Which is a weapon in itself.
	But the weaponized description to me is really the rigs who take space on the street.
	They take space.
	They take space.
	How ironic that this government official, city councilor, Mathieu Fleury, spouting off some of the very same rhetoric, referring to...
	The way Justin Trudeau referred to Canadians.
	It's ironic or it's trickle-down nastiness.
	But it is telling that this man refers to objects the way Justin Trudeau referred to Canadians.
	They take up space.
	They take up space.
	Should we tolerate these trucks parked on the sidewalk?
	Should we tolerate these Canadians?
	This witness on day two, Testified to the fact that cars were not legally parked.
	Bring in the military.
	By the way, I've got to show you this because the woman sitting next to him, Catherine McKinney, she's the other city councillor who testified the other day.
	She had some doozies of some testimony.
	Let's just get one of them.
	Oh, here we go.
	This is Catherine McKinney telling the other witness, Mathieu Fleury, to answer in French.
	Pretend you don't understand English now.
	And answer in French because you know the guy cross-examining you doesn't speak a lick of French.
	And he's going to have to have the headphones for the real-time translation.
	But let's just get one of the soundbites from Catherine McKinney.
	City Councillor for Somerset, Ontario.
	Elected official.
	And then we're going to get to the punchline.
	And in terms of any kind of threats to safety and ruling behaviour, was any of that type of personal safety issues reported to you?
	And or did you witness any of that yourself?
	Councillor McKinney?
	I didn't personally witness any acts of violence.
	I was...
	Scrap it.
	End it there.
	I didn't personally witness any, but I got a whole lot of secondhand hearsay.
	Oh, okay.
	This is funny.
	Someone said in the chat, who's the person passing out?
	Someone passed out allegedly skydiving and then wakes up.
	Anyhow, that's not what I wanted to show you.
	What I wanted to show you was...
	Catherine McKinney, city councillor, I guess I gave her too hard of a time by clipping her testimony and sharing it with more people than I guess she wanted people to see.
	Catherine McKinney, city councillor for Ottawa, blocked me on Twitter.
	There should be a rule that if you're an elected official, you can't block people, but it doesn't matter.
	I was sharing her testimony, not so that she would know that I was watching it.
	So that everybody out there who doesn't have an entire day to watch these hearings should hear them.
	And I guess Catherine McKinney, I didn't call her any names.
	I might have called her a liar.
	I think adults can deal with that.
	But she blocked me.
	Because I guess she did not like that big, shiny spotlight.
	To make everyone understand the absurdity of what we are currently witnessing.
	Good evening, everybody.
	Sunday night, I'm wearing a Salty Army shirt that he gave me.
	It's very, very comfortable.
	I have not yet had anyone on the street, you know, like, hey, Salty Army 2. It'll happen one day.
	David, why are you not testifying?
	I take for granted everybody watching tonight watched yesterday's stream, but maybe there's a lot of people who didn't.
	The public inquiry into the Emergencies Act, it's going on now.
	It's going to be six weeks of witness testimony.
	I don't know why I'm not testifying.
	I didn't sign up.
	I'm down in Florida now for at least a couple of years.
	I didn't sign up.
	I would.
	Happily testify.
	I'm trying to message a few people to see if I can go down there and testify because I'd have some stuff to say.
	But we'll see.
	I don't know if they have any of my documented footage lined up for witnesses, but we'll see if I can squeeze in and maybe fly down for a day or two and testify.
	But I just didn't think I'm afraid to testify.
	I hope that's a joke.
	Yeah, I'm afraid to testify.
	Yeah, that has to be a joke, so I'm not going to take it seriously.
	Good one.
	Yeah, I'm afraid to testify.
	I doxed myself for having donated $1,000 to the convoy before anybody doxed anybody.
	And if anybody thinks it's more dangerous to testify there than it is to share my mind day in and day out, like I've been doing for the last however long.
	You have to have a problematic assessment of risk and life.
	So we'll see.
	I've been down here and it hasn't been...
	Testify for what, Viva?
	They are having the Emergencies Act inquiry.
	And they're calling witnesses from the city, residents, from the convoy, yada, yada, yada, to see the circumstances surrounding Justin Trudeau invoking the emergency.
	I would...
	Love to testify.
	Oh, I would love to testify.
	And you know what the first thing I would say?
	You're all a bunch of pathological liars.
	Catherine McKinney, maybe that's why you blocked me, regurgitating misinformation about, oh my God, about the homeless shelter that had truckers come and demand meals and then racially insult security guards and assault homeless people.
	You know what?
	There's a reason, Catherine McKinney, why you admitted that, or no, sorry, it wasn't Catherine McKinney, it was Mathieu Fleury.
	That you hadn't seen any police reports?
	That you don't know if anybody filed the charge?
	That you don't know anything?
	Because it probably didn't happen.
	And then Catherine McKinney regurgitating that propaganda lie about Nazi flags all over.
	Oh, there were Nazi flags, swastikas, Confederate flags.
	You know that's a lie.
	All of you know that's a lie.
	There was, at best, one of each.
	There was one person with a swastika?
	And one person with a Confederate flag and the one with the swastika was told to leave and never came back.
	And there's still some dispute about what his message actually was.
	There are two diverging theories.
	One is that it was an absolute plant so they can get their photo op and they can then say this protest is filled with Nazis and swastika flags.
	That's one idea.
	The other is that...
	This guy was a bona fide Nazi and thought he would be welcome among the convoy protesters.
	The other theory, which is entirely legitimate and very plausible, is that this guy was carrying around a swastika flag to draw an analogy to the fact that this is how the Canadian government is acting.
	And then people told him, put it away.
	If that's your message, you're an idiot.
	And if it's not your message, you're an idiot.
	Pack up and leave.
	And I know the guy, personally, who told him to pack up and leave.
	He works for the PPC.
	I know the guy personally.
	I saw the video where he was saying, get out of here, put that flag away and leave.
	And that guy put the flag away and never came back.
	The Confederate flag?
	Oh yeah, because Canadians are all into the Confederacy.
	Idiots.
	And they regurgitate these two isolated incidents.
	In fact, they weren't even isolated.
	They were singular incidents.
	They repeat them and then add the word, there were...
	Flags.
	There were swastikas.
	There were Confederate flags.
	As if there was more than one, as if it was nothing more than a one-off idiot or a one-off idiot who didn't know how to make a message.
	But they come and they just, that's what they testify to.
	Oh, assaults.
	Protesters were getting in the face of residents saying, take those masks off.
	Lies.
	Lies, lies, damn lies.
	And I know why.
	I was there.
	People were wearing face masks so they wouldn't be recognized, so they wouldn't be outed, so they wouldn't get fired, lose their jobs, et cetera, et cetera.
	Nobody was shaming anyone for wearing a face mask.
	That, by the way, and it was minus 20. A lot of people wearing face masks just because it was damn cold.
	They're also known as neck warmers, scarves.
	But Catherine McKinney, Mathieu Fleury, good city councillor.
	Representatives spew the garbage, spew the lies, regurgitated over and over.
	Oh, we went for night walks, but we were scared.
	Oh, I wasn't scared in the protest.
	I was scared in the residential periphery when I would walk home alone at night.
	Yeah, you know why?
	Because all those homeless people and the drug addicts and the people that lurk around Byward Market and Wellington Street, the downtown core, they got displaced by the protesters and they were in the periphery.
	All of a sudden, people don't like...
	Homeless people hanging around when they're not isolated in one area that they don't have to frequent.
	But yeah, that's it.
	Lies.
	Lies and damn lies.
	Or as I like to call it now.
	Lies, lies and Emergencies Act inquiries.
	So yeah, I'd go down.
	We'll see if it happens.
	I don't know if it's too late.
	I suspect it's not.
	But who knows?
	Maybe I'm too much of a persona non grata to even get invited to there.
	But...
	Until Barnes gets in, there was one other video that I wanted to share with everyone.
	Not a man passing out as he skydives.
	I think that's fake.
	I think that video's fake, anyhow.
	But no, no, no.
	It's something that's far more preposterous.
	Absurd.
	Insane.
	Here we go.
	First of all, Brooklyn Defiant Dad.
	I know that it's a big account and whatever.
	What did he say?
	He shared this screen grab.
	Accurate and cosine.
	Let's read the meme, shall we?
	There's the old expression, the left can't meme.
	Oh, you guys see my messages?
	Well, that's embarrassing.
	It's a good thing I've got nothing to hide.
	Hold on one second.
	Let me close this down so you can see.
	Here, Nancy Pelosi.
	Wasn't hysterical or emotional.
	Sorry, I got distracted.
	Nancy Pelosi wasn't hysterical or emotional during January 6th.
	She was cool and collected, determined to save our democracy.
	No plates or ketchup hurled.
	I don't get that.
	Strong, wise women leaders.
	We need more of them in the U.S. Are y 'all familiar with the expression soft bigotry?
	Of low expectations.
	Well, we now have the soft...
	What's the word?
	Misogyny is the opposite.
	Soft misogyny of low expectations.
	We look at...
	Some people, some people, I say we as in the individual who drafted this.
	Some people look at a woman and the first thing that comes to their mind is they're hysterical and they're emotional.
	And when they're not, we should compliment them for not being.
	Our regressive stereotypes of what we think a woman is.
	Nancy Pelosi wasn't hysterical or emotional.
	I got to tell you something.
	When I look at a woman or a political leader or anybody, I don't reflexively think that they must be hysterical or emotional because they're women.
	In fact, I don't even think that.
	I've seen men behave hysterically and emotionally.
	I think that someone is hysterical and emotional.
	When, regardless of sex, gender, creed, race, or religion, they behave in a hysterical or emotional manner.
	And I don't think that that's gender-specific or even gender-predominant.
	But apparently some people look at Nancy and they say, she's a woman, she must be hysterical and emotional.
	And therefore, when she doesn't act in a hysterical and emotional manner, I should compliment the woman for not being what I think the woman is.
	I think women are hysterical and emotional.
	And when they don't behave that way, I give them up.
	The man's clap.
	So, you know, funny, a man complimenting a woman for not being hysterical or emotional, why would anyone even have those thoughts of a woman in the first place, then feel the need to praise the woman for not succumbing to these traits?
	Damn typo.
	If they were not, in fact, a closet misogynist.
	But, but, but, but, what do we hear here?
	She said she was calm, she was cool and collected.
	Determined to save our democracy.
	No plates or ketchup hurled.
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	She was only talking about physically assaulting.
	Physically assaulting the President of the United States.
	Don't trust me.
	Trust Fancy Nancy.
	I'm going to punch him out.
	I'm waiting for this.
	For trespassing on the Capitol ground.
	I'm going to punch him out and I'm going to go to jail and I'm going to be happy.
	I don't know when this is from.
	Oh, this is from the January 6th hearings.
	It doesn't even matter when this is from.
	That's a calm, cool, and collected individual.
	I mean, she's definitely not hysterical or emotional.
	She's just rapidly violent and insane.
	And proud of it.
	I'm gonna punch him out.
	This is what I'm gonna do.
	I'm gonna fight.
	I'm waiting for this, for trespassing on the Capitol Hill.
	I'm gonna punch him out and I'm gonna go to jail, and I'm gonna be happy.
	It's amazing.
	It's like, let me at him!
	It's the drunken bar fight where the guy's like, hold it!
	The little skinny dweeb's like, let me at him!
	I'll beat that guy up if you just let me go and fight him.
	Oh my goodness.
	Yeah, but she's definitely not emotional or hysterical.
	Just a raging, a seemingly inebriated psychopath.
	Yep.
	Violent and proud of it.
	But yeah, she's calm, cool, and collected.
	No catch-up hurl.
	Just threats of physical assault and proud to go to jail because of it.
	All right.
	We've got a good show tonight.
	There's...
	I don't know.
	We'll see what Barnes brings by way of white pill because some of the decisions out there, they're not the white pills.
	But before we get started, we are going to move it over to Rumble sooner than later.
	I'm going to bring up a super chat or two or three, which are flagged in the background.
	Section 230 is unconstitutional, thus all platforms will...
	Hold on.
	Section 230 is unconstitutional, thus all platforms will kill Alex Jones, David Freight, and Robert Barnes because they will be liable.
	Stephen, I have no idea what you mean, but is that a threat?
	I think you mean kill the channels.
	Section 230 is unconstitutional, thus all platforms will kill Alex Jones, David Freight, and Robert Barnes because they will be liable.
	Thank you for the super chat.
	There were two more in the house.
	Ian Hall, gotta say, Viva, your pronunciation makes me wonder if I've had too much to drink or if you are really saying certain words certain ways.
	Probably both.
	Keep up the good work.
	Ian Hall, thank you very much.
	Let's do this.
	And...
	Okay, we got that one also.
	So, Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of all the Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, and I can understand some people don't.
	Rumble, where we are currently streaming.
	To a crowd of, let's see here, 7,721.
	Two to one.
	Fantastic.
	We'll be moving it over there sooner than later.
	On the menu tonight, let me just get back to my screen here.
	On the menu tonight, lots.
	When I say that there's black pills, John Stossel was suing Facebook and his third farty pack checker there for defamation because they said, Stossel was factually incorrect.
	Flagged his content, suppressed his content, redirected traffic to their own websites.
	The decision came down and dismissed, on a motion to dismiss and an anti-slap, Stossel's decision.
	And we're going to talk about the Alex Jones decision.
	Just a cool $1 billion to 16 plaintiffs.
	Where's the list?
	Let me get the list.
	I see Barnes is in the house.
	Okay, and he's got a shirt on, which I'm going to ask what it means.
	Here we go.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Well, I don't give a damn about the whole state of Alabama.
	Whole state of Alabama.
	Whole state of Alabama.
	Because I'm from Tennessee.
	Great win this week by the Tennessee Volunteers.
	Upsetting.
	One of the greatest games ever in the history of college football.
	52-49.
	Go Vols.
	I got my celebratory cigar ready.
	Robert, may I ask an obvious question?
	Did you have anything riding on that game?
	Actually, I had to bet on Alabama.
	That's what you call an emotional check bet.
	Right?
	So you bet on the other side so that if you have a disappointing outcome, at least you make money.
	And if you lose the money, you don't care because you care far more about the win.
	Here we go.
	I'll bring up one super chat before we get started here.
	Mr. Barnes, can you get Cal Rittenhouse lawyers to use the Alice Jones rule in his suits?
	The news media will not give everything he needs to put the news...
	The news media will not give everything he needs to put on his case, so by this rule, he can get a default judgment.
	Well, Robert, the problem is this.
	There's the Alex Jones rule, and now there's the new John Stossel rule, which was the Candace Owens rule.
	There's two sets of rules here.
	We're going to have to get to them in a bit.
	Okay, Robert, what's the book behind you?
	Because it looks like it's about international...
	Oh, it's the book we are reviewing this month at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	The Emerging Republican Majority.
	We are through the Northeast and the South.
	We're going to cover the Midwest and the West before Election Day.
	And I'll wrap up.
	It's a great book by Kevin Phillips.
	He wrote the text for it back in the mid-1960s when everybody thought his theories and premises were nuts, by the way.
	They thought there was a liberal democratic order coming in that was going to dominate.
	The end of history in Fukuyami's terms.
	And he was saying, nah, the world's actually about to go in a completely different political direction.
	His predictions ended up deeply accurate.
	Brilliant analyst of widespread trends about the role of ancestry and religion and ethnic background and the role of...
	Sometimes I'll get these people that will yip away about, oh, Barnard doesn't want to talk about the whites.
	It's all about the whites.
	It's somebody that's race-obsessed.
	And I was like, well, that's an idiot, because if you think the Yankees and the Italians vote alike in Connecticut, you don't know nothing about American politics.
	So it's a great book about tiny little differences, differences between where German immigrants came from.
	They come from the Catholic section, the Protestant section, the East, the South, or the West.
	All will have voting differences that will actually show up on Election Day, November 8th.
	And Robert, I'm going to go to our list, but we've got a ton of stuff on the menu tonight.
	Oh yeah, we've got the Alex Jones trial.
	That outrageous verdict.
	We got the Nikola CEO who's going down to the Hooskow.
	We got a free speech win on college campuses, a good one for Young Americans for Freedom.
	We got a city that's suing Peru and the international court about whether or not they've deliberately allowed toxic minerals, toxicity in their environment.
	Steve Wynn wins a big case against the Biden administration.
	The Robin Hood class action that we said would survive and that a bunch of naysayers on law Twitter said will go nowhere.
	We'll have a little update on that.
	We got SeaWorld, which decided to hire actual criminals to scare people for their Halloween exhibit, and it went a little too far.
	We have a big, big dormant commerce clause case that has broad-scale potential influence, and if the oral argument is any indicator, the Supreme Court might try to punt instead of rule.
	We got Andy Warhol up at the Supreme Court.
	We got Amazon, apparently likes to sell your kids suicide kits and knows about it, according to allegations filed against them.
	That's the most...
	I'm up to speed on about half of these.
	That Amazon...
	Is it Amazon?
	Yeah, it's Amazon.
	It's the most shocking thing ever.
	And I don't think I'm sensitive.
	I think it's shocking.
	Oh, no doubt.
	We got a new antitrust law that might pass the Senate.
	We have Pfizer making certain admissions about their vaccines that seem to suggest they've been engaged in false advertising here in the United States.
	To the detriment and maybe the death of millions of people around the globe.
	Taylor Lorenz, amended complaint filed against her by Adriana Jacob by Harmeet Dillon, which I think has an above-average chance should survive if the court sticks to its original ruling.
	We have courts deciding they're going to start getting rid of legislators they don't like by misusing and abusing the 14th Amendment clause.
	We have a judge who decided he was going to jail a juror over not wearing a mask.
	We have Trump's notorious response to the January 6th attempt to committee to subpoena him.
	We have a great court ruling identified by Glenn Reynolds, the great Glenn Reynolds, who was out of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that says, no, the government cannot steal your house for a tax debt.
	What the states were doing was, you know, let's say you owe 10 grand.
	And they would take your $300,000 house and take all of it and give none of it to you by declaring you forfeited your interest in the property by owing tax.
	Ah, no, that's an illegal taking, unconstitutional taking.
	And of course, we have the John Stossel case as well.
	So we'll start with the Alex Jones just because it's the news of the week.
	The trial went exactly the way everyone, I guess, wanted it to.
	But Robert...
	Everybody knows what happened.
	$965 million in damages.
	Just to begin with, they're going to add more.
	It's going to be about $1.5 billion when they're done.
	Yeah, I think...
	Oh, Pat has said it's going to be maybe $2 to $2.5 billion because they're going to have punitive legal fees, etc.
	Biggest award was $120 million to Robbie Parker, $90 million to the FBI agent who had no family members get killed in the incident.
	The worst that was said about him was that he was an actor, that he might not have been an FBI agent, he didn't wear the right bat, whatever.
	Harassment associated with that, 90 million, and it goes down to 2.8 million.
	Some are saying the trial went exactly the way the judge wanted it.
	Others are saying the judge has to be a plant, has to be there for Alex Jones, because this is so absurd, it's so preposterous, it cannot but get overturned on appeal.
	Robert, I mean, the triple fakey false flag one thing.
	This is over the top, is it not, or is it?
	I mean, it's utterly absurd.
	It's utterly absurd.
	It is the biggest verdict in the history of libel lawsuits by a ratio of about 100x.
	So it's about 100 times bigger than any kind of verdict like this ever.
	And again, most of the people who recovered damages, all but one, I believe, that recovered damages in this case, Alex Jones never talked about ever, including the FBI guy who didn't lose anybody at Sandy Hooks, who admitted on the stand, we covered it live.
	Admitted on the stand that he had never seen Alex Jones identify him by photo, by image, by name, nothing.
	And yet he's allowed $90 million!
	I think the worst thing that the FBI agents testified to and admitted to was that the harassment actually started even before Alex Jones covered the story.
	Completely.
	And that the FBI investigated it and decided there were no criminal charges to be brought.
	Which has to raise a question about exactly how...
	How accurate he was in that information relay.
	If people were really harassing an FBI agent to the degree of death threats, things like that, that's a crime.
	They would have been investigated.
	They were investigated, apparently.
	And they would have been prosecuted.
	They weren't.
	Would suggest that something wasn't quite up.
	So it's a laughably absurd verdict.
	It's the clown verdict to a clown trial.
	And it should surprise no one, given what a complete crock that trial was.
	The only kind of person it could shock.
	Or not shock.
	Is, say, someone who purports to be an independent, big trial, free speech advocate on YouTube and is like, I'm not sure if it's a billion dollars.
	I'm not sure.
	I'm not sure.
	People had raised questions, including on our locals board, why I was particularly critical of certain law tubers who chose not to cover this trial and also showed in their other behavior that they're not reliable, not trustworthy people.
	My view is that if you're going to be an independent commentator, your only utility is to actually be independent.
	If you're going to be a free speech advocate and a big trial covered person, you can't ignore the Alex Jones trial and use willful blindness as your excuse for, I'm not sure if a billion dollars is too much or not.
	That's the kind of person that's like, should I be loyal to someone who gave me my whole channel or not?
	And so those kind of people, by just random tidbit.
	Don't complain about people asking about who your husband works for if you say that because you're a military spouse, we can't question your commitment to free speech.
	Also, don't complain about people asking for photos if you've got four photos behind you in the video.
	I'll tell you one thing.
	Set aside the YouTube drama, Robert.
	I think everybody...
	Set aside the YouTube drama.
	There were a lot of people who were not following it and equivocating and also just...
	If you didn't follow it, it would have been a weird thing.
	But then to express an opinion is problematic.
	It's when people should say, I didn't follow it, no opinion whatsoever.
	I wonder if David French followed it, because he had some strong opinions.
	This is what happens when you defame people, yada yada.
	Totally bypassing the fact that there was no trial on the merits.
	And the trial on the quantum, to say Jones had two hands tied behind his back, would be an understatement of the millennia.
	This is the issue that also people don't really understand.
	It's 965 million compensatory damages.
	Not punitive.
	I don't know what other types of damages there could be, but not punitive.
	Connecticut law, there's no...
	They had no emotional expert that I know of to testify to any emotional damages.
	They had no reputational damages from an expert that I saw.
	In many states, you wouldn't even be allowed to argue emotional distress if you don't have emotional expert proof.
	And so everything about it was absurd.
	And so my reason for calling out certain commentators who have failed to cover this case is, like legal bites, completely failed to cover this case in a meaningful way.
	Don't pretend you're a free speech advocate because you're not.
	I call her out to call everybody else out that is taking a neutral, Pontius Pilate-type position on this.
	You cannot claim to be a free speech advocate and say this verdict is okay.
	You just can't.
	That there's no honest, credible coverage of this case or review of this case.
	The verdict itself should scream that out to you.
	That this is a core attack on free speech in America.
	We can write billion-dollar checks to people based on speech offending them.
	I mean, that's what Alex Jones is being held responsible for.
	There's no evidence that Alex Jones stalked anybody, harassed anybody, toxed anybody.
	None of that.
	The only evidence was Alex Jones spoke out.
	And because of his speech, we're blaming him for everything else that happened.
	But let's be clear, they're blaming him for his speech.
	And it's not a traditional defamation claim at all.
	It doesn't fit the constitutional defamation at all.
	So to transition into what appeal rights he has, so his appeal for the first and core appeal is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
	State courts cannot weaponize state tort law to punish speech.
	This was the point of New York Times versus Sullivan in its successor cases, including Westboro Baptist.
	That's been clear over and over again.
	So it doesn't matter how you denominate it.
	Much of the damages, contrary to David French's position, was not actually defamation.
	It was consumer product damages, even though they weren't alleging any injury from the consumer product.
	I mean, that's how nuts.
	They're trying to take all these other areas of law and find new creative ways.
	To punish dissonant speech.
	And to be clear, the legal theory they had in this case is that if a major incident occurs, that there's now a legally protected safe space, that you cannot comment on that topic if it will upset and offend anybody within that zone of danger, within that legally protected safe space.
	Even if you never talk about them.
	Doesn't matter if you talk about them.
	The constitutional requirement of colloquium is the second thing that's violated.
	So the first constitutional violation is they're simply punishing speech using state tort power, which they legally cannot do.
	Secondly, to be outside of that, it has to be a classic case of defamation, and that requires that there be a factually false statement about a specifically identified individual that then causes reputational injury.
	That wasn't met here.
	And they ignored that.
	And the courts have been clear they're ignoring that.
	They're rewriting the law to say that the constitutional requirement of colloquium is what it's called.
	People can go back and read the New York Times versus Sullivan case.
	The second part, everybody talks about the actual malice standard.
	That's only part one of that case.
	Part two of that case is they said, constitutionally, there's a requirement of colloquium, which means the statement has to be about that person specifically.
	So they said in that case, it was clear that that individual was within a zone of danger, within a legally protected space, because the statements were made about the police hierarchy, and he was only one of a few, a small group of people that was within that police hierarchy.
	But Supreme Court said, nope, that's not enough.
	You have to specifically identify the individual.
	Now, you can identify an individual by pointing out their photo.
	You can identify an individual if they're in such a small group.
	That there's no doubt it's about that person.
	So let me give an example.
	Let's say somebody says, LawTube is filled with a bunch of loser grifters that don't know anything, etc.
	Can Viva sue?
	No, there's too many LawTubers.
	But what if they said, Viva and Barnes are a bunch of, are lied about, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Well, then either one of us can sue because that's a specifically small enough group, right?
	Or the five people on the Rakeda channel on Day X did something false.
	Well, that's a small enough group.
	The old case is New York.
	The case came out of New York.
	Two different lies were told about Macy's employees.
	One lie was about a group of Macy's employees that only had less than 25 workers in it.
	The other part had a department that had more than 100.
	The court said, more than 100?
	No way you can sue.
	Less than 20?
	Okay, we can see that.
	Problem here is the number of people within the legally protected Sandy Hook safe space, again, including FBI agents, was thousands of people.
	Because they claim that you didn't have to be someone who died.
	You just had to know someone who died.
	You didn't even have to know someone who died.
	You just had to have some connection to it.
	Just be an agent there, investigate it, talk about it.
	Well, that's thousands and thousands of people.
	That has never been allowed in the history of libel law because it violates the constitutional requirement of colloquium.
	So that's his second grounds to object to all of this.
	The other grounds include...
	Complete denial of his right to trial by jury, misuse of what's called the death penalty default judgment, which stripped him of his right to trial by jury, and due process of law.
	Then you have violations of misapplying the consumer product statute to something that doesn't concern consumer products.
	Then you have all of the evidentiary violations that occurred in this case.
	As Norm Pattis said, in studying all the cases he's studied, in being part of all the cases he's been part of, no case in Connecticut has ever done what this court did, at any level.
	And this included ridiculous interpretations of the rules of evidence.
	And that's why I call out, if you're going to purport to be an independent legal commentator defending free speech, you lose all credibility with me when you don't cover the Alex Jones trial.
	You lose what a little tiny bit might be left when you're not sure if a billion-dollar verdict is absurd.
	I don't take any legal commentator anywhere seriously that thinks a billion-dollar verdict is just fine or is not sure if it's bad.
	It's laughably absurd and everybody knows it.
	People have to appreciate it's compensatory damages, so they had to show the damages for which they're being compensated, $90 million for the FBI agent.
	We have no expert about emotional harm, no expert about reputational harm.
	I mean, it's unheard of.
	This is utterly unheard of, utterly unprecedented.
	You won't find another verdict like this anywhere in the history of the world.
	It's 100 times larger, the average.
	I can tell you from focus groups and jurors, it's about 100,000 times larger.
	Then the average jury verdict was given when they heard both sides.
	So that's why they had to rig this trial.
	This was a show trial.
	It was with a clown judge, which resulted in a clown verdict.
	And it's a disgrace to the rule of law.
	But here's the hurdle.
	All the law is on Alex Jones' side, but few of the judges are.
	So unless a lot of noise is raised in the court of public opinion...
	The Connecticut Court of Appeals, the Connecticut Supreme Court, the Austin Court of Appeals will do nothing about this.
	They've already eviscerated his rights in prior cases.
	They've created, like everybody said, hey, can't we use the Alex Jones precedent to go after all these other people?
	I guarantee you they'll suddenly rediscover the law.
	This will all be Alex Jones exceptions to the rules of evidence, to the rules of due process, to the rule of trial by jury, to the right of freedom of speech.
	And if anybody had any doubt what the purpose of this, and remember folks out there, over 90% of the people Who suffered a traumatic loss at Sandy Hook have never blamed Alex Jones, have never sued Alex Jones, never sued the gun company.
	This is a tiny, politically active group.
	And if you had any doubt about that, and by the way, Norm Pattis was denied the right to cross-examine them on this political bias.
	Wasn't even allowed to say the words Hillary Clinton in trial when she was the reason for this whole lawfare being instigated and initiated and originated in the first place.
	But if you had any doubt about it, just like the plaintiff's lawyer in Texas, Plaintiff's lawyer walks out, and is he looking at collecting money?
	No.
	He says, hey, everybody out there, stop supporting Alex Jones.
	Don't give any more money to Infowars.
	Don't give any money to Alex Jones.
	Now, why would you do that if your point was to recover for real damages of your clients?
	Never seen a plaintiff's lawyer do that in my life.
	Why?
	Because this whole case was about suppressing, silencing, censoring, shaming an independent, populist, dissident voice that they hate.
	Okay, the grounds of appeal.
	Let's just say, as far as the colloquium, we don't know who was being referred to in the statements.
	If I put them on a hierarchy, I would put that one a little lower because there are only so many parents of Sandy Hook.
	It's true now to the extent that- But they didn't limit it, right?
	Then the FBI guy's got to be- Well, now that's where they open it.
	Do you include the siblings or not?
	The issue is, there's no doubt.
	There's no dispute factually.
	That he didn't identify almost any of these people.
	With the exception of Robbie Parker, who got the biggest award of $120 million.
	Correct.
	And only in one context, because they're suing him for a bunch of other statements.
	99% of his statements didn't concern Robbie Parker.
	And then in the Texas case, he never referred to either one of those.
	So historically, it's been, if you don't refer to them, they have to be of such a small group.
	The parents don't even count.
	Because the limit has usually been 20 to 25. And here's the way to think of it.
	The idea is that their reference is so obvious to that person, even because they're of such a small group, that everybody knows who you're talking about.
	The problem here is they didn't even know who these parents were.
	They didn't even know who these people were.
	The excuse of the Texas Court of Appeals was, in Austin, was, well, maybe they could find him on the internet.
	It's like, hold on a second, that's never been our standard, that you can look up and research and independently investigate who the statement might possibly refer to?
	That's never been the claim.
	So the constitutional requirement of colloquium is its strongest argument, because it's a federal issue, it's a constitutional issue, it's an issue that the U.S. Supreme Court can get involved in.
	A lot of the other claims are specific to Texas or Connecticut law.
	My issue, Robert, with the colloquium, Is that that, as a matter of fact, will be relatively easy for them to say, well, there were only 20-some-odd victims.
	Therefore, when he says they were crisis actors, he can only be referring to the parents of 20-some-odd people.
	And that's well over the 25 max, historically.
	The parents are well over the 25 max.
	That's the issue.
	And so that's why they knew from day one they had a major hurdle.
	That how do you sue for defamation when you're not referenced and when you're part of a group that's too big historically?
	So I'll give you an example.
	I had a sufficiently small number of Covington kids that were specifically identified by photo.
	Could I have sued for all 80 Covington kids that were there that day?
	No.
	And everybody agreed no.
	It was only the people that were identified by image.
	Remember the Kentucky Fried Chicken case?
	There are only like 25, 30 Kentucky Fried Chickens they could have been referring to.
	But that 25 has been the cap, and often they've gone below that.
	And the reason they've gone below that is it's got to be obvious the group is so small that you can't help but think, oh, that's a reference to that person.
	And the problem is that that just wasn't there because not only that, these people weren't publicly known or identified as well.
	So, you know, if you put them up by photo, if you other way, then there's a different argument.
	But the that wasn't the case here.
	And then that was the problem.
	So you have the Robbie Parker case, which could be separated out.
	But then it should be only that statement about Robbie Parker, not all the statements that are just about Sandy Hook in general.
	And none of it justifies compensatory damages.
	This makes our American civil court system look like a joke.
	The one thing is a billion dollars, yeah, divided among 16 plaintiffs.
	Okay, so it's only $120 million for defamation and intention.
	IIED.
	Still preposterous.
	Robert, what I love also, though, is the people out there who are clamoring.
	Stephen Goldstein.
	Jones would not provide discovery, yada, yada.
	David and Robert are in the same boat.
	They will not follow discovery.
	Well, Stephen, following your last thread of a message, I hope you have a billion dollars.
	Unless you think that some people get to say whatever they want and others don't.
	Anybody who watched the trial could see that the default death penalty sanction was ludicrous.
	Because the plaintiffs had all the evidence they ever needed.
	In fact, they had more evidence.
	And I'll say this again.
	Alex Jones produced more discovery than any media defendant in the history of libel law.
	Someone's going to find an analogous case where somebody was issued a death penalty to false judgment.
	I've challenged lawyers to do it.
	They haven't been able to find one in the history of America.
	Well, that part, I don't think it's a matter of fact.
	If anybody finds a decision where a media defendant was death-penaltyed...
	A default verdict for not turning over discovery documents, fine.
	Robert, what people will say, and it's the rebuttal, you could turn over 10,000 documents.
	If you don't turn over one, and it's the critical one, I still don't think...
	That's never grounds for default.
	It's not a ground for the court to strip you of your right to trial by jury.
	They have to find extraordinary claims.
	It has to be, default death penalty sanction is considered for people who are not participating in the proceedings, number one.
	So, clearly that didn't apply here.
	Alex Jones sat for hours and hours and hours and hours.
	It is true that they deposed him even after the default verdict?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Multiple times.
	I mean, so it was just absurd.
	So that's part one.
	Part two is there has to be a strict connection and no lesser remedy.
	There was no strict connection.
	What was it they didn't have?
	They didn't identify anything at trial they didn't have.
	They knew how much money he made or how much gross revenue came into Infowars by date and time.
	By date and time.
	So what they did is, for those that don't know, how they got to default judgment was, give us the evidence that you're guilty.
	No, I'm not guilty.
	I'm innocent.
	Aha!
	You have denied us the evidence that you're guilty.
	We hereby declare you guilty by default.
	That's what happened.
	That's what was always going to happen because their fake case.
	Supposedly about fake news was in fact a fake case.
	They were blaming Alex Jones for things he was not responsible or accountable for.
	And the goal is to weaponize the legal system to suppress, censor, independent, dissonant speech.
	And they will never apply this Alex Jones precedent to anybody on their side of the political aisle ever.
	But they may apply it to others on the Alex Jones side.
	And I think the other disturbing thing about this, Martyrmaid made this point on Twitter.
	And I increasingly agree.
	This idolatry of victimhood that this case also celebrated, which was, hey, I suffer a terrible tragedy.
	Now I get to tell you what you can do.
	Now I get to line my pockets with your money.
	I'm morally superior now.
	You can't question my case.
	You can't question my judgment.
	You can't question my action.
	I'm the king victim.
	This is a dangerous ideology, a dangerous idolatry that undermines society's core values, and we should reject it outright.
	Just reading some of the chat.
	Now, Robert, okay, so setting aside the legal standard of appeal on that one question, colloquium.
	Eighth Amendment violations?
	Is that even conceivable in this context?
	It wasn't technically a fine.
	It was a civil judgment.
	So it's still more of a First Amendment issue.
	It's the misapplication of these laws to reach speech that violate the First Amendment.
	So the first one is colloquium.
	The second one is a broad category that this is the state courts weaponizing state torts to punish speech in violation of the First Amendment in a way that is not carved out, that there's no exception to.
	And so that's the big constitutional claims.
	There is also the right to trial by jury and the right to due process of law.
	Is that not the strongest grounds for appeal?
	Like, one of the reasons, at least in Quebec, you know, judges don't like dismissing cases until they go to the merits is it makes it so much easier to appeal.
	They say, I never even got to a hearing on the merits.
	This judge default verdict and stripped.
	Is that not the strongest grounds for appeal?
	Like, they would have to show...
	Because it requires a deep dive factually, it tends to be a less appealing appellate issue.
	So the misuse and abuse of default power is a major problem here, but the courts are less likely to jump in as they are on the First Amendment issue.
	Because the size and scale of the verdict is embarrassing to the judiciary.
	Because this makes it look like our American legal system is a complete crock.
	Nobody thinks anybody suffered $100 million in damages because of what Alex Jones said.
	That requires ludicrous logic.
	And to give an idea, less than 1 out of 10,000 jurors were of that inclination.
	They managed to stack and rig the case in such a way that they could induce that outcome.
	So I think those aspects...
	Are the real constitutionally attractive issues for the courts to be concerned about?
	What are the limits?
	Because there are no limits put here.
	And our traditional constitutional limits were eviscerated.
	Federal constitutional issues of trial by jury and due process of law.
	Also, state constitutional issues of trial by jury and a range of other issues.
	The statute of limitations was not enforced here.
	That's both a due process issue and a statutory issue.
	And then there's all the violations of the rules of evidence, a range of violations on jury instructions.
	If there was a rule to be violated, the judges in these cases violated them.
	They were obsessed with a symbolic, shambolic verdict against Alex Jones that would scare and terrorize his supporters from ever supporting him again.
	That's what the case was about.
	It was open and overt.
	It was not really about compensation.
	In his opening statement, the plaintiff's lawyer made clear what he was there for.
	Give a big enough verdict so that Alex Jones can never be on the air again.
	That was the goal.
	People are asking this, is Alex going to be able to survive this?
	Will it deter people from...
	The thing is, The money that he makes, it's not from super chats.
	I guess it's not so much from donations.
	So it's not like people are going to say, I'm going to stop donating because that's not primarily where it comes from.
	Product sales and whatever.
	And people are still going to buy it because they're still going to get a product for it.
	Have you noticed any deterrence on a fan base to say, any money we give him is now going to go to pay these families, so let's stop supporting Alex to some extent?
	Yeah, he's fought back against that directly because any money that comes into Infowars just keeps Infowars on the air.
	If there's any excess profits, then the families can profit from that excess profits.
	But there hasn't been a lot of excess profits.
	So his goal is just to keep Infowars on the air any way, shape, or form while he fights this through the appellate courts and the court of public opinion.
	And I think they were hopeful the verdict would be so big.
	That it would shut down InfoWars.
	That's not going to happen.
	In fact, the irony is this.
	Jones would have retired several years ago, but for this case.
	He was kind of exhausted.
	He'd done a lot of work over a quarter century, achieved a lot, and he was ready to just say, hey, I've done great work.
	Good luck, everybody.
	But because they tried to silence him, because they tried to censor him, because they tried to shame his audience for supporting him, Is why now he'll never go away.
	And they're right.
	At the end of the day, Alex Jones is uncancellable, and they'll discover that the hard way.
	Let's see this here.
	It's those colonial silver junkies supporting him.
	By the way, great stuff to keep you not safe.
	No medical advice!
	Silver has been around for centuries as something that's good for you.
	Yes, but Robert, you eat off silverware, you don't eat silverware.
	There's no medical advice here.
	But hold on, I had one more question about Alex Jones.
	So compensatory damages, no limits.
	Not that it makes a difference on this amount.
	Is there a cap on punitive damages under Connecticut, like it's a factor of the compensatory damages?
	There is in certain cases.
	There is not in this bogus consumer fraud case they brought.
	So we'll see how much of a joke the judge is.
	She issued some ludicrous punitive damages award to show how much she was in on this fraud on the American people.
	But I think a lot of people...
	Thought maybe I was exaggerating or overstating the case.
	Now they realize I was, if anything, understating the case.
	That this case is a direct threat on free speech, a direct threat on dissident opinion, the continued weaponization of our legal system to suppress and oppress voices.
	It's not new.
	During the civil rights era, American courts in the South did everything they could to shut up the civil rights movement.
	That was why New York Times v.
	Sullivan went up.
	They went after Westboro Baptist because they didn't like their opinions.
	They got a crazy $77 million verdict that got the Supreme Court's attention to being like, uh-uh, no more of this.
	So the size and scale and scope of the verdict is such a big warning sign.
	You saw people like MIA and others be like, hold on a second.
	This seems a little nuts.
	Not that I'm not citing people on the left as authority.
	I'm just citing people who are on the far left, Vaush.
	Laughing his ass off.
	It's hilarious.
	In the insanity of a $1 billion judgment, even if it's divided among 16 plaintiffs, everybody knows that it's absurd.
	It's just that some people who are present in the chat love this injustice so they can use it to threaten other people to shut them up.
	I hope you have a billion.
	That's the new standard.
	$120 million.
	Anybody want to question or ask questions about the Armenian genesis?
	$100 million.
	Something that is...
	It hurts people's feelings who have suffered from a tragedy.
	100 million.
	That's the new standard.
	And people love it because they think that the rules are only going to apply to them to punish their ideological adversaries.
	And they can continue calling Trump a Nazi, a rapist, and whatever.
	And that's it.
	That's how it's going to work.
	Anything else on Alex Jones before we mosey on over people to the Rumble side?
	Yeah, no, because that's probably good to transition to Rumble.
	The only people that are responsible for billions of dollars of damages is a certain drug company promoting a certain product.
	Well, that wasn't the segue I was going to go for, but that's a good one.
	Everybody, hold on.
	Did I miss a few super chats?
	This is what happened to Remington default judgment, which is why they settled their suit.
	I don't know.
	I still don't understand why the insurance companies agree to pay the maximum as opposed to litigating for potentially less.
	Razorfist released a rant defending Alex Jones.
	He says that this will be used to go against opposing voices.
	Obviously.
	They're doing it already on social media.
	It's become a meme.
	I hope you have a billion dollars to say something like that.
	There has to be a way to sanction the judge.
	She has to face some consequences.
	Some way has to be found.
	She can only be impeached, Robert.
	That's the...
	That's the only...
	Oh yeah, Connecticut's a corrupt state, so don't expect anything there.
	Razor Fist gave a righteous rant.
	He mentioned that topic briefly as part of it too, by the way.
	Alright, now we're going to remove it from YouTube.
	Bring it over to the Rumbles.
	And I'll post the entire stream tomorrow on YouTube.
	I'm one day behind, so I've got to post yesterday's stream, today after this.
	Removing.
	Three, two, one.
	And now we're on Rumble.
	So while people start to trickle in...
	Robert, before we get to the companies that have been making billions, putting out false...
	Okay, let's do it first, Robert.
	No, no, no, no.
	Let's do Stossel first, because this is where the rules don't apply to both sides.
	Jones denied a jury trial, denied...
	I'm trying to think of the...
	I have to analogize this some way.
	Well, basically, everything he said...
	Taken for granted, false, defamatory infliction of emotional distress, despite him being media, talking about issues of public discussion, whereas John Stossel, for anybody who doesn't know the reporter, who, you know, libertarian, I wouldn't call him left, and I've been corrected for having called him left, libertarian of spirit, independent-minded, was fact-checked on two occasions, on two different stories, on Facebook.
	One of them had to do with the forest fires not being entirely because of climate change.
	Fact check, missing context, downgraded, demoted.
	I think he might have been penalized on Facebook.
	He sued for defamation on the basis that Facebook and their third-party fact checkers are in fact not third-party fact checkers whatsoever.
	They contract with one another.
	They are basically a single entity with two heads.
	That they defamed and maligned a journalist by saying that his journalism...
	Missing context, inaccurate, slap a label on it, malign him, he sues.
	They got the lawsuit dismissed on both a motion to dismiss, it's for failure to state a claim, 12B, and an anti-slap, where they said, and I'll pull up the highlight, I shared it on Locals and tweeted it,
	the judge literally said, when the fact-checkers purport to fact-check, it doesn't follow that what they state thereafter, It's not an actionable statement of fact.
	So when they say it's missing context and it's factually incorrect or whatever, that's an argument.
	It's not an actionable statement of fact as in calling someone, you know, accusing someone of a specific type of crime.
	And they won on the anti-SLAP where they said it's a First Amendment issue.
	It's an issue of national importance.
	They're entitled to speak their mind, which is what they're doing, by slapping on these fact checks on stories with prejudice.
	So he cannot even refile subject to appeal.
	Robert, what's your take?
	Well, it is a great contrast because, you know, Alex Jones' statements were basically your classic opinion statements, but they're all labeled factual statements.
	Here you have statements that are self-described as factual statements being declared as can't be factual.
	So the court's obligation is not to decide whether the court thinks the statement is factual or not.
	It's whether a reasonable juror could infer a factual statement being made about Stossel.
	And the idea, this is like what we said in the Candace Owens case, the idea that you can call something a fact check and nothing about it could possibly be concluded by any reasonable juror to infer any kind of fact.
	Shows you how just politically biased and prejudiced these courts are.
	It's worse than that.
	I'll pull up just the highlight.
	People can read this here.
	Let's see.
	Here.
	As is evident, we're on the second page here.
	As is evident from the text associated with the label place on the fire video, quote, missing context means that, quote, independent fact checkers say this information is missing context and could mislead people, end quote.
	Simply.
	Because the process by which content is assessed and a label applied is called a, quote, fact check, does not mean that the assessment itself is an actionable statement of objective fact.
	That is what you call judicial mental gymnastics.
	And, oh, I just forgot what I was going to say.
	I mean, the problem is they're calling these things fact checks, which by definition they're claiming they're making a statement of fact about other facts.
	And they're pretending that no reasonable juror could possibly draw that conclusion.
	Does anybody think people who read fact checks think they're reading something that has nothing to do with facts?
	It's just the opposite.
	And the judge just doesn't want these people sued by conservatives.
	You reminded me of what I was going to say.
	It's not just that it's laughable mental gymnastics on its face.
	It's that the fact checkers then take their non-actionable statements of fact and then invoke the fact that it's a fact check to sanction, penalize, and deplatform people.
	So it goes beyond it being, in fact, in my humble opinion, an actual actionable statement of fact.
	They penalize, sanction, and punish people over it.
	Some platforms might have even thought they can fine you for it.
	So they get to suck and blow.
	They get the best of both worlds.
	It's a non-actionable statement of fact.
	It's not a statement of fact.
	Yet they get to invoke it to downrank, penalize, and deplatform people because it's factually, you know, fact check is being wrong.
	Nuts.
	It's a pattern.
	Rachel Maddow gets to walk because it can't be factual.
	Fake fact-checkers get to walk from Candace Owens and Stossel because it can't be factual.
	But the guy that we all know is the most opinionated guy around, Alex Jones, everything he says is magically factual.
	I mean, nothing could show the hypocrisy and the duplicity of judges and courts in these cases.
	I'll read some Rumble Rants afterwards.
	I'm just going to continue to screen grab them.
	So that's Stossel.
	Yeah, for everybody, you can submit your Rumble Rants.
	We'll do a separate video Monday covering any that we don't cover tonight.
	So, send in those Rumble Rants while you still can.
	Well, we can do that.
	I know a lot of other channels do it.
	It could be a fun thing to do.
	Yeah, I figure it might as well, because I see a lot of people like it.
	And so, it's a way to get your...
	If you send in a Rumble Rant, your question will get answered.
	Just in a separate video.
	We'll pre-record tomorrow.
	Yeah, or it'll be like a Locals exclusive where we go over the Rumble Rants.
	Okay, Robert.
	That's Stossel.
	What do you think the chances are on appeal?
	I forget the jurisdiction now.
	This was New York?
	Was this New York?
	I thought it was California.
	I thought it was federal court in California.
	What do you think?
	I mean, if you had to guess.
	Any chance on appeal?
	Canis Owens' case is going up.
	This case is going up.
	We'll see what happens.
	Canis Owens' cases, I think, are in the Delaware court system.
	I think Stossel's case will be up to the Ninth Circuit.
	It'll probably depend on the draw in part.
	But, you know, they're announcing contradictory standards.
	And every lawyer should raise the Alex Jones parallel.
	You know, make these courts be honest.
	Oh, that's just an Alex Jones exception.
	We just wanted to screw him, so we screw the law to get him.
	You know, confront him with it.
	I mean, my Kentucky Covington kids case, I got to take the Kentucky Supreme Court because the Kentucky Court of Appeals thinks that lying about kids in Kentucky with a publication published in Kentucky intended to cause them harm in Kentucky isn't a Kentucky tort.
	How do you get to that?
	What a crock.
	What a disgrace the Kentucky Court of Appeals are.
	That shows you where these judges are.
	It depends.
	You can predict whether you'll win or lose based on the politics of the party.
	Period.
	When it comes to libel and defamation, that's it.
	And you're right.
	It was the Northern District of California.
	Robert, let's now get to the people who rake in billions.
	The record profits.
	And when they say, when they say, Albert Bourla, I'm looking at you.
	South African study.
	100% effective at preventing cases in South Africa.
	100%.
	And now the gaslighting media of the week, of the month, is...
	Fact checkers.
	Fact checkers who lie a lot and get to hide behind judges who say, oh, no one could think what you're saying is factual.
	The fact check of the week of the month is, no one ever said it would prevent transmission.
	It was only supposed to reduce severity of symptoms and hospitalizations.
	Bull crap.
	Rachel Manow said it.
	Joe Biden said it.
	Albert Bourla said it.
	And we have the video and we have the tweets.
	And yet they nonetheless come out and say, you must have been hearing things.
	Oh, when I said it was 100% effective at preventing cases, I meant cases of severe symptoms.
	I meant cases of hospital.
	I didn't mean preventing transmission.
	You're the idiot for misreading that.
	And you're the idiot for understanding that to be the reason for compelling.
	These mandates, ostensibly for the purposes of you need to do it to prevent transmission, even if you're not at risk, you don't want to kill Granny.
	But Robert, the admission that we saw coming out of the European Parliament is not the admission that we all saw.
	It was, you know better than anybody.
	You've been representing Brooke Jackson.
	They said it would prevent transmission.
	I'm not hallucinating.
	I'm not going crazy.
	Well, that's what efficacy means.
	I mean, so the FDA has been telling everybody, Pfizer has been telling everybody that the COVID vaccines have high rates are safe and effective.
	Well, what does effective mean?
	It means that it prevents transmission of the disease.
	That's the definition of efficacy for a vaccine.
	There's no other definition.
	So when they kept saying it has a high level of efficacy, that it's safe and effective, they were lying.
	Because their own internal test...
	Didn't even figure out whether it prevented transmission or not, which tells you what a complete crock it was.
	And they're only hiding behind various forms of immunity.
	I'm looking at the possibility of bringing a false advertising case as well against Pfizer for people who have suffered injury because they believe the statements that Pfizer was making.
	Pfizer's running ads right now promoting this drug is effective.
	When they admit they have no clue whether it's effective because they never tested whether it was effective to the European authorities.
	Robert, what the hell were they testing if not the effectiveness?
	I mean, I feel stupid asking the question.
	They were testing profitability.
	That's what they were testing.
	No, but surely, Robert, and I'm going to call you Shirley, they were testing something.
	What were they testing when they had their tests?
	I mean, that's what Brooke Jackson exposed.
	Everything about the clinical testing was ridiculous.
	I mean, they couldn't.
	Get accurate data because they weren't doing the things you have to do to make sure you get adequate data.
	I mean, you literally had needles sticking out of bags.
	You had people's private medical information tattooed on the walls.
	You had vials not kept at the right temperature.
	You had adverse events not being monitored or properly reported.
	It was solely for show.
	Let's say we did a clinical trial, and let's say it's safe and effective.
	And the FDA will go along with us and we'll get billions of dollars because we have legal immunity.
	We don't care, right?
	I mean, this is the problem with legal immunity.
	When you give big anybody immunity, then you invite criminality.
	And that's what happened.
	You know, it's just like you don't give a sweetheart immunity deal in a criminal case to someone who's innocent.
	You give it to someone who's guilty.
	That's the only person who needs an immunity deal.
	So more often, I mean, it really needs it.
	I mean, there's some people that fear the government and so forth.
	But putting that aside, that's what Pfizer was up to.
	And so they were engaging in the greatest public health crime in world history.
	And they're only going to get away with it because the politicians and the courts let them get away with it.
	But what they admitted in Europe was a shock to many people because many people were like, hold on a second.
	I thought you told me it was effective.
	The only reason I would take the vaccine is if it prevented transmission.
	I wouldn't take the vaccine if it didn't immunize against anything, if it didn't inoculate.
	Because what is something, by the way, legally, that reduces severity of consequence?
	I know this one, teacher.
	I believe that's called a therapeutic.
	Exactly.
	Not a vaccine.
	Not a vaccine.
	Dr. Kieran Moore out of Ontario referred to it as a therapeutic when he was acknowledging that it also caused myocarditis in one in 5,000.
	Of a certain age demographic, young men.
	The same doctor now who says, Ontario, you might be going back to mask mandates in the fall.
	It is the fall.
	Holy crap, apples.
	In the winter, if things get bad enough in our healthcare system, which has been overloaded for decades, gets overloaded again.
	So the experiment worked so well the first time, we're going to do it again.
	That's science.
	But he referred to it as a therapeutic for the YouTube overlords.
	Not me, Dr. Kieran Moore.
	They're going to get away with it.
	We'll see.
	We'll keep fighting back against it, but it was another extraordinary admission.
	And we'll see whether there's any consequences for a company that's causing actual billions of dollars in damages, as just measured by their own profits in the case.
	I'll tell you.
	Everyone has heard my justifications.
	Rational or irrational for which I got it, which was I played with the kids in the daycare park, in the park, the kids from the daycare.
	I didn't want to be the, what is it, the fringe minority with unacceptable view YouTuber crazy guy who infects a bunch of kids.
	That was my rationale from the beginning.
	And I said, I'll take whatever chances.
	You know, I'm a healthy man.
	I like to think I haven't suffered any problems, but I'll take my chances.
	But I don't want to be blamed for having transmitted the virus for children in a daycare.
	That would, you know, people would never stop, you know, calling for my head.
	That was the rationale.
	If they lied to me then, oh, I might just piss and moan about it and, you know, not be able to do anything else like the rest of the world.
	Okay.
	Robert, what do we go to from here?
	Well, speaking of rogue courts, a state court in Alaska, thanks to a board member at vivobarneslaw.locals.com who brought it to my attention.
	If you ever want to reach me, that's the only place where I regularly and customarily read and review every post made.
	It's like Lake Wobegon, as Garrison Keillor described it.
	Everybody at our board is above average.
	And a state court in Alaska is deciding that it's going to unilaterally remove an Alaskan state legislator because he's in the Oath Keepers.
	And this is why I said from day one, this misuse of this 14th Amendment insurrection clause was very dangerous.
	No way did our constitutional framers intend that clause.
	And this was a clause put in after the Civil War solely for purposes of excluding people who had been actively fighting the United States Army from being in a position of governing power.
	That was it.
	Very limited group.
	Multiple amnesties were ultimately issued to them.
	Almost everybody considered it dead and moribund.
	They only tried to resurrect it once before.
	They tried to resurrect it during World War I, during a great purge of dissident opinions, when they locked up Eugene V. Debs for speaking out against the draft.
	And they went after a congressman, I think it was Victor Berger, a socialist from Milwaukee.
	That was a big German socialist population back then in Milwaukee.
	And tried to use the sedition provision against him.
	As the early court decisions emphasized, this either doesn't apply or it's extraordinarily limited and can't apply to these set of facts.
	Here you have a guy who wasn't even at the Capitol on January 6th.
	Hasn't been charged with anything.
	He wasn't even at the Capitol.
	He saw Trump's speech.
	He never went down to the Capitol.
	He's part of Oath Keepers.
	Which, you know, Steve Deese, who we interviewed, he's a member of Oath Keepers.
	That's a massive organization.
	Yeah, let me stop you there because at the risk of defending a nasty organization, what's wrong with the...
	I'm an ignorant Canadian.
	I looked up the Oath Keepers summarily on Wikipedia, summarily through its founder, Rhodes.
	What's wrong with...
	They're not a designated terrorist organization in the States, are they?
	Or a designated insurrectionist organization?
	What's wrong with the Oath Keepers?
	Sincere question.
	I'll tell the locals chat that those photos make me want to fish.
	But that's just for the folks.
	We have a live chat going at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	The Oath Keepers are mostly a religious, moral-based organization, some of whom are politically active.
	It's about keeping your oath.
	It's about honoring, hence, Oath Keeper.
	It was a religiously, the University of Colorado head coach, ex-head coach, was a prominent person in it.
	That's what it was mostly about, a moral movement, to return to original values, your duties as a husband, your duties as a father, to honor those, to keep that oath.
	They have portions that are politically active, but again, there's a tiny, minuscule percentage.
	It's similar to the Alex Jones trial.
	Alex Jones trial had all these fake experts.
	You know, I'm an expert in domestic terrorism.
	They're not.
	They're just deep state hacks or media experts.
	They're just dimwits.
	The same thing here.
	They have these experts from some community college someplace who said, I'm an expert in terrorism, and anybody part of the Oath Keepers is a terrorist.
	This is, by the way, why, controversially, some of my friends on the right, I don't like anti-terror laws.
	These laws are an invitation to abuse for politically motivated purposes and almost always end up that way.
	Somebody commits a crime or is conspiring to commit a crime, we've got plenty of laws to deal with it.
	We don't need to add in new laws that allow us to strip people of their political rights based on politically dissident opinions, which is how they're always misused and abused, Patriot Act being a classic illustration of that.
	But that's the basis of it.
	So it's a patently...
	So why is this even happening?
	It's happening because courts...
	Are saying, oh, I can use this insurrection clause to get rid of the political people I don't like.
	And this is why the Supreme Court, somebody's got to step in and shut this nonsense down now.
	It's a funny thing.
	In Canada, they declared, not the Oath Keepers, the other one.
	Proud Boys.
	They declared Proud Boys a terrorist organization.
	I've never heard of the Proud Boys until they did this.
	I have never heard of the Proud Boys carrying out any act of terrorism, let alone really any violent public act.
	Set aside fights and protests and whatever.
	Never heard of it.
	Never heard of any incident.
	But under Canadian law, it becomes much easier to unilaterally bypass certain safeguards and seize the assets of designated terrorist organizations.
	I presume you have similar laws in the States.
	It was always going to be abused.
	And people took the bait because if it involved Iran or if it involved Hezbollah or if it involved Al-Qaeda.
	And I was like, uh-uh, we should not allow our law to get breached like this because they're going to misuse and abuse this power.
	Now people are witnessing it in a lifetime.
	Hopefully it will take the Supreme Court really to fix this probably.
	To take up one of these cases and make clear, no, you can't disqualify someone based on this misapplication of insurrection and stop it for good.
	Otherwise, what you have are judges overruling elections unilaterally based on their own personal political biases.
	Well, that's a good segue into the next segment, Robert, which is going to be Donald Trump's response to the January 6th subpoena.
	But before we even get there, it's a good segue, segue into what happened to Robert Gavea this week on YouTube, because I'm going to read from his letter.
	And YouTube, when you see this tomorrow, I hope you've learned your lesson about striking a channel for reading from legal proceedings if those legal proceedings contain allegations which you would think violated community guidelines if they were made as a statement of fact by the content creator making those statements.
	Govea, for those of you who don't know, watching The Watchers, great stuff, great analysis, was reading Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit.
	And I think he got dinged on medical misinformation because the lawsuit makes certain allegations as to why Donald Trump was defamed, etc.
	And they gave him a strike for reading.
	I don't even know if it was analyzing and I don't even think it was affirming.
	In fact, I'm certain it wasn't because I double checked with Robert in any event.
	Reading from court proceedings, which make allegations, which are by definition not proven fact, merely position party affirmations, they struck him.
	And then, you know, the YouTube community came out and said, Undo this because this is bullcrap.
	You can't penalize content creators for reading from legal proceedings.
	I mean, I guess you could if you want to be censorship or if you want to censor.
	But let's just...
	I do love the top part.
	The what?
	Oh, the top part.
	Hold on a second.
	Let me see this here.
	Donald J. Trump, October 13, 2022, peacefully and patriotically.
	When Nancy Pelosi talks about punching Donald Trump in the face and she'll go to jail and she'll be happy.
	That's that's forget her.
	She's a crazy contract.
	And what he's reminding everybody of is that's what he said for people to do going down to the Capitol.
	He said fight like hell, peacefully and patriotically.
	We won't go through the whole thing.
	I love the all caps too.
	I'm only saying what Donald Trump said was rigged and stolen.
	The same group of radical left Democrats who utilized their majority position in Congress to create the fiction of Russia, Russia, Russia, impeachment hoax number one, impeachment hoax number two, $48 million Mueller report.
	By the way, some people's defense to that, well, they collected $33 million through penalties and whatever.
	So it was only a net loss of 15, whatever, which ended in no collusion.
	Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine.
	The atrocious and illegal spying on my campaign and so much more.
	By the way, we're going to get into this now because there's been another bombshell of the week.
	Are the people who created this committee of highly partisan political hacks and thugs whose sole function is to destroy the lives of many hardworking American patriots whose records in life have been unblemished until the point of attempted ruination.
	The double standard of the unselects between what has taken place on the right I'll leave it there, because that's a mouthful.
	Robert, they formally, they voted all nine of those clapping seals have voted yay on a subpoena.
	He's not going to abide by it.
	Are they not going to hold him in contempt of Congress, just like they did with Bannon and try to go the Bannon way with the president?
	Is this not another method to get to an indictment of Trump?
	Well, what he can do is he can challenge it in court, contest it in court, and then see how that works out.
	And then after that, he could always show up and take the fifth and the other ground.
	And they can try to use it for whatever political theater they want to.
	So those are probably the best options, rather than actually, you know, Trump may be tempted to go in and battle with him in testimony.
	But those are the options he has available to him.
	The committee is on its last lifeline.
	The Democrats are going to lose the House.
	So they got a couple of months left for this community to be alive, and most of that will be in a lame duck session.
	And so I think that ultimately it won't have much consequence on Trump.
	Because showing up and pleading the fifth, other than being politically...
	Well, let me rephrase it.
	The media would mock it, say, he pleaded the fifth 45th times.
	Hillary Clinton never pleaded the fifth.
	She just lied through her teeth.
	They would use it for media purposes, for political purposes.
	But as far as going after him the way they went after Bannon, they would lose that legal venue.
	Exactly.
	Okay.
	And then if he goes and tries to talk too much, they'll go the Alex Jones venue and try to hold him under perjury.
	You know, he may combine every answer with, this committee is a lawless committee that has no power to hold me here.
	I assert the Fifth Amendment due to this committee being a lawless committee, and I will assert my rights not to testify before such a lawless committee.
	But if they can hold him in contempt of Congress for not respecting a subpoena, can they hold him in contempt for showing up and then repeating the same answers if they say, stop saying that?
	No, they can't.
	You can't hold anyone.
	I mean, Congress can't.
	I mean, they can only refer them to the Justice Department anyway, but asserting a privilege can never be contempt.
	Okay.
	And if he were to assert that privilege coupled with a judgmental comment, could they say at some point in time, don't stop saying that, and if you do, then we'll refer you to contempt for contempt?
	Probably not.
	And then, Robert, anything more on his response to their subpoena before we...
	Segway into the next contempt decision?
	Just briefly, as Mike Davis previewed on the Wednesday sidebar, which was great.
	He's a great, great thinker, great activist in a wide range of areas.
	I recommend people go back and watch that sidebar if they didn't get the chance to.
	The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to intervene at this stage of the special master dispute.
	And now the government is begging the 11th Circuit to throw out the entire thing.
	They don't want anybody looking at what it is they stole.
	But there's not much to read into the Supreme Court not intervening at this stage, because as Davis pointed out, they're most likely to get involved when it's a ripe record, when there's a Section 41 pleading present that raises all the issues.
	So I think that's...
	The media tried to make a much bigger deal out of it than it was.
	All right.
	Well, let's say on the subject of contempt, Robert, it's one of the stories you read, and you just can't believe it.
	Now I'm going to forget where it was.
	It was jury selection in what state was it again?
	I don't remember the state.
	I'll get it when we talk about it.
	Jury selection.
	And there's no mask mandate.
	I'm going to have to go to Twitter and see.
	No mask mandate in this particular state.
	The judge who has a propensity, a proclivity, a fetish, insists that prospective jury members, even though there's no mandate that's been lifted in the state, wear their damn mask when addressing His Highness.
	And one prospective juror, they had not even impaneled the jury.
	They hadn't even gotten down to any meaningful selection.
	I guess he refused to wear the mask.
	I'm going to pull up the highlight from this.
	Refused to wear the mask and was...
	I think the state was North Carolina, which sounds right.
	That sounds right.
	Okay, good.
	The judge held him in contempt.
	Put him in jail for 24 hours.
	This man, for anybody who thinks 24 hours in jail, it's nothing.
	It's hunky-dory.
	It's a paid holiday away from the kids.
	He had a minor kid at home.
	Didn't know what time it was.
	Locked away for 24 hours for contempt for not putting on a face mask when the judge ordered him to in the absence of any statewide mandate.
	He was on Tucker Carlson.
	Robert, are there details that we're missing that are going to come out to make sense of this story?
	Or have we just gone off the deep end?
	Well, the big question is always, what happens when it's the judge violating your civil rights?
	Because technically, you go back to that same judge.
	It's a flaw in our system.
	And this was my concern all the way along.
	You had court systems complicit in vaccine mandates and mask mandates and social distancing mandates.
	And it's like, well, how are you going to adjudicate a civil rights suit?
	About mask mandates, vaccine mandates, or social distancing mandates when you're complicit in it.
	When by you're judging one side, them guilty, you would have to judge yourself guilty.
	So we didn't, I mean, there are many courts where we had no judges available practically that weren't completely conflicted.
	And so I think this judge violated his civil rights and the way he went about it.
	Almost impossible to sue a judge.
	We create all these special immunities for judges, which I disapprove of, disagree with.
	And all it does is encourage abuse of their power.
	They only step down when they get enough blowback in the court of public opinion to do anything about it.
	And if the higher courts are with them on the area of prejudice, they encourage it, reward it, and often incentivize it.
	So that's what we're seeing is...
	What happens when the courts are the ones violating our rights?
	And it's something that needs to be looked at from a structural perspective.
	Some means of challenging the court's misbehavior and rights violations without having to resort to those same courts for remedy.
	Robert, first of all, it was North Carolina.
	The judge was appointed by former Democratic Governor Bev Perdue.
	I don't know what...
	What a shock!
	Total shock.
	He's a Democratic judge.
	He's another one of these nut houses.
	I've seen a lot of them.
	I've been in front of courts that were demanding I disclose whether I was vaccinated or not, demanding I wear those ludicrous masks.
	I had to wear it in a certain way.
	And I was put in a position where, okay, you have to protect your client's interests first.
	So you can't necessarily litigate your personal cause in that context.
	But there are other courts that are actually mandating vaccines as a condition of access to the courts.
	So it's like, okay, we want to sue, but we have to sue in that same courthouse.
	It's a flaw, a bad flaw in the system.
	When the courts abuse power, there needs to be a remedy outside of the courts for that.
	I'm trying to see how old the judge is.
	But if a judge is appointed, the only way the judge can be removed from the bench legally is impeachment, correct?
	There's no other method?
	It depends on the state, but if they're elected, then sometimes at election, but otherwise usually only impeachment.
	I can't find the age.
	I saw one who seemed to be 100 years old, but that's because the person had died in 1999.
	I read that story, and it's on Fox News, and it's not that, you know, it's Fox, so I don't trust it.
	It's the media, so I say maybe there's something more.
	Maybe this guy flipped the bird to the judge, and he's not telling that side of the story to Tucker Carlson, and we'll find something out by way of fact that can possibly make sense of the insanity.
	But thus far, the guy was on Tucker.
	Fox News ran the article, allegedly jailed for not wearing the mask, denied his phone call, denied even to let his minor kid know that he was in jail, and then released the next day.
	So if there's no other facts that are going to make sense of this, that this guy didn't say to Tucker Carlson, madness.
	And, you know, sometimes you can sue the law enforcement involved because law enforcement assumes they're acting at the direction of a judge that they're immune.
	That isn't always the case.
	If there's reasons to believe it's a facially invalid request, the law enforcement officer can be sued as well.
	So hopefully they seek some sort of legal relief and remedy and go maybe to a different courthouse somehow to get it, maybe a federal court rather than a state court.
	But it's part of a burgeoning problem.
	The court's complicity in a lot of these mandates made them partial and prejudicial and conflicted.
	Adjudicators of this in comparable context.
	And now there are a bunch of Rumble rants.
	I can't highlight them, and that has to be a function they're going to fix soon.
	Either way, we'll get to all of them in a recorded video.
	Absolutely.
	Keep sending them in.
	Keep sending those Rumble rants.
	Well, there's one that says, I don't need...
	It's a $50 Rumble rant from MedicDeb.
	It says, I don't need to have an opinion to donate to this channel.
	I do so because I respect the content and trust the host.
	I feel that I should be able to send money without an opinion.
	God bless you.
	Thank you.
	There's two things.
	I love being called brother, and I love it when people say God bless you, despite not being a particularly religious person.
	Okay, Robert.
	I have the list, but you're going to get to it before me.
	What do we segue into?
	The other one that was highlighted on our locals board.
	Let me look at that.
	The pig farming in California came to mind because that's a decision.
	Some of the stuff you send me.
	Yeah, pig farming is the next highest vote.
	And then after that, it's the stealing people's houses for taxes.
	That's another one that I like as well.
	You send me some stuff and sometimes I start reading it and I know I'm not interested.
	And I'm going to force myself to know as much of the facts as possible.
	The pig farming one raises a lot of interesting questions.
	California passes a law or proposition called Proposition 12 or 23, a number, Proposition 12. And it says we're going to set requirements, conditions, commerce conditions on the type of pork that can be sold in the state of California.
	We will not sell pork if it comes from conditions in which the pig or the sow, whatever it is, has had less than a certain amount of square footage to live.
	We don't want to have inhumane pork products in California.
	So we passed this Prop 12. And the practical effect of this California law is that it effectively restricts or interferes with interstate commerce in that, I don't know, Utah is next door.
	If they have a pig farmer or a pig producer that doesn't respect these California requirements, California can prohibit the import, the interstate import.
	Robert, I forget the name of the legal concept that's at issue, but what's the name of it, the concept?
	It's all about the Commerce Clause.
	So this is about what they call the Dormant Commerce Clause.
	Okay, that's it.
	So the Commerce Clause gives the federal government and Congress the right to control interstate commerce.
	And that has often been argued about.
	My view is the federal government has long exceeded what that role is supposed to be in terms of interstate commerce.
	But that ship has partially sailed, not fully, because in the food context in particular, for example, like in my Amos Miller case, there are statutes that further limit what the regulatory agencies can do.
	But so the issue is, and all those laws kind of interact in a certain way.
	So the Interstate Commerce Clause is the right of Congress to regulate matters of commerce between the states.
	The Dormant Commerce Clause is called dormant because it says by inference, states cannot discriminate against other states if it involves interstate commerce.
	Now, the Dormant Commerce Clause is a very undeveloped doctrine constitutionally.
	So years ago, Massachusetts passed a tax that disproportionately impacted out-of-state producers of milk, and the U.S. Supreme Court said that's a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.
	When I can tell you what its origins were, the Commerce Clause was really intended to prohibit states from tariffing or taxing other states.
	That was the primary objective.
	But as the fascinating oral argument exposed, if you play this out, it's hard to know where the limit is.
	So the political backdrop of California is here they're regulating what pork can be sold in California.
	But they did so knowing that almost none of the pork sold in California is produced in California.
	So the dirty little secret behind everything is California is deliberately targeting pork made in Iowa and other states.
	They're trying to use their power over their own consumer market to dictate what Iowa can do in its production of meat.
	So in that context, it sounds like a classic violation of interstate commerce, discrimination, targeted discrimination.
	But the historical context has been when you, the thought process wasn't this precise context.
	It was thought that this would be We want to protect our local butchers, so we're going to put a special tax on beef from outside the state.
	And that's the kind of thing that always gets struck down.
	This is in between, because the concern is there's a bunch of laws that a state passes that clearly has a disparate and discriminatory impact on other states.
	And it's when does one state get to use its control over its own consumer market?
	To regulate another state's conduct effectively, in particular California, because of its market scale and size.
	And they went through a bunch of hypothetical questions.
	I think it was like a two-hour oral argument.
	Some of their recent oral arguments have been unusually long.
	Usually they're 30 minutes, something like that.
	And you can tell by the court's questions, they were bothered whichever way they went.
	They don't want a state to have the power to use control over their own citizens.
	Well, at the same time, they don't want to affect, because there's so much interstate activity, they don't want to prohibit a state from doing much to control what its own people, its own values that its own people recognize.
	And so it's not, and, you know, Kagan, by the end of her argument, was saying, well, maybe we'll just throw it back for a trial, and this is really all a balancing test, and maybe we'll just punt this, because it's clear.
	None of us really want to get involved in deciding where the limit is.
	But it goes to so many other issues.
	They didn't discuss abortion, but that's a potential lurking issue.
	It's politically on the agenda because California is trying to use its market size, which is very big.
	To dictate to everybody else.
	And it's doing it in a wide range of contexts.
	It's doing it involving, hey, trans child, come here.
	We'll give you that treatment that's illegal under your own state.
	Hey, abortion person, if you want an abortion, come to our state.
	We'll help facilitate it.
	Maybe we'll help pay for it.
	In Illinois, they're setting up abortion, effectively random abortion vans on the border of states that pay an abortion.
	And then California trying to dictate a wide range of things.
	Using its market power to do so, that has a lot of other states agitated, a lot of other, in this context, food producers.
	But do you want to strip a state?
	Do you want to say that because this will impact another state in a disparate way, and that's always been the added component, it can't just impact another state, it has to impact it in a discriminatory manner.
	But the argument here is almost all the pork is produced outside of California.
	So it's by definition disparate and thus discriminatory.
	Well, but at least that argument would work for California.
	They would say, we're not doing it to benefit California since we don't produce that much pork in the first place.
	This is a legitimate moral issue that we've legislated over.
	But first of all, Katanji Brown...
	In fairness to her, I thought her question was going to be, how do I define a pig?
	I'm not a biologist.
	But no, she actually had a legit question, which was, why not just slap a warning label on it, like they do with those stupid...
	In the state of California, this backpack is known to contain products that cause cancer.
	Why not slap a label on it, as opposed to prohibiting the import?
	And it's interesting about that is that's where they originally settled and compromised on the original regulation of food, drugs, and cosmetics in America.
	The Meat Act, the Poultry Act, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act was all intended to say, well, we've got these commerce problems.
	We want to regulate something we are not constitutionally entitled to, and Congress doesn't want to give us the statutory power to.
	We don't want a super medical agency.
	We don't want a bunch of federal bureaucrats dictating to you what you can eat and what you can put into your body, whether it's food, whether it's alcohol, whether it's medicine or anything else.
	And they said, we'll just make sure the label's accurate.
	Our power will be on labeling.
	So it's not a surprise that she went there.
	Now, of course, we've seen with both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, they have long abandoned those limits in practice.
	Legally, that's still what they're supposed to be about, but they ignore it whenever and wherever and however they can.
	And that too is on the cognizant awareness of the court.
	So their fear is you're going to have state battles that are going to have broad commercial impact.
	And the Constitution appeared to present a solution.
	It's how manageable is that solution in the modern age?
	It is an interesting idea that you can enact.
	Moral, health, safety regulation, the unwritten purpose of which is to give a leg up to the state and its own produce and exclude other states from competing within the state.
	I just kind of found it weird.
	People that, you know, it's like the animal cruelty people, whatever.
	It's like, hold on a second.
	So it's okay to kill the animal and eat the animal, but how we kill it is a big deal?
	We're still killing it.
	We're still eating it.
	Yeah, but I can appreciate the life of suffering a free-range animal and then killing it.
	Don't torture it when you kill it.
	Don't hang it by the legs until it's dead.
	If it's a fishing way to kill it and eat it, why not?
	I mean, we're killing it and eating it.
	You know what I mean?
	I went fishing with my kid on the pier yesterday, and she didn't like that we were using live bait.
	First of all, these fish live to feed the bigger fish.
	That's why they're bait.
	Where do you think it comes from?
	If we don't do it, someone has to do it.
	I'm not better than them, so I get to wash my hands literally of actually having to do it.
	Anyways, it was all hypothetical.
	It was like people get real mad about chicken fighting and pit bull fighting and whatnot.
	I was like, but we eat and kill animals.
	Why does one animal get special treatment compared to another?
	Animal fighting is a hard stop for me.
	I've seen the videos.
	Even cock fighting, I had no idea.
	Why is it not okay to watch them fight?
	But it is okay to kill them and eat them.
	Well, I don't think you subject them to inhumane treatment before consuming.
	Kill them for consumption and as humanely as possible.
	But if you were a dog, which would you rather be?
	A dog who fights or a cow that gets killed and eaten?
	You know what?
	I'll take the cow because at least you get to meander through fields.
	No, dog fighting is a horror on its own.
	There's no...
	No question about that.
	So interesting.
	So they've taken the decision.
	They've heard the case.
	They're going to render the decision within a year, this session.
	Yeah, this session.
	Okay, interesting.
	It has massive consequence for a wide range of areas.
	The big question is whether they try to dodge it and punt it back.
	Let me screen grab here.
	Robert, speaking of horrific stuff, the Amazon case that you sent me, that's where I like...
	I have my initial reflex, and then I have my anger reflex.
	For anybody who hasn't heard this, it's a lawsuit filed by the estate of two teens who committed suicide.
	The thing is, I'm also reluctant to even get into too much detail because I didn't know about this, and I fear that by even highlighting the decision, it's going to open people up to the fact that this actually exists, and it's atrocious.
	You could purchase a certain product.
	Which is used for preserving foods online.
	It's a preservative.
	You can purchase it online, willy-nilly, for 20 bucks a bottle.
	Somehow people found out that this is a product that can be used to end their lives.
	And sales actually skyrocketed on online platforms.
	And it's not just that...
	People knew that people were buying this not for the purposes of preserving and curing beef, but for taking their own lives, and it's a horrific tragedy.
	They knew this.
	It's not just that they knew it, though, because Amazon knew it.
	What ends up happening is that the algorithm of Amazon, recommendations being what it is, from the allegations of the lawsuit, and evidence is there, Amazon, in conjunction with people who go to Amazon to buy this product, they were recommending a book which contained a chapter on how to administer this product to end your life.
	And a few allegations from the lawsuit are so horrific.
	I hope I'm not speaking in euphemisms.
	I hope it's understandable.
	I don't want this being put on blast and people are like, oh, wow, I never knew this was out there.
	It's horrific.
	But Amazon...
	Because people who went to buy this were buying that book, which tells you how to use it for the purposes of ending your life, was coupling the products together for people.
	And the two plaintiffs, or at least two of the plaintiffs, I'm not sure if there are more, one had their kid open an account with a first name only.
	Amazon shipped it to the kid who killed themselves with it.
	The other one...
	I bought it through their mother's account.
	The mother's like, I didn't order this.
	Cancel the order.
	Amazon confirms the order's been canceled.
	Shipped the product anyhow.
	Both kids took their own lives.
	And it's horror beyond horror.
	Part of me says, when we were kids, we had this thing called potassium nitrate, saltpeter.
	You used to be able to buy it at pharmacies, mix it with sugar, and turn it into a smoke bomb.
	Or melt it and turn it into a paste and whatever.
	They stopped selling potassium nitrate at pharmacies.
	So it became a little harder to get.
	This stuff you could just pick up for $20 a bottle online.
	Get the book that tells you how to use it.
	Amazon was selling it, making their $2.30 per sale.
	And now two parents of children who committed suicide using this are suing.
	What have I missed?
	And it's horrific.
	Yeah.
	No, you summed it up well.
	I mean, and the question is, when are they liable for what they sell?
	And so here they've alleged very specific facts that they're deliberately...
	It's kind of like the Section 230 case before the U.S. Supreme Court on promoting terrorism by Google and Twitter.
	Here they've alleged specific facts that suggest Amazon was deliberately profiting from a very disturbed set of behavior and actions.
	Basically, they were setting themselves up to help people put themselves in harm's way.
	And then the question is what...
	They have the various legal theories they cite.
	Is it legally actionable?
	And I think that's an open question because it's somewhat of a novel area.
	Because they're not alleging falsity in advertising.
	They're alleging you're selling a product you know someone's going to use to harm themselves, including minors, especially minors, and that that's something you shouldn't be legally entitled to.
	And it's an open question whether that's the case.
	And that's the question I ask myself as well.
	These products, it's used for curing, preserving beef.
	It's a food product.
	You can buy a bottle of vodka, chug the whole thing, and have the exact same problem.
	I guess Amazon may blame the algorithm.
	They'll say they saw people were buying these products in Unity and so promoted them.
	But they were promoting products in Unity that could not be used for a purpose other than harming yourself.
	And from what I understand from the allegations, they were notified of the problem.
	And that's where you can have this organic AI causing the problem.
	But once you get notified of the problem, you fix it so that it doesn't happen.
	They just want money as Amazon's priority.
	The question is, what legal duty do they have in this context?
	And that's really an undetermined...
	And it's how much should we impose on them?
	And I'm not sure, to be honest with you.
	It's something that's going to require more thought.
	Because, I mean, for example, there are books out there we know that people use for bad purposes.
	We don't want to ban books, though.
	So when it's this set of products, how much is it okay to ban their combined sale, impose an obligation before they allow minors to purchase, some due diligence?
	That's the open question.
	It's disturbed what Amazon is doing.
	It's not clear that it's illegal.
	Well, that's the...
	Hold on.
	I'm going to read MedicDeb because MedicDeb put out a $100 rumble rant and it makes me feel good to read it.
	I have an ego, but it's...
	Viva Fry, we need you.
	We need your honesty.
	We need the truth.
	You are a model of honor and truth.
	God bless you and your family.
	Thank you very much.
	But...
	Let me open the parentheses.
	My story was, I used to, as a teenager, be a big pain in the ass.
	And so you could get potassium nitrate at the pharmacy at the time.
	Saltpeter.
	Everyone knows this.
	You could mix it with sugar.
	And you could make smoke bombs out of it.
	And then one Halloween, I discovered, you could mix sulfur in it.
	And then you make stink smoke bombs.
	And then another Halloween, I realized, holy cow, if you cook it, you could turn it into a paste.
	And then it becomes hard.
	And they could be like cherry bombs.
	Well, being an idiot kid that idiot kids are, I didn't realize that sulfur has a lower ignition point than other stuff, and I'm cooking it in my parents' kitchen.
	I'm going to have a fun Halloween.
	It all explodes in my face in the kitchen.
	You can't see the scars.
	Maybe you can't hear.
	All of it gets set on fire in the kitchen.
	Fire alarms go off.
	There were craters in the wood cabinetry because of this stuff.
	It's like napalm.
	Stupid.
	My mother comes home and then says, I'm calling the cops.
	I'm going to teach you a lesson.
	And then the cops are like, oh, yeah, interesting.
	We've had some vandalism.
	It wasn't me.
	We'd like to talk to your kid.
	And my mother's like, no, you know what?
	Never mind.
	Forget about it.
	We'll talk to ourselves.
	But it's the algorithm pairing it together.
	It's the danger of the algorithm.
	Then you find out that it's happening.
	And then it becomes, what is their responsibility to decouple these things or maybe just act responsibly altogether?
	And go through a separate verification process for things that could be used for nefarious purposes.
	But it's true.
	You know, people who want to buy certain books, okay.
	If they see people are buying these books with, I don't know, massive orders of jerry cans, then maybe you can start putting two and two together.
	But then what obligations are you creating on companies?
	It's a tricky question.
	I was just horrified with the allegations of that lawsuit.
	It just shows you how big tech has no moral limits at all.
	They'll exploit anybody for any reason that makes them money.
	The John Beck says, quiet guys, but Bezos needs his money for girlfriends and other stuff.
	I'm going to screen grab this one too.
	Now, Robert, there was the other lawsuit that that led into, which was, hold on.
	Oh, geez.
	Oh, okay.
	So that's the lawsuit.
	We'll see.
	The allegations are strong enough to, specific enough to, as far as I'm concerned, survive.
	A summary motion to dismiss.
	There's some facts.
	The mother cancelling the order and then Amazon shipping it anyhow.
	First of all, I cannot imagine that type of horror.
	It's beyond fathom.
	Shifting it slightly, Robin Hood, you predicted.
	I'll say you.
	I can't say I predicted anything that I knew it was going to happen in that case, but Robin Hood has survived a motion to dismiss.
	It's a complicated decision because it gets granted in part, denied in part.
	The bottom line...
	I didn't understand the nuance as to the certification of the class that they'll decide at a later date, but they said, sufficiently clear, you're going to get to proceed, but elaborate in a manner that's more eloquent and intelligent than what I just said.
	Yeah, so for those who may not remember, Robinhood was a part of the whole people buying meme stocks, you know, GameStop, etc.
	And, you know, trying to take down some big Wall Street hedge funds and Robinhood, which had pitched and marketed itself as a way for the ordinary person to, on a commission-free basis, trade in the stock market in an accessible, affordable way, stopped their ability to get some of those meme stocks that were hurting some of those big hedge funds.
	And in the...
	In that context, I thought lawsuits could be brought and class actions could be brought because I felt that Robin Hood had committed malfeasance.
	There was a bunch of law Twitter that said, oh, for this reason and that reason, Robin Hood could never be sued.
	They were anti the meme stock people and all of that.
	And so the federal court found that three different parts of the class action could continue and that they alleged all the things necessary to have a securities violation.
	Fraud on the market, and fraud on the people, and fraud on the consumers, the purchasers of Robinhood, the users of Robinhood.
	Because what Robinhood was hiding was the fact that what they were really doing is they would get your trade, and they claimed to be doing it the fastest in the business.
	They were often doing it the slowest in the business.
	And by doing so, sell that information to people who could then front-run the market.
	And they themselves could make a little more value on the exchange, charging a de facto backdoor commission.
	And so Robin Hood, which was portraying itself as Robin Hood, take from the rich, give to the poor, was actually stealing from the poor to give to the rich.
	And they lied about all of that.
	They've been caught lying about all of it.
	And the court said that those causes of action can absolutely move forward.
	And I think it's a very promising case now against Robin Hood.
	So the plaintiffs in that case remembered the principle that I first publicly enunciated in that case, which is never forgive, never forget, hold the line.
	They held the line, and consequently, Robin Hood might have to pay a very big amount.
	Well, they had liquidity issues back in the day.
	I presume they still have the same liquidity issues, so good luck even if you get a favorable judgment.
	None of the directors are personally on the hook for any of this?
	There may be investigation to them, but not to my knowledge.
	Okay.
	So it can proceed, and stealing from the poor to give to the rich is a good way of putting it, Robert.
	What was the other one?
	Which one do you want?
	I mean, there's a few more left here.
	Yeah, so in the Steve Wynn case, just sort of a brief one, we'll get to the taxes case where governments are trying to steal your house in the name of small tax bills.
	But the Steve Wynn...
	Alex Jones, by the way, calls that a lead.
	He's like, yeah, Barnes, you always got to give him a lead.
	You got to give him a lead for the end of the show.
	You can't talk about everything in the beginning.
	You got to say something else.
	Oh, Alexander.
	But Steve Wynn was being charged by the Biden administration for not registering as a foreign agent, really, as an agent of China.
	Now, anybody watching this could tell, just by the allegations made in the case, that this is a political effort of the Biden Justice Department to continue to target anybody in Trump world.
	for some form of legal political harassment, weaponizing the legal system and their Justice Department control to get there.
	Much as the Alex Jones case is weaponizing the legal system to suppress dissident speech, much as the January 6th and Trump cases are about harassing Trump and Trump supporters.
	In this case, their allegations were that way back several years ago, Steve Wayne, while he was still in control of his casinos, no longer is to my knowledge, during that time period, he...
	Lobbied on behalf of the Chinese government as to a particular unidentified Chinese individual in the United States not being extended a visa while he was lobbying for better and easier regulations in Macau.
	It looks to me like China was actually trying to extort Wynn by saying we're going to revoke a bunch of your privileges in Macau unless you bring this issue up.
	Wynn brought the issue up a couple of times then just withdrew.
	That was years ago.
	Under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which has been dangerously misapplied in many contexts and cases, as we saw in the General Flynn case and the related cases in Virginia, whose name I always can't pronounce correctly, but the federal court said you can't require someone to register years and years after the fact.
	And so dismiss the case entirely on its merits.
	So Wynn won that case against the Biden administration.
	I think Wynn knew what it was.
	It was solely a politically motivated case to punish Wynn for being associated with Trump and still being a Trump supporter.
	So a good on the court upholding the law, rule of law in this context, but it's another sign of where the Biden administration is going.
	They're looking at all their political dissidents and trying to find ways to prosecute them or punish them.
	Robert, you mentioned Joan saying, leave something for the end.
	And I also forget to do something, which Salty Cracker does very well.
	Where the heck is it?
	What?
	For goodness sake.
	Well, you know what?
	Hold on.
	We're just going to go here.
	Day two.
	I'm going to share this screen.
	This is...
	I keep forgetting to tell everyone merch.
	I'm wearing Salty Cracker tonight.
	If you go to vivafry.com, that's my wife, next to you, you get all of our merch, Robert.
	You got some of the politics rooms, everything.
	Some of the good ones that you had are View All merch.
	VivaFry.com.
	Hinged, fringed, and proud.
	Where is the good good?
	Confession through projection.
	My twin brother Paul did it.
	A classic.
	Never forgive.
	Never forget.
	Hold the line.
	Right there.
	And you get Viva Barnes University and a bunch of other fun stuff.
	And we'll probably be updating it as we go along to see what people like the best and continue to add additional merchandise.
	Absolutely.
	Which you can get.
	Now, Robert, okay, so Steve Wynn wins.
	Well, let's do the other one.
	Andy Warhol, I guess, is another quick one.
	Andy Warhol is...
	Who's suing who in this?
	It's a fair use copyright dispute as to whether or not Andy Warhol or his estate, whoever's doing this, can use a picture of prints that a photographer took, a variation of the photograph.
	It looks like one of those...
	Not Final Cut.
	It looks like one of those software super enhanced highlights.
	It goes from a nuanced black and white photo to stark contrast, black and green.
	A little more shading.
	It's modified a little bit, apparently, to have more of a smile than the original.
	And Warhol's estate says this is sufficiently transformative of an original photograph taken by the photographer himself.
	We want to continue using it for commercial purposes.
	The photographer says, no, that's my work.
	This is a variation of my work.
	You can't do it.
	What's the interesting question of law in there?
	To me, it seems pretty clear because admittedly, there's some sufficiently transformative aspect to it, but it's clearly a copy of the original, a little bit of a change done for commercial purposes.
	I see theft.
	How do you see it?
	Well, that's what I'm going to ask because like Warhol's work is all that.
	I mean, Warhol took other people's images and made art out of it.
	To me, maybe it's because it's Warhol.
	Like, when I see his tomato can soup stuff, I see political commentary.
	I see so transformative a use that I don't see it as, oh wow, he loves the tomato can imagery so much that I'm just seeing the artistic wonderments of this tomato can.
	I see the...
	A transformative commentary on consumerist culture in America.
	The way Marilyn Monroe had become sort of an obsessed image, he captured repeatedly well.
	So the only question I had is whether this particular image was insufficiently transformative in the way other Warhol images are.
	Because when I know it's a Warhol, at least I think of commentary.
	So interesting.
	I see that as classic Warhol.
	I don't look at that and say...
	Oh, that's really the real value of that is the original photograph.
	I don't see that.
	I see classic Warhol reconstruction.
	I see that almost right away.
	I know it's a Warhol or Warhol inspired.
	And this is the photograph on which it was based or from which it was modified.
	I had only seen one image of it and not this montage.
	Yeah, which is what he's famous for is the montage.
	And so I look at that and I see transformative use.
	Because I think it's an attempt by photographers to show...
	In other words, when you look at this, do you think, geez, that underlying image is what's really artistic here?
	Not me.
	I guess the question is, if you see this image, is it going to say to anybody, anybody who buys this poster is not going to have an interest in buying this anymore?
	Exactly.
	It's not like they're stealing photos.
	It's not like people are lining up for that photographer to get his photo.
	What does the chat say?
	Fair use or sufficiently transformative chat?
	Let's see what...
	Everyone says out there.
	So, decision to come on that, but did it look like the court was leaning one way on this, right?
	I thought it was towards fair use.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	That's what I thought it was as well.
	I think because of Warhol, to be honest with you.
	If it was somebody else, they'd probably be less willing.
	But it's like, you see a Warhol, and you're like, boom, I know what that is.
	And you think Warhol, not the underlying image.
	Warhol was a weird dude, by the way.
	People are saying transformative and fair use.
	Okay.
	Barnes is right.
	That's my takeaway.
	I'm not a big fan of most copyright laws, intellectual property protections.
	I'm more of a skeptic and critic of it.
	Not entirely.
	I recognize value to all of it.
	But I think it's often overextended and overused.
	And I'm still waiting for my libertarian friends to tell me why the state should have no role but accept an IP somehow.
	So it's an area of a little bit of contradiction in some places.
	I mean, like, people use...
	The hush-hushes I do at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	A bunch of places, videos.
	I don't care at all.
	I'm not a big, you know, copyright monopolist guy.
	I understand it for, like, really original art that can only be produced and made if the person can get the monetary value of it.
	But a lot of these cases, it doesn't seem like that's really what's happening.
	Seems that the consensus is fair use.
	Someone says, good, good use.
	That is Buckethead123.
	That's unfair use of our catchphrase, good, good.
	Sir, you're in trouble now.
	All right, Robert, let's do this one as the last one because it's been quiet.
	Everybody who doesn't know, I'm alone with the kids for a week.
	We've been surviving.
	I keep forgetting you got to feed kids.
	They don't eat on their own.
	They could be old enough to know they should.
	They don't.
	They become cranky.
	Royal pains in the mass.
	Okay, this was an interesting one, Robert, because this comes up time and time again.
	There was a recent case out of Michigan seizing a $25,000 house for $8 in backdraft.
	I don't even know, back taxes?
	I forget the state.
	Bottom line, Michigan.
	They seized an entire property worth $300-some-odd-thousand for a $22,000 tax owing plus interest in whatever.
	And, you know, I'm such a naive boob.
	I just say, okay, well, the state's going to take it, they're going to sell the property, and then they're going to remit the balance to the owner.
	They took the entire property, transferred it or conveyed it to another party, I don't know who it was, for a deemed value of the amount the individual owned, which was a tenth of what, more than a tenth, or less than a tenth of what the property was worth.
	And the judge said, No go.
	This is taking under law.
	But to clarify the nuance, Steve Leto also did a bit on this.
	So shout out to Steve Leto.
	The issue here was not the state's ability to seize and sell property to pay off a debt owing to the state.
	It was to do so in a way that basically transferred all of the equity in the property to the state above and beyond what was actually owed.
	Exactly.
	What they were doing is redefining what constitutes a legally cognizable interest of a private property.
	So what they were effectively doing, saying if you owed a tax, that they could strip you of all your legally cognizable interest, equity in this case, in a particular property, in this case a home.
	And so they were saying, we didn't take a $300,000 house, we took a $22,000 house.
	Because we just denied it of all its equitable value.
	And we, you know, cut an inside deal and sold it to one of our buddies and voila!
	And this was Oakland County, so a big suburban county outside Detroit that did this.
	And Michigan was doing it routinely.
	And the Sixth Circuit held, no, the state can't do that.
	That the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the taking of a person's private property without just compensation.
	And you can't unilaterally declare their home not to have a certain value because they owe a tax.
	But the scary is they are doing this systematically, taking people's $300,000 plus $300,000 home for a $22,000 tax bill.
	I mean, they were stealing almost $280,000 from their taxpayers.
	And I'm reading, I was like, oh, I said, what's the issue?
	If you don't pay, they seize the house, they sell it, they take their fees, they take their yada yada, you lose a little bit more, but they remit the balance to you.
	And then I read of this decision, there was no balance because they just deemed it to be the amount owed and someone made good money off of it.
	They just screwed the homeowner, the property owner.
	But now, for anybody who had experienced this in the past, do they have any claims going back or tough nuggies, too bad, so sad?
	Oh, no, they don't have taking these claims.
	Okay, so it's a good precedent.
	I mean, it was totally justified.
	Any chance this somehow gets overturned on appeal because the judges are conservative and yada yada.
	No, I don't think so.
	This was kind of obvious to me.
	Well, it was shocking.
	It's like, okay, so the guy lost his property but has the excess value to the alone.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	They just transferred it for the deemed value of the amount.
	Let me see here.
	Well, Robert.
	A couple of other items.
	The Danchenko trial is ongoing.
	Technofog is covering it.
	More evidence came out.
	The FBI was offering millions of dollars to people to give false information about the president.
	Those are people that belong in prison.
	But of course, Durham didn't prosecute any of them.
	The federal judge dismissed some of the claims already because of somehow the accidentally poor job Durham is doing in prosecuting the case.
	That has woken up more and more people to what I said all along, which was that Durham was a cover-up artist, not an exposure artist.
	He was there to clean up for and cover up the FBI's criminality, not actually expose it, document it, and detail it.
	And people are seeing that in live time once again in this trial.
	But some of the shocking revelations that still came out of the trial was the degree to which the FBI was sponsoring.
	Basically, they were doing a coup.
	They were not only illegally spying on a presidential candidate and then spying on him as president, they were going around offering effectively bribes, that's what they'd be called if one of us did it, to people to come up with false information to make Trump look bad.
	And they hid it all as secret.
	Classified, confidential, law enforcement, whistleblower, informant information.
	And that's how they hid a lot of the illegality that they were doing.
	So those are the key revelations that come out of this case.
	Another big one, from what I understand, is that in a footnote to one of the proceedings, it turns out Danchenko had told the FBI the whole dossier story was bunk, and they nonetheless said, What does he know?
	We're going to continue to move on this and use it for the purposes of renewing our unlawful FISA warrants.
	And then they listed him as an informant so they could hide the fact that he had told them that from Congress.
	Which means Comey likely committed even more perjury before Congress.
	This is not going to leave people with a good taste in their mouth for the rest of the weekend.
	And heading into a new week, Robert, what are the other two short ones that we have on the list?
	SeaWorld!
	So SeaWorld has a Halloween exhibit, and so they got this guy that likes to scare people, and so the guy comes up to somebody's grandkid, puts him in a head choke, and does a body slam on him.
	And when the granddad tries to stop this guy trying to scare his kid at the scare thing by physically violently assaulting him, he assaults the granddad.
	So they had to file suit because it turned out that, you know, I guess SeaWorld took their job seriously.
	They went out and found violent criminals with a history of a violent criminal record and hired them to scare people.
	And so they're like, well, how do you scare people?
	You physically violently assault them, apparently.
	It reminds me of my old history professor who once said, you know, there was somebody who was putting razor blades in apples for Halloween.
	And he was like...
	I respect that guy.
	That's a guy that understands what Halloween's tradition is really all about.
	And by the way, it's an urban legend.
	I don't really think there's ever been any meaningful case of that ever happening.
	This is one of my things.
	I don't like it.
	It's going to be Halloween going out trick-or-treating soon.
	Oh yeah, and people in the neighborhood.
	First time in Florida they'll be doing it.
	First time in Florida.
	People here take it seriously and I love it because we're going to do something good.
	They're actually out now putting out the decorations.
	You know what you have to do when they bring back the candy, right?
	Confiscated?
	Taken?
	There's the tax.
	There's the federal tax.
	Then there's the state tax.
	Then there's the regulatory impositions.
	Maybe you get 5%.
	The middle one will go nuts if you do that.
	It'll be great.
	Catch it on film.
	She'll be enraged.
	I don't irritate the kids like the Jimmy Kimmel bit.
	I ate your candy.
	What are you going to do?
	I just hate the fact that there is no rationing the candy.
	They get a bag of candy.
	They're going to eat a bag of candy.
	They want it for breakfast, lunch, dinner.
	They don't understand why they feel sick afterwards.
	And it'll be good.
	Hopefully, they hand out healthy treats out here.
	But no, Halloween's coming.
	But I don't like those displays.
	I was at a place where they had people with the bloody masks and fake chainsaws.
	It's like, no, dude, you're like one step away from...
	Somebody actually doing something terrible here.
	And you'll have no idea that it's fake or that it's real because you think it's fake.
	I stay away from those things.
	But, you know, we're all looking for a happy Halloween here.
	Yeah, a couple of other cases briefly.
	The Nikola guy who was lying about the effectiveness of his electrical vehicles was convicted of a bunch of fraud crimes this week in federal court.
	A city in Peru is suing Peru in the inter-American court because Peru is a party to it.
	Over whether or not they deliberately allowed toxic chemicals to influx their community in exchange for sweetheart corporate deals with various companies, including American companies, by the way.
	And there's a new good antitrust law going through the House.
	We discussed it with Mike Davis, so you can go back and watch that sidebar.
	Hopefully it will pass through the Senate, which will improve the possibility of taking down big tech using traditional antitrust law and reforming it to its original precepts and principles.
	And two other cases.
	One is Taylor Lorenz.
	Adriana Jacob filed a good amended complaint.
	Harmeet Dillon has taken up her cause in case.
	Filed a very robust amended complaint.
	You can find it out there.
	It's publicly available.
	They were on Fox News, Tucker, about it and some other places.
	So that's good to see.
	And hopefully the court recognizes the law because she clearly was.
	Defamed and libeled by Taylor Lorenz.
	And she added specific stuff now that Taylor Lorenz knew or ought to have known that she, Ariana Jacobs, did not leak nudes of one of her clients for extortive purposes.
	If she didn't know, she didn't ask, and she was known and never made any corrections, whatever.
	There were a couple of others.
	Basically, Lorenz knew that what she was saying was not accurate, but she was just citing one side without verification, despite...
	Knowing that there was verification that was needed.
	So it's more specific.
	She lied through other people's voices and she knew she was lying.
	And that's still liable.
	And she was put on notice.
	And it's detailed.
	It's factual.
	The judge laid the path for Ariadne to do this.
	And hopefully it works.
	We'll see.
	Yeah.
	And the last case is a little Clovis Community College decided to ban the Young Americans for Freedom from distributing their Freedom Week flyers.
	On campus.
	Because some people said they felt a little offended by it.
	They were kind of hurt by it.
	This is what happened.
	Take the Alex Jones verdict.
	Keep extending it.
	Legally protected safe spaces.
	Everybody can't talk if it offends or upsets somebody.
	And so the federal court correctly ruled.
	That that was a violation of the First Amendment.
	The next excuse of Clovis Community College was somebody might confuse it with being our speech because it happens on a college campus.
	This was the same nonsense they did with the flag case that was unanimously determined to be a First Amendment violation by the Supreme Court last year.
	Correctly and properly and rightly rejected that as well.
	So a very good First Amendment win by the Young Americans for Freedom.
	Fantastic.
	And now I'm reading some chat about watching out for candies.
	And don't plant those seeds in the mind of a neurotic.
	I will.
	I will.
	Anyway, we'll see.
	We're going to go through the candy.
	And I reserve the right to lose some candy.
	Robert, what do you have on this week?
	Who do we have on for Sidebar on Wednesday?
	Yeah, the other thing you could do is you could distribute the candy to random poor kids and say, hey, it's reparations time.
	There's so much fun you could do with candy.
	Maybe we'll have another fundraiser and sell the candy.
	The problem is parents are going to give us money for the fundraiser and not take the candy because no parent wants more candy after Halloween any more than they want slime.
	Oh yeah, I'm in transit this week, so no sidebar for me this week.
	Okay, so I'll see if I can get someone.
	I know people want...
	Neil Oliver.
	I've got to get Neil Oliver.
	A few of the doctors.
	I'd love to get the doctors.
	So stay tuned.
	There'll be something good happening this week.
	Maybe Keith Wilson will come back to talk about what's going on in Canada.
	And I will be streaming some of that inquiry.
	And all the Rumble rants, we'll do a separate recorded video.
	Probably be up tomorrow answering all of those.
	On Tuesday at 1pm Eastern, I will be live with the Duran on YouTube and Rumble.
	And then at...
	7.30 Eastern will be live with Richard Barris on what are the odds predicting the state elections.
	State legislatures and governors will be a particular focus this week.
	And then I'm in Tennessee.
	I'll be there for the Children's Health Defense inaugural conference in Knoxville this coming weekend.
	Fantastic.
	And we do have to get RFK Jr.
	We have to make that one happen.
	It's going to happen sooner than later.
	All right.
	Everybody out there, thank you for tuning in.
	It's been another magnificent Sunday evening.
	Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
	Head into the new week with vigor and knowledge.
	Robert, stick around.
	We will say our proper goodbyes after I can figure out how to end the stream.
	And that's it, everybody.

▲