Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 18, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:46:18

Ep. 142: Florida Vax Grand Jury! Trump Indictment? JFK Files; Arizona Update & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Our Secret Service is launching an initiative to help us identify people who may have been radicalised.
	Know the signs details dozens of indicators that a friend or family member could be planning a terror attack.
	As Adam Hollingworth reports, the move comes as our spy chiefs identify a new and worrying type of terrorism.
	Time was when the intelligence services were never seen, never heard.
	But now they're loudly proclaiming your country needs you to keep an eye on those you know.
	And if necessary, drop them in.
	Recognising a potential warning sign and then alerting NZSIS or police could be the vital piece in the puzzle that ultimately saves lives.
	To that end, they're publishing a guide called Know the Signs to help us all identify potential terrorists in our midst.
	To pay attention and to be alert so that if they see or hear about something that seems off...
	That worries them and concerns them.
	They might have a look at this information to say Does this indicate to me that this person is on the road to actually committing an attack?
	The SIS has listed around 50 signs, from obvious ones, like writing on a weapon, as happened in Christchurch, to a person who is really developing an us-versus-them worldview.
	Authorities say they're usually closely monitoring 40 to 50 potential terrorists.
	These people used to be motivated by their white identity or by their faith.
	But in the past six months, a third group has emerged, those motivated by politics.
	And so it could be the COVID measures that the government took, and so it could be the COVID measures that the government took, or it could be other policies that are interpreted as infringing on rights.
	And it's what I sometimes describe as a kind of hot mess of ideologies and beliefs.
	I'm sorry, I'm mesmerised.
	I'm staring down that swirl.
	On her foot.
	And I'm not making fun of the way anyone looks.
	I'm just saying that if one were trying to make a diabolical villain akin to Dr. Evil of another variation, this is not far from what it would actually look like.
	Let's just let this play out so I can then vent some frustration.
	For a little bit.
	Fueled by conspiracy theories.
	Fueled by conspiracy theories.
	The launch of the initiative Know the Signs is an indicator that the security services know that they can't do it alone.
	They need the help of the public.
	But to some, the guide is a first step only.
	How do we upskill those people in our community who are much closer to people who might be potentially radicalised and get them to understand what it is they're seeing?
	That's our challenge.
	Adam Hollingworth, News Hub.
	I thought this was a joke, actually, at first.
	Rebecca, what was her name?
	Rebecca Kitteridge?
	I thought it was a joke.
	I said, maybe it's from like a skit of something.
	I didn't see the original broadcast.
	It was Luke Ratajkowski who posted it to Twitter.
	He's been a very trustworthy, reliable source.
	New Zealand SIS releases first ever guide to help identify signs of violent extremism.
	The most amazing thing is you don't even need the violence anymore.
	You don't even need extremism anymore.
	You get to call anything violent extremism because it might lead somewhere.
	It might lead, I don't know, to protests.
	They called a peaceful protest a violent occupation.
	They called a peaceful protest...
	Thank you.
	Racist, xenophobic, transphobic, anti-black racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic.
	They call peace war.
	They call constitutional protest extremism.
	You don't even need to have broken the law.
	To face an accusation, there doesn't need to be violence, there doesn't need to be extremism, in order for it to be called violent extremism by the government itself.
	I have been cranky the last little while, never to the point of becoming the enemy that I'm battling 24-7, if only through peaceful speech analysis and shedding some light on the absolute corruption and hypocrisy.
	I saw that.
	And I'm like, yeah, what's new there?
	We've been doing this in Canada for the last year?
	What happened in Canada?
	Anti-authority rhetoric.
	A small fringe minority holding unacceptable views.
	They're now breaking the law.
	It's an occupation now.
	A peaceful protest is an occupation.
	Criticizing the government is anti-authority rhetoric.
	It's a small, fringe minority holding unacceptable views.
	They will not be content until they literally criticize dissent itself.
	And what better way to do it?
	What better way to do it?
	If you criticize the government.
	I don't know what accent that is.
	Criticize the government and the last three years of government abuse and you're the abuser and they turn themselves into the victims.
	The government?
	That has imposed measures that have devastated a generation, crippled an economy, brought people to the brink of and sometimes over the precipice of self-harm ideations.
	If you criticize that now, and if you protest against that, you're the insurrectionist.
	If you criticize it, you're the IMVE.
	They've made up this term, I-M-V-E, ideologically motivated violent extremism that needs not violence nor extremism in order to be floated around of a blanket term to shut people up and criminalize their very existence.
	It is very, very disheartening, discouraging.
	And people are saying, well, that's New Zealand.
	New Zealand's fallen off the deep end.
	It's been in Canada now for the last nine months.
	They were attempting to push it in the United States.
	The czar of disinformation, who's now registered as a foreign agent, I forget what her name is, they called her Mary Poppins or something.
	They tried to do it in the States.
	It just so happens that there's enough people pushing back in the States against it.
	In Canada, it looks like they're going to get away with it.
	There.
	There.
	Thank you.
	Did we lose internet connection?
	Scary Poppins was her name.
	Yeah, thank you.
	I don't know if we just lost internet connection for a second.
	I'm seeing one bar.
	But do what the government tells you because that's courage.
	That is patriotism.
	Shut up and do what the government tells you.
	And who better now to be promoting this message of obedience?
	A man who once upon a time was the king of rock.
	I don't know.
	The king of being a rebel.
	F you.
	I won't do what you tell me.
	Rage against the machine to simp for the machine.
	Here we got Gene Simmons.
	Listen to this.
	I don't know when this was.
	Maybe Gene Simmons has come around now that he's seen everything that's gone down over the last three years.
	Back in the early days?
	People were terrified, and the older you were, the more terrified you were because they literally told you, if you get this, you're going to die.
	Let's see what Gene Simmons has to say.
	I don't know when this interview is from.
	It's glorious.
	Get over yourself.
	We're not concerned if you agree with it or not.
	We're concerned about you making us sick.
	Get over yourself.
	Imagine he's telling that to me because he's afraid of getting sick.
	Get over yourself.
	And listen to the way that you get to a point in your life, Where you either have too much authority, too much money, too much fear, too much power, where you think people should be subservient to your better judgment because their judgment just doesn't count.
	Listen, this is Gene Simmons.
	Get your goddamn COVID shot and prevent other people from getting your stuff.
	It's a good point, and we're having a debate this morning about that very thing, really.
	A debate about whether mask wearing should be returned to be mandatory here in the UK.
	Restrictions have been lifted.
	And I understand you even suggest people who come to your concerts wear them for their own protection.
	We are doing the KISS cruise shortly, and you will not be able to get on the cruise unless you're vaccinated.
	Look, before you go to school, you have...
	I was going to say hell.
	You can go to hell.
	Do you know what the reality is?
	If you want to see KISS that badly, that you'll do something that defies your own principles, hey, go ahead and do it.
	A KISS cruise is not exactly something that I'm worried about requiring vaccination for.
	International travel, more of a concern.
	Interprovincial travel, more of a concern.
	Seeing this jackass on a cruise, not something I even give a sweet bugger all about.
	That is not to say, that's not why I ever made my decision.
	But I can tell you, when I was asked for papers, when I was crossing my border from Quebec to a border of a province in my country, New Brunswick, and I was asked for papers, and I was told to go back to my province, register online, so that I could get into another province in my own bloody country, oh, you better damn well believe that I was enraged.
	Don't get mad.
	Don't get mad.
	That's IMVE.
	Can't criticize the government for unconstitutional charter violations, for setting up vaccination checkpoints between provinces in my own bloody country.
	You have to have your children get the flu vaccine and the polio vaccine, and there's no discussion.
	That's because they're actually vaccines with decades of proof.
	I wonder if Long Tongue, whatever this jacket in his name is, if he feels the same way now.
	He probably does.
	Because, you know, he's taken his five boosters.
	He doesn't have the same risk variance as, you know, other generations younger than him.
	Keep jacking yourself up, but listen to the end.
	And, you know, what about my rights?
	Well, you don't have as many rights as you think.
	When you get up to a red light, you must stop.
	There's no choice.
	It's because it's not about you.
	It's about the other innocent people going by.
	So get over yourself, even...
	You get in your car, you must put on a seatbelt.
	Well, you're taking away my rights, and the government's telling me what to do.
	That's right, the government is telling you what to do.
	Shut up, be respectful of other people, and get a vaccine.
	Put on your seatbelt, stop at the red light, stop being selfish.
	Because something that goes over your shoulder is quite clearly analogous, comparably speaking, to something that goes into your very body.
	I mean, they're just idiots.
	They're just idiots who have gotten...
	They've had their life already.
	They've lived a life of luxury.
	They've made wealth beyond anybody's wildest dreams.
	They've lived the good life already.
	They've got nothing left to lose because they don't have much left in any event.
	They're sort of like at the end of their roll of toilet paper, as I say.
	Life is like a toilet paper.
	It goes faster the closer you get to the end.
	They've made it.
	They've made immense wealth.
	From the freedom that they've enjoyed for the last 70 years.
	I don't know how old this guy is.
	Now, their own fear has taken over.
	They want to enjoy their last days.
	And damn you if you get to enjoy your life.
	You don't have that many freedoms.
	Shut up and do what the government says.
	Because right now, I got the power.
	I got the wealth.
	I've already had the freedom.
	And I'm not giving up that much for the rest of my days to make sure that I'm safe and feeling good.
	Oh, sweet crab apples.
	It's not a hard...
	I've been doing push-ups after going for jogs, so I'm a little sore.
	I don't feel better.
	I don't feel better.
	But if people don't understand where we're going, and they don't see it yet, and they're okay with...
	Shut up and do what the government tells you.
	And if you complain about it, that's ideologically motivated violence extremism.
	Can't criticize the government.
	It's dangerous.
	That's a little wrong thing there.
	All right.
	I think I've got something else on the backdrop.
	We'll move into something funny in a second.
	Let me just get to this super chat, which came in right at the good time.
	People stop at red lights and stop signs because most normal people don't want to be hit.
	So it is self-preservation.
	That's a stupid analogy, Gene.
	It's also a stupid analogy because you don't have to.
	You could go through the red light.
	Especially if no one's there because you can assess the fact that...
	I don't do it, by the way, because I'm just nervous that there's cameras and cops, whatever.
	You can assess the risk.
	Think about that scene from Harold and Kumar.
	Was it escape from Guantanamo Bay or go to White Castle?
	It was go to White Castle.
	When Kumar's in the middle of nowhere, there's a red light and he's waiting and Harold says, what are you doing?
	And then he crosses and immediately gets pulled over.
	You could still go through the red light.
	And there are circumstances in which someone will go through the red light for legitimate purposes.
	Nothing about what he said makes any sense.
	He's just a fearful idiot who wants to enjoy his remaining days, even if it comes at the expense of the future of the children who may at one point in time have idolized his music.
	I guess they're not children anymore.
	Thank you for the super chat.
	Let's get another one because I got to give you the standard disclaimers.
	Fear and control.
	is a business as old as time.
	It's as old as prostitutions and lawyers.
	Thank you very much, Joseph.
	Frydog underscore one underscore each.
	The cruise line that Kiss cruises on has rescinded the vaccine requirement.
	Oh, I wonder if he might be so scared that he might not go on it anymore.
	Superchats and rumble rants.
	Superchats, everybody.
	Thank you for the support.
	I genuinely appreciate it.
	Absolutely no expectations or obligations.
	If you want to do it, good.
	If you do it.
	Know that YouTube takes 30% of each and every one of these Super Chats.
	So if you don't like that, we are or should be simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	I forgot to check.
	We are.
	And Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
	AB Negative just gave one.
	$10 Rumble Rant.
	It says, what is going to happen on January 6th at SCOTUS on the Brunson lawsuit?
	Will they hear arguments or just dismiss it?
	I believe Robert has predicted dismissal of Brunson if it's the lawsuit I'm thinking about.
	V6 Neon, a $1 Rumble rant.
	Kiss Cruise will also be known as the Mary Celeste.
	So, oh, there's a bunch of Rumble rants here.
	Leo919 says, there was a little girl who had a little curl smack in the middle of her forehead.
	And when she was good, she was very, very good.
	And when she was bad, she was horrid.
	So Rumble has Rumble rants.
	Rumble takes 20% of them, so it's better for the creator, better for the platform.
	Please bring up Greg Wycliffe.
	My name is Trudeau.
	We could all use a laugh song at Trudeau's expense.
	Okay, let me get to the Super Chats here.
	Pasha Moyer.
	That hair swirl also looks like a manchkin hairdo from The Wizard of Oz, perhaps less ominous, but freaky, strange.
	It looks like something out of a 50s horror movie, and it's 2022.
	Is Trudeau invited?
	If Trudeau invited you into his house, would you let me in with you?
	Winston Shittenhouse.
	I wouldn't accept the offer.
	And not out of resentment or hatred or political disdain.
	I don't trust Trudeau enough to not try to frame me for something if he invites me into his house.
	He'll like pull a Kim Jong-un.
	Or is it Kim Jong-il?
	Kim Jong-un.
	And like accuse me of stealing government material or something.
	Wouldn't accept it.
	Can you please run Winston in the next Canadian regional elections?
	The results would be hilarious.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	Thank you for the super chat.
	If you didn't believe the MSM is in on this, you should now.
	Shut up and do what the government says.
	But look, I promise to laugh because we don't want to...
	I don't want to have it all be unhappy.
	I don't follow soccer.
	I did not watch the game.
	I don't care to.
	I just happened to have caught the last 10 minutes because my kid had a play date and I go in and they said, oh, it's, what was it?
	2-2.
	Then it was 3-2 Argentina.
	Then there was a penalty kick and it was 3-3 France.
	And then it went into shootout.
	I don't much like soccer, but I can appreciate that was the most exciting game.
	Ever?
	And not just for soccer.
	That might have been the most exciting game ever of any sport in the history of sports, period.
	I was going to make a sarcastic joke, what a boring game, and just tweet that out with no slash sarcasm.
	But people love soccer so much, I thought that could be misinterpreted to the point where I might get...
	That might piss people off more than anything else I've ever done, and that'll start getting me the hate mail and the hate messages.
	So I didn't do it, but I was watching it.
	And then at one point, Hot Air McSwallwell, I said I wouldn't make fun of him for the fart joke, but I think now the time has come to make fun of him because he spews nothing but hot air.
	Eric Swalwell, a man who clearly lacks self-awareness and insight, tweets this out.
	They say a picture is worth a thousand words.
	Oh yes, look at this, look at this.
	It's Elon Musk with Jared Kushner.
	And a bunch of Saudis.
	I have no idea who they are.
	I don't know if they're investors in Twitter.
	Part of me says, Swalwell, are people not allowed hanging out with Saudi Arabians anymore?
	If you have a picture with someone in Saudis, it's a bad thing.
	Unless someone knows who they are and they have sinister connections or something.
	I don't know.
	Part of this says, that sounds somewhat xenophobic, but I don't want to go there, Swalwell.
	I don't see anything wrong with having pictures with Saudis in general, unless some of these individuals setting aside the fact that they're Saudi, which has nothing to do with anything.
	If they're bad people, that has nothing to do with whatever you're alluding to here.
	But because Eric Swalwell is an idiot, does not weigh his words, and does not appreciate, he doesn't have insight.
	He doesn't say, oh, look at this.
	How can someone flip this on me?
	It's an obvious joke.
	I think everyone with half a brain is going to get to it.
	You didn't think this tweet through.
	A picture is worth a thousand words.
	Look at this.
	This is Eric Swalwell with, I think her name is Fang Fang, a proven Chinese spy who infiltrated a number of American politicians.
	Rumor is, I can't find any definitive corroboration, that the relationship was slightly more than Platonic.
	That's one picture.
	Here's another one.
	This is Eric Swalwell, who actually looks like Oz out of American Pie 1. And I believe that's Fang Fang.
	But don't worry, good things come in threes.
	Here is Eric Swalwell and Fang Fang.
	I believe that's Fang Fang in the red dress.
	Fang Fang, for those of you who don't know, a confirmed spy who infiltrated Certain politicians, I think politically, spiritually, and maybe they allowed some physical infiltration as well.
	Apparently thinking that he got Elon Musk through this picture without realizing how much it was going to backfire on him.
	And I don't want to talk about the Elon Musk Twitter stuff.
	They bang, bang.
	Okay, I'm not getting into any of these.
	Any of these jokes in the chat, but the chat is now having a good laugh and a good joke.
	Let me see if I missed any rumble rants on the rumbles.
	Before we get started for the evening, people, we're going to go over a little bit of the Elon Musk stuff because you can't avoid it.
	But before we do that, a little shameless, not self-promotion, self-advertising.
	Not even self-advertising.
	It's merch, people.
	It's holiday season.
	Although, hey, it's December 18th.
	We're like one week from Christmas.
	I don't know what month it is anymore.
	I walk outside.
	This is not like I'm trying to flex the weather here.
	I don't know what day of the week it is anymore.
	I just know when it's not a weekday.
	And then sometimes not even then.
	I don't know what month it is anymore because every day is the same weather-wise.
	It feels like the summer in Canada, but it's December.
	Which means it's Christmas time.
	And Chanukah time.
	And Justin Trudeau's taking to Twitter to thank us, to wish us all a happy Chanukah.
	The shirt.
	Politics ruins everything.
	Or if you're a politician, confession through projection is another good one.
	If you want to get a shirt, vivafry.com.
	And it's all good.
	It's all good.
	All good stuff.
	Francis Chartrand.
	We're going to do it.
	We're going to get into it.
	We've been exchanging in a respectful manner on Twitter.
	We'll get into it for a little bit until Barnes gets here.
	Let me read this.
	Francis Chartrand, who I know is sincere in disagreement, not a troll like some of those jackaninnies on my Twitter feed.
	Hang around to post the dumbest takes on anything.
	I know Francis Chartrand is sincere in his beliefs.
	Your takes on Taylor Lorenz.
	She is not a great human.
	How we treat her reflects on us.
	We failed.
	No one, including you, asked the right questions.
	Props to Eric Weinstein for getting it right.
	I'm going to go ahead, Francis, and say that you're wrong, respectfully.
	Because we don't have to start all discussions.
	From scratch when they come to be.
	Elon Musk has been running into a little flack on Twitter in terms of whether or not he's banning people properly, whether or not the rules make any sense.
	And this predates Taylor Lorenz getting allegedly temporarily suspended for doxing.
	Elon Musk comes out and says, do I let the people who I banned for doxing, the people who doxed my current location, do I let them on now or a week?
	And I said, which is the right response, I need to see the evidence that allows you to say that they dox you.
	Doxing is a conclusion of law.
	That's what you come to as a conclusion after seeing the evidence of, this is the tweet, Elon is going to be here at whatever time.
	Doxing is a characterization.
	I need to see the evidence.
	I said, look, it's nice that you call it doxing.
	If you're asking me to say whether or not they should be brought back on the platform, I need to see if they were in fact doxing you, if it was legitimate.
	Trust but verify.
	And then we can come to a decision.
	When Taylor Lorenz got banned, what did I say?
	I see Barnes is in the background, so I'm not going to go on for much longer.
	Let me...
	Let me...
	Here we go.
	I said it's unclear that Taylor Lorenz...
	What Taylor Lorenz did to justify...
	This is one subsequent follow-up.
	It's unclear what Taylor did to warrant this suspension.
	But don't lie and pretend that she did nothing wrong.
	Given her propensity for doxing, one can reasonably think that maybe she did it again with Elon Musk.
	But I'd like to see it.
	I'm not for anybody getting banned.
	And just saying that she doxed someone, even from Elon, good, let's see it.
	And I said it before, clarity, transparency.
	If you're going to have a big, big suspension, You'd better preemptively get your evidence up there.
	When was it that...
	Oh, the Trump raid, and then we're going to get Barnes in here.
	When you know that you're about to raid the president or a former president's house, you have your answer, if not timed immediately, to come right after.
	You don't wait 24 to 48 hours to let people's imaginations run wild.
	Even if it's Taylor Lorenz, you ban her, you better have the evidence to show it so that she doesn't get to run around pretending to be the victim.
	Everybody's covering their own butts.
	My take from the very beginning, I'd like to see the evidence to make sure it's a legitimate ban, in my humble opinion, not just Elon saying it's doxing if everyone else out there thinks it isn't.
	I think in certain cases we can understand that it was.
	And that's it.
	But Elon's taking some flack.
	All right, Barnes is in the house, people.
	We'll talk about this more tomorrow when I have on the Norwegian artist who's being investigated facing jail time.
	For saying men can't be lesbians.
	Who would have thunk?
	Robert, get ready, sir.
	Boom shakalaka.
	This is going to be our last live of the season, Robert.
	How goes the battle?
	Yeah, last live stream of 2022.
	Because next Sunday, of course, is Christmas, so no show.
	And then the Sunday after that, I believe, is New Year's.
	So no show then.
	And our first show will be the...
	The second Sunday in 2023.
	So this will be the last one for a couple of weeks.
	But we've got a packed show with a lot of stuff.
	And I'll just say, everybody, I might go live just, you know, like we might do something informal, but it will not be the Viva Bar on Sunday night show.
	So don't be disappointed and don't think anything happened.
	Yeah, we've got a packed show because we didn't get a lot of stuff left over from last week.
	But what do we have for tonight?
	And then let's get into it.
	Sure.
	So we have the Florida vaccine grand jury, statewide grand jury request petition filed to the Florida Supreme Court by Governor DeSantis.
	We have the 1-6 committee threatening to make a referral for multiple criminal prosecutions and indictments against Donald John Trump.
	We have the Kennedy file, JFK files, a little bit of a partial release, and Tucker Carlson's very prominent statement and Robert Kennedy's statement in support of it.
	We have Trump's big proposal on big tech that was partially overshadowed by his NFTs.
	We have an Oregon gun law that's in litigation.
	We have multiple.
	We have all kinds of vaccine cases.
	I mean, the number one case everybody's interested in is the update on the Arizona election contest.
	We'll get to that in just a bit.
	The second set of cases was all the vaccine cases on the Locals Poll at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	Was a range of vaccine cases, not only the Florida grand jury case, but the Nike vaccine mandate class action, the University of Virginia First Amendment class action, the military mandate getting overturned by Congress that appears that Biden was actually going to go ahead and sign it after saying he wouldn't.
	We have the win for trans participation in girls sports at the Second Circuit.
	We have a win for being able to sue foreign banks also at the Second Circuit.
	We got Nazi art back in litigation that exposes the OSS, the CIA, the New York Met, the Astor family, a range of interesting people, and some Greek famous billionaire shipyard magnates, or shipping magnates, I should say.
	Doxing, whether that is a right of the press, as has been raised in the...
	In the case of Elon Musk and in the case of Doctor-in-Chief, Scuzzball-in-Chief Taylor Lorenz, currently facing a righteous lawsuit from Arianna Jacob.
	We have abortion charges in Nebraska.
	Is a fetus a person?
	We have Brooke Jackson.
	I have an update on the Brooke Jackson.
	We had a court hearing this week on the Brooke Jackson-Pfizer case.
	We had a court hearing this week on the Amos Miller case.
	We got COVID insurance lawsuits, sports styles.
	And we got a bunch of stuff up at SCOTUS.
	Free speech.
	Is immigration promotion also protected by free speech, or is it a crime?
	Can the IRS just ransack your records without you knowing about it?
	What's up with this whole $600?
	Now they're going to start tracking everybody down for $601 transfers on PayPal.
	We have nativity scene lawsuits, crypto class actions, SBF.
	We have Biden's gender cases going up to the court system.
	We got...
	Hertz settling its attempts to mislabel people overstaying their rental as stolen cars when it was often Hertz administrative errors.
	We have the rights to religious expression at graduation, the rights to Catholic schools to limit gender identification protocols in Michigan.
	We got the Nixxiom case, Raniere's case, went to the Second Circuit.
	When is a cult a crime?
	That was the question before the Second Circuit in substantial part.
	And we got Rumble suing the state of New York.
	We got expert witnesses.
	We got the rights to felons to sit on jurors.
	So we got a lot of fun cases.
	We'll see how many we get to, given it might go a little bit long for this special edition episode, holiday season episode, before we go off the air for a couple of weeks.
	And we're going to take it to Rumble right now, just to save some bad breaking.
	Praise be to Lionel Messi!
	Praise be to Lionel Messi while we're still on YouTube.
	Lionel Messi wins the World Cup.
	That's why all the white and blue in honor of the great Argentina.
	Don't cry for me, Argentina Vita Peron.
	The great win by the greatest player, the maestro, the little magician, the little flea to ever play the game.
	And of course, if you were a member of sportspicks.logals.com, you made money this morning as well.
	But great to see the great one go off in such great style.
	By the skin of your teeth, you made money.
	That penalty kick to France, that really looked like it was...
	I don't know.
	I don't follow enough soccer to know if it looked like they were trying to equalize the game, but it was a nail-biter.
	Ending on YouTube.
	The link to Rumble is in the pinned comment.
	I'll put it one more time before we do this.
	Right there.
	We're going to end on YouTube.
	Go to Rumble.
	3, 2, 1, now.
	Robert, what do we start with?
	Let's start with the...
	Not because we're doing this on Rumble, this is going to go on YouTube afterwards, but...
	The abortion case, where you sent me the link.
	I had never heard of this case before, and so I'm reading what is a judgment on emotion to quash, and then I had to go look up the backstory to understand this, and this is a story of a woman, a pregnant teenager, and her mother, and I think the boyfriend, who they allege that it was a miscarriage, the baby, it was a miscarriage, and they...
	Disposed of the fetus.
	It seems based on Facebook messages and other investigations that the mother had ordered an abortion pill for the kid.
	We're at 23 or 24 weeks.
	The unborn baby is aborted through these pills potentially.
	They then apparently buried the baby and then exhumed it after this all hit the fan when...
	I don't know how they discovered that the woman was pregnant, and then she was no longer pregnant.
	They said, what happened?
	She said, miscarriage, and this is where he buried the baby.
	They exhumed it.
	Apparently the baby was burnt, like they tried to burn it before burying it.
	And now the state has come after the mother, the girl, and the boyfriend, but for different reasons.
	And the charges are...
	The charges hinge on whether or not the fetus is a human under the law.
	What are the charges that she's facing?
	First, a credit to the live chat at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	Someone claimed it can't be a real sport if the French can win it.
	Ah, that is brutal.
	Brutal.
	But putting that aside, this is Nebraska versus Burgess.
	Nebraska's abortion criminal law is now enforceable after the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v.
	Wade.
	And Nebraska's abortion laws provide for prosecuting the abortionist, but not the woman that gets the abortion.
	And it also provides, there's also, of course, a general solicitation aiding, abetting criminal statutes.
	So the mother of the minor child has been indicted on grounds that she aided and abetted the abortion in this case.
	Because the abortion wasn't performed according to the allegations of the indictment, wasn't performed by an abortionist, but was instead because the mother ordered pills over the internet, abortion pills, gave them to her daughter.
	It induced an abortion.
	And one issue that's in dispute, which became relevant in the case, is that because of the age of the fetus and because of the method in which the abortion occurred, it appears that there is an evidentiary argument by the state.
	That the baby was born alive and then subsequently died.
	The reason why that became significant is the abortion laws and the way in which the law is being prosecuted only allows criminal prosecution if a person has been killed.
	And Nebraska's laws, quite peculiarly one might argue, do not define with clarity who a person is.
	And so the court noted that the rule of lenity, the rule of lenity is that we don't put people in prison for something where there's any vagueness or ambiguity in the definition of what's criminal.
	Noted that given that the definition of a person needed to be presumed to be someone born alive, given the definitions and other statutory provisions in Nebraska law, given certain...
	Common law interpretations of it, given certain common medical interpretations of it.
	One could argue that, but I think given the rule of lenity, that's probably the correct assumption.
	This is a failure of the Nebraska legislature to make clear when someone is a person to be criminally prosecuted under the law.
	And because part of the argument was that some laws use unborn child, I think...
	What was it?
	A car accident?
	A whole separate set of laws that govern unborn children.
	Some involving unborn children once they reach to a certain stage, what laws trigger in that case.
	Some involving civil liability, civil tort liability.
	Some involving criminal liability.
	This goes way back because we've had a lot of conflicts in the law.
	We've had a long legal history of not treating an unborn child as a person within the meaning of, say, the 14th Amendment or generally for legal purposes.
	But we've had other provisions, such as if you harmed a pregnant woman and she lost the baby, there were laws going way back that define that as a person.
	So we've had contradictory laws, and this was a failure of the Nebraska state legislature with clarity, but this did not help her escape judgment.
	Because the issue is whether or not...
	The big issue at trial now will be, was this baby born alive?
	Did it survive for any period of time once out of the...
	Correct.
	No, it's atrocious.
	It's atrocious, just the story itself and trying to burn it and bury it.
	Reason for the prosecution, the reason why you haven't seen the media talk a lot about this case, because they've talked a lot about other circumstances that were somewhat comparable or analogous, but it's because of the way the baby was found, the cover-up attempts.
	They don't want the world focused on this.
	How easy it is to get abortion pills, even in a state that prohibits abortion.
	They don't want the world focused on that.
	They want the world thinking that, in fact, nobody can get an abortion when their life depends on it in these states.
	And that's why they were eager.
	New York Times was eager to spread those stories, often fake news stories, as they turned out to be.
	Or with much more nuance than was publicly presented.
	But the Nebraska story they're not talking about because they don't want...
	And I think the reason prosecutors took action was a combination of the cover-up and the attempts to, as you note, burn the baby.
	Defile the corpse.
	Raised questions as to what exactly happened here.
	Atrocious.
	All right.
	And so the motion to quash, I mean, I understand that in the context of subpoenas.
	What were they trying to quash?
	In Nebraska state law, like a lot of states in America, the means by which you move to dismiss an indictment is you move to quash it.
	That's all.
	All right.
	And so it was interesting because they said, look, the distinctions about human life versus baby life or an unborn child is one thing.
	We think there's an argument it might have been born alive.
	So bypass all of that.
	You're going to trial.
	Okay, terrible story, but just the law itself is kind of interesting.
	If we're talking about other government stuff, Robert, can we talk about children's health defense and what's going on with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.?
	Oh, sure.
	I think we need a 30,000-foot review because a lot of new faces who might not know what's going on with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., children's health defense.
	And I'm going to remember a question I had as you do this, but give us the rundown, just overview before we get into the latest.
	So we have two major cases that Bobby Kennedy and I have brought on behalf of Children's Health Defense.
	One was challenging the military vaccine mandate in the Eastern District of Tennessee.
	That case was dismissed on standing grounds, went up to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was dismissed again on standing grounds.
	And now we are filing tomorrow a petition for cert to the United States Supreme Court challenging the Sixth Circuit's interpretation of the case for controversy language in the Constitution.
	The other case is pending before the Western District of Texas and Waco.
	It relates to something we'll talk about in a bit, because our grounds for challenging the FDA's action was to challenge the FDA authorizing, approving, mislabeling, mismarketing, misbranding this vaccine to young children, knowing it would lead to mandates and coercive techniques and a lack of informed consent for those children.
	The factual allegations of that suit, as I've been arguing for many years, a critical grounds to file suit is to remember the court of public opinion.
	Just because a suit might be perceived by lawyers as a long shot is no reason to abandon the suit.
	One, long shots win, at least sometimes, number one.
	Number two, you educate the court of public opinion with the legal filing.
	In addition, there are certain immunities that attach to honest reporting of court cases where you can't be sued for libel or defamation.
	So it's a good way to get information in, including the big tech gatekeepers and censors.
	If you're describing a lawsuit, we'll be far less likely to censor you than they would otherwise.
	So, in fact, the factual grounds for that suit led the state of Florida to be interested in what we were alleging and ultimately formed the factual foundation for the petition of grand jury was the great efforts by Bobby Kennedy Children Health Defense and us in bringing that suit.
	That suit is pending.
	The judge is pending an order on whether or not to dismiss it on standing in an immunity ground, sovereign immunity ground.
	That's pending before the Western District of Texas in Waco.
	So the petition for cert, what's the new news?
	There's partially new news in that the Children's Health Defense case in the Western District of Texas has effectively...
	Been picked up by the state of Florida for petitioning for a statewide grand jury based on the exact grounds we alleged.
	But the additional one, and we'll get to that in a bit, the Supreme Court petition that will be filed tomorrow, the petition for cert, which is basically a request for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case.
	The way that works is we file our petition for cert.
	The government has a period of time to respond to it.
	Sometimes they waive response, sometimes they don't.
	If they waive response, that ends it, and it goes to the panel on a set date for them to vote on it.
	It gets circulated by all of the justices.
	You file these little cert petitions.
	I have a bunch of them sitting right around here, actually.
	And you have to pay a bunch of money for a specialized printer to be able to file it correctly.
	I do that because there's all these specific particular rules to the Supreme Court.
	Even in a digital era, and the cert petition gets filed digitally, The U.S. Supreme Court still prefers to read them physically, so they want enough copies for themselves and their clerks.
	And they claim, every justice claims they read every single cert petition.
	Some of us aren't so confident that that's always the case, or their definition of reading might be a little liberal.
	But what often does happen is at least a clerk, sometimes several clerks, do in fact read it.
	And the ones that get their attention are ones that involve big corporations or the government, sadly, frankly, when the government's petitioning, not when the government's a defendant.
	But it's a great opportunity to educate the clerks and educate the court.
	So I take any case I can to the U.S. Supreme Court for those purposes, knowing every single petition is a long shot.
	They reject, I think, some...
	I think it's less than 1% currently, is the acceptance rate.
	And especially once you factor out government requests, big corporate requests, things of that nature, you're dealing with a thousand to one long shot frequently.
	But it's worth it because I've seen the arguments we've raised in cert petitions show up in Supreme Court opinions within the same year when we were the only ones making those arguments.
	So that's where it's valuable to educate the court, educate the clerks.
	The legal grant, so half of the petition is about The public policy surrounding this.
	So the court wakes up to recognizing what the government has been up to and how dangerous and imperilis it is, not only for confidence in public health authorities, but confidence in the judiciary to properly oversee and discipline those authorities when they go AWOL.
	And so half of it's about all the things that have gone AWOL with this so-called vaccine.
	It's lack of safety, it's lack of efficacy, the fact it ain't a vaccine, and the rest.
	In the legal grounds is that there's actually the best grounds to get the U.S. Supreme Court to take a cert petition when you're not a big corporation, you're not the government, is a conflict between the circuit courts.
	And we identified not one, not two, but three different conflicts between the courts.
	So if you read what the courts have held, now this reflects my long criticism of the doctrine of standing.
	For those out there standing, is a reference to the words in the U.S. Constitution that say the United States federal courts shall take a case whenever there is, quote, a case or controversy arising under the laws of the United States or the U.S. Constitution.
	That language, for the first almost 150 years of our history, was not limited.
	Is this a case or controversy?
	You look at the legal merits of the case.
	Did you allege a cause of action?
	Beginning in the 1920s, the U.S. Supreme Court invented, as the beginning of its Pontius Pilate pretext from hiding from meaningful decisions that had political ramifications that could implicate people in positions of power, invented The doctrine of standing.
	The word standing doesn't exist in the Constitution.
	You won't find it in any of the original founders, documents, or discussions in the Federalist Papers or anything else.
	And so what happened is they invent it and they basically create these limitations.
	And a lot of conservative justices have loved it because they think it's a way to stop liberal activist courts from intervening where they shouldn't.
	But the problem is...
	Liberal activist courts will find ways around it, so all you really end up doing is limiting conservatives' access to the courts, because liberals get to cite the conservatives when they don't want to hear a case.
	Let me just ask the one question, because now, case or controversy under the laws of the United States, some people are going to say, well, Robert, you and I have a contract.
	Joe Schmoe off the street has no business suing on the basis of my contract if I decide not to.
	This is not a question of interfering with...
	Private citizens and their own disputes or non-existence of disputes.
	This is a law of the United States that provides a case of controversy whether or not an individual has personally been affected by it.
	The potential is always there.
	So that is the idea of where the standing has been created that you don't agree with.
	Not getting involved in third parties' private disputes, but anything relating to the laws of the land.
	My view is we stick with cause of action.
	You either play a cause of action or not.
	This interpreting case or controversy provision to go past, beyond, is there a cause of action, is the problem.
	Because the government conceded in the proceedings, they didn't challenge whether we had a cause of action.
	They challenged whether the federal courts could hear the cause of action that was recognized that we had.
	And that's the problem.
	We should just have the regular, like, so if somebody who's not a party to a contract and wasn't a third party intended beneficiary, et cetera, sues about a contract between you and I, they don't have a cause of action.
	We don't need to get into this standing nonsense as this additional doctrine that has become politically convenient.
	Show me a judge who dismissed a case for standing, and I'll show you where that judge found standing on almost identical grounds, as often as not.
	It's so political.
	It's so pretextual.
	And as we'll get into in the Arizona cases, you see it being abused terribly.
	That make a mockery of judicial integrity, frankly.
	It makes the courts look like political hacks.
	We saw it during the 2020 elections, the creative standings.
	Too early, too late.
	You're not a party.
	Whatever.
	I'll have a question that I need you to clarify about Comirnaty, the approved vaccine, and what the CDC approved for children.
	But I don't want to get ahead of it.
	Just remind me if I forget.
	Oh, sure.
	I mean, I can loosely tell you that all the biological, the suit we filed that's going up to the U.S. Supreme Court is about the bait and switch.
	So what they did is, there's a federal law that got passed by Congress.
	That said no more medical experimentation on soldiers.
	And said you can only mandate a drug, a vaccine, if it has a full biologic license.
	So the Defense Department wanted to mandate the vaccine.
	So the FDA, but the drug companies didn't want to be subject to the liability that may apply outside of the PrEP Act.
	As long as it was the emergency use authorized drug that's being distributed, they have the broadest immunity known to man under the PrEP Act.
	We'll get into whether or not the PrEP Act preempts state criminal prosecution in the Florida case in just a bit, but they wanted to keep their immunity.
	So the FDA did a bait and switch.
	On the same day that they gave a biological license for the Pfizer vaccine, That was going to be mandated on the members of the military.
	They also extended the emergency use authorization of the same Pfizer vaccine that was going to be the actual drug administered to the members of the military.
	And it was all in a little footnote where the FDA said, because the emergency use authorization laws do not allow them to extend an emergency use authorization for any drug that has a biologic license.
	So, in order to protect both sides, the Defense Department and Big Pharma, the FDA did a bait and switch.
	They said, hey, we've approved the biological licensed one, so the Defense Department can now say that's what's being mandated.
	But we're also extending the emergency use authorization one, and the reason why is because the biological licensed one isn't available.
	And the biological licensed one actually hit, I don't think it's, I don't know if it's available yet.
	In fact, members of the military, to cover up what was going on when soldiers contested this, thanks in part to our lawsuit, they started mislabeling it and saying it was the biologic license one when that one hadn't been produced.
	There's also different manufacturing standards, but mostly it's different legal liability responsibility.
	And so we sued on the bait and switch and said, this is preposterous.
	They got to, you know, crap or get off the pot.
	They can't claim both.
	And their excuse was, oh, nobody can sue us.
	As long as what we're called doing emergency use powers, nobody can sue us, even for the suit that's related to the biologic license of something that's not available.
	And their only way to get out was the standing ground and the emergency use exception ground.
	The Sixth Circuit went along with it by ignoring the fact that all the other federal courts...
	Across the country, including the Second Circuit, Third Circuit, Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Ninth Circuit, D.C. Circuit, have all said the grounds that we have are grounds to sue the government.
	And this includes if a third party causes the injury because they're playing a lot of shell games.
	The government's doing this all the time.
	I mean, they're doing it in the Brooke Jackson case, which we'll get to in a bit.
	Where they say, well, the people doing the mandate aren't the ones doing the drug approval.
	So you can't sue the people doing the mandate on the grounds the drug approval was wrong because they didn't do the drug approval.
	But you can't sue the drug approval people for what they did was wrong because they're not the ones doing the mandate and the mandate's the injury.
	So it's a complete shell game the government is playing.
	To deal with this shell gain, in the past and other instances, federal courts have said you don't have to show that the agency action is the sole cause or the last cause or the direct cause of your injury.
	All you have to do is show it's a substantial factor.
	The way to think of it is, is it a link in a chain of causation?
	Doesn't have to be the only link.
	Doesn't have to be the last link.
	Doesn't have to be the first link.
	It just needs to be a link such that if you removed it, causation and injury would not occur.
	That's precisely what we alleged because there's no dispute.
	The Defense Department couldn't have mandated it but for the FDA bait and switch.
	And so the Sixth Circuit just stuck its head in the sand and pretended this didn't exist, didn't even deal with it meaningfully.
	That was one conflict in the circuit.
	There's another conflict.
	In this exact context, other federal courts have ruled that when simply increasing the risk of an injury, Is itself a constitutionally cognizable case or controversy?
	For example, just the fear of getting a bad drug or suffering injury from a mislabeled, misbranded, mismarketed drug was grounds to do so.
	This included a death penalty case where somebody was going to be injected with a concoction that was...
	Very questionable as to whether it should have been approved for importation.
	The FDA improved it, but the FDA wasn't the ones giving it to any death penalty person.
	They said, that doesn't matter, but for you, the FDA doing this, the person doesn't face this risk.
	And last but not least, usually if the government does something that causes an organization to suffer pre-litigation investigation costs, in other words, you're spending money, you have to divert resources and be as a drain on resources that you didn't anticipate.
	They've said you can sue in a bunch of contexts across the country, but somehow now that was magically inapplicable.
	So all of these are compelling legal grounds for the Supreme Court to take it.
	Always a long shot, but it's the reason why we're filing it, and we'll see how it proceeds.
	The CBC adding the shot to the recommendations for kids.
	I think I'm confused.
	A few people are confused that it's not the emergency use authorization version that they're recommending, but the biologic version, the Comirnaty version?
	Or am I wrong on that?
	I mean, the suit's currently based on the emergency use authorization one, but the suit...
	Will continue to be amended as they change their protocols and procedures.
	But my understanding is right now, but the suit itself is based on the emergency use authorization one.
	And my understanding is that's still the case in many contexts.
	And the reason is simple.
	I mean, they're now going to try to add it to get it fully biologically licensed, then add it to the kids list because that creates its own immunity.
	But there's no question that the broadest immunity for big pharma is under the PREP Act.
	And so they would rather stay under the PREP Act forever if they could.
	That's why, you know, the Biden administration keeps extending the emergency, keeps extending.
	We had a loony judge.
	I forget which court issue a order saying we can't do any criminal trials.
	The pandemic is still ongoing.
	We can't do in-person hearings.
	What is this?
	I mean, that gives you a mindset.
	I mean, this is what happens when you have such an age disparate profile of a particular disease.
	Right?
	Like almost all the risk disproportionately of the vaccine is on young people in terms of disproportionality.
	Whereas almost all the risk from the virus is disproportionately on elderly people.
	But take a look at your age profile of your typical federal judges.
	They are, ooh.
	They're Gene Simmons level, Robert.
	Yes.
	And we're seeing signs of that in a lot of their decision making.
	But how could they have added?
	The emergency use authorization version to the kids list, especially when, I'm not wrong, it has now been admitted, recognized, it's still undergoing clinical trials, correct?
	So I just don't understand.
	How does the CDC add this?
	Is it the emergency use?
	Is it the EUA?
	Is it the approved biologic?
	But how do they do this when they also simultaneously admit that it's still under clinical trial?
	Lots of shell games.
	Lots of shell games.
	So the issue of biologic license, so if anybody needs it, that is available.
	But often what's actually functionally available is consistently the emergency use authorization one.
	The short answer is this.
	You will know whether it's the biologic licensed one once all emergency use authorizations have been revoked.
	Because emergency use authorizations can't exist if there's a biologic licensed drug available.
	So as long as the emergency use authorization exists for the drug, that's what you're getting, not the biologic license.
	I mean, it'll be the stupid question.
	When does the emergency use authorization get revoked?
	When is the emergency no longer there?
	It would automatically get revoked if they revoke the emergency in the Biden administration.
	That's why the Biden administration keeps extending the emergency.
	And there's an interpretation of the law, which we've raised in the Texas case.
	The Western District of Texas about whether or not Congress has to be consulted on that every six months with an affirmative vote to continue to extend it.
	That issue, too, has not yet been litigated.
	And all of it they're trying to claim is unenforceable judicially, unreviewable judicially.
	That they are, as long as they say some magic words, this is the other reason they like the emergency words.
	And this also tells you that they're still operating under an emergency provision.
	Because they haven't moved to dismiss on mutinous grounds.
	They haven't said, oh, by the way, there is no more emergency.
	No, they've moved to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds on the grounds they're exerting emergency power still.
	Okay.
	Is that as much of an update on RFK, Children's Health Defense, that can allow us to now segue into impaneling the grand jury?
	I say this, DeSantis...
	As far as I'm concerned, is the leader for the time right now who's doing the things.
	This is a direct headbutt with Trump because Trump now is still touting the beauty of the vaccine, Operation Warp Speed, you know, the signature element of his presidency.
	Whereas at the same time, setting aside rumors, DeSantis is now looking to investigate and potentially hold, they won't be Nuremberg trials, but hold some form of trial.
	What is DeSantis trying to do in Florida?
	What gives him the authority to do it?
	I have the standing.
	I think I can imagine it, but what's he trying to do?
	And does it have a leg to stand on?
	Definitely.
	And he's created a committee of some really good people to advise on the process, so he continues to handle these issues.
	You have to wonder, why is no other governor in the country figuring this out?
	You know, my home state of Tennessee might want to wake up on this someday between now and next year.
	So, some other states.
	But I'll be home soon enough, so I'll get to talk to some folks in person.
	Under Florida law, not all states have these provisions.
	Some just have local grand juries, but there's nothing preventing the local DA from doing anything either.
	Under section 905.33 of the Florida statutes, they authorized the governor and only the governor to petition the Supreme Court of Florida to create a statewide grand jury.
	Made up of select legal counsel, investigators, and grand jurors where a crime has been committed across county lines.
	And the only requirement of the governor that the courts have ever enforced in Florida is that the governor must identify specific crimes.
	If no specific crime is identified, the Florida Supreme Court, which has discretion to deny the petition, has historically denied it.
	If there's specific crimes listed, it historically has granted it.
	And here they gave specific crimes.
	And they cited the fraud statutes and false pretenses statutes.
	They cited the RICO statutes.
	They could have cited those with a little more clarity than they did.
	But their citation of them was a decent start.
	But then they cited, they could have reached out to some of us who could have helped finish the drafting.
	I mean, it's clear that a lot of the grounds for it.
	And I know they were, you know, I had an outreach to some of the people on our team that early on is the grounds that we have raised with Bobby Kennedy and I for the Children's Health Defense in the Western District of Texas.
	They cite a lot of the same arguments, a lot of the same factual claims, etc.
	So it could have had a little more detail, but where they have one place where they have a no-brainer, which is Florida has its, a lot of states have their own version of a Food and Drug and Cosmetic Act, like the federal.
	Drug and cosmetic diet.
	And so basically each state has their own FDA frequently.
	Florida's FDA laws, Florida's version of that, makes it a crime to either mislead or falsely advertise at all or make false statements about the labeling, marketing, or nature of any drug.
	And that's where they have a, that's where the, and that was what they highlighted.
	They were like, what they highlight in the factual section, that there has been many false statements and misleading statements about the safety of this drug, of the efficacy of this drug, of its profile and utility for children, of the risk-benefit ratio, reward ratio for people, but particularly children, particularly young men.
	And they said this is sufficient grounds to open a grand jury which can subpoena all kinds of evidence, can issue reports, and can also, of course, issue indictments.
	And they're wanting Pfizer and Moderna to be put under criminal investigation and a statewide grand jury for whether or not they lied to the people of Florida.
	On basically the identical grounds as our lawsuit in the Western District of Texas, which focuses there on the FDA.
	They're focusing on where the drug companies that misled the FDA in the first place.
	Now, I don't think the PREP Act preempts crimes of general application.
	The general rule has been, unless it's very specific, clear, and undeniable.
	Federal law does not preempt state criminal laws when the state criminal laws are laws of general application.
	So there have been cases where they preempted state criminal laws, but only where there's an identical federal criminal law governing the exact same thing, and it's an issue uniquely of federal import.
	So the PREP Act preempts a lot of things, can preempt state civil administrative procedures, can preempt state civil laws, can preempt state courts, state torts.
	State lawsuits, lawsuits brought by individuals, but generally does not preempt criminal cases of general application.
	And here the federal laws, nothing in the federal laws, authorize Pfizer or Moderna to lie about this drug.
	And that's what they did.
	They lied about how safe it is.
	You've been highlighting several of these statements on Twitter that DeSantis mentions.
	The 94% efficacy, the South Africa 100% efficacy, high-ranking executives of Moderna and Pfizer lied to the public about how safe it is, how effective it is, and frankly, the fact that it's not even really a vaccine, pretending it is.
	I mean, I keep bringing them up because it's almost a cliche, and yet people still have not heard of some of them.
	Albert Bourla, April 1st, 100% effective in South African studies.
	And yet, at the same time...
	Now they're running clinical trials to determine the extent to which if they cause myocarditis in young people, how the heck do they have the audacity?
	Like a politician from Alberta is saying, I got my booster today.
	They're safe and effective.
	Well, they're not effective because they don't prevent transmission.
	And now if you're going to say all they do is attenuate symptoms, that's a therapeutic and not a vaccine by any metric and safe.
	When they're doing studies now, because they're still under clinical trials, to determine the extent to which they might cause myocarditis in young people, and young men in particular, I don't know how they made these statements.
	I pulled up what DeSantis drafted there for Florida.
	They've got good people on the panel.
	They've got good people on the committee.
	They've got good questions.
	I don't think anybody out there disagrees that it's all there as a matter of fact, but how can the federal get involved and say...
	We gave them immunity.
	We're sovereign immunity.
	You can't go after us for crimes against Floridians.
	How can they step in to stop it if they wanted to?
	Probably the only place they would get to challenge it is once the grand jury issues a subpoena for their records.
	They could try to challenge it and contest it then.
	But they should lose.
	Definitely at the subpoena investigatory stage.
	But they should lose even at the indictment stage.
	Because what is a lot of executives lie.
	I think the Florida Supreme Court will approve it.
	They don't have a history of turning a blind eye to this kind of thing.
	It would look really, really bad if they didn't approve it, quite frankly.
	Because, again, specific criminal laws are cited.
	I think it's 499, if I recall right, is the Florida FDA law.
	It says very clear certain things are a crime, and it says false or misleading information about a drug is a crime.
	So that by itself is sufficient to inquire.
	And here, they're advertising nationwide, sometimes through foundations and front groups, sometimes in association with them, sometimes directly.
	I mean, right now, I think it's Moderna or Pfizer is running an ad telling little children, targeting little children, telling that they will be superheroes if they take this drug.
	So, I mean, it's just lie after lie after lie after lie.
	And by the way, the emergency use authorization law doesn't authorize this.
	It doesn't say they can call it safe.
	It doesn't say they can call it effective.
	It doesn't even say they can call it a vaccine when it ain't.
	It says they can say maybe it's safe, maybe it's effective, and it's a drug.
	It's a therapeutic.
	That's what the law actually would require, they say.
	Again, they're so greedy.
	They could have just kept their mouth shut and let the government lie for them.
	They would still be in trouble for what lies they may have told the government, but that would have been less likely to get them in trouble than going out and lying to kids, lying to caregivers, lying to custodians.
	And this is the utility of the suit we filed in the Western District of Texas.
	Somebody in the live chat at vibobarneslaw.locals.com asked about which case will go forward first.
	I don't know.
	The Florida Supreme Court may act quickly and the grand jury open quickly.
	The Western District of Texas, the court will probably issue a decision before the year's out.
	Hopefully, it lets us go forward.
	If it lets us go forward, then our case will probably get to an adjudicatory process first.
	But we'll see.
	If it doesn't let it go forward, then it goes up on appeal, and it's probably a year or so before we get any resolution.
	The Florida grand jury can be open anywhere from 12 to 18 months.
	They've identified which circuits they think is the best circuits to draw jurors from.
	They've identified the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as the investigatory agency.
	They've identified the Florida Council to be involved in helping the grand jury guide and govern their process.
	But the reality is that we credit, again, to Governor DeSantis and his Florida and the Florida Surgeon General there for continuing to pursue meaningful relief and remedies and refusing to forego and forfeit.
	Those remedies, as so many others have.
	And the reality is people can look at this.
	Any district attorney anywhere in America has had their people in their community lied to by Pfizer.
	They can open up grand juries anywhere.
	Anywhere.
	Small county, big county, doesn't matter.
	So hopefully people will look at the Florida petition, look at the facts alleged, look again at our lawsuit and the briefing and the factual.
	Information we bring to life, Children's Health Defense and Robert Kennedy and I in Western District, Texas.
	Use it as a roadmap and open up your own grand jury investigation.
	Because these corporate executives belong in prison.
	They lie.
	Now, they think that as long as the federal government has their back, that they can continue to get away with this.
	Because the FDA is lying on their behalf.
	And it's similar to good transition into the Brooke Jackson case.
	For sure.
	Go ahead.
	Just before we get there, because this is also like the thing about courage being contagious.
	And once you start asking questions and morticians or whomever feeling less threatened to come out and disclose these things, this I found very interesting.
	Autopsy surveillance.
	This is from florida.gov.
	Last month, researchers uncovered alarming facts surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine in Germany.
	Among autopsies performed on 25 people who died unexpectedly within 20 days after the COVID-19 vaccination, four indicated deaths due to acute arrhythmogenic cardiac failure.
	This study concluded that, quote, myocarditis can be a potentially lethal complication following mRNA-based anti-SARS COVID-2 vaccination.
	And I love the way people have to try to demonize the...
	Attorney General for Florida, like he's got to be some quack because...
	Oh, the Surgeon General, right.
	The Surgeon General, sorry, the Surgeon General.
	It's got to be some quack because he's defying the orthodoxy of the time.
	Robert, I mean, just hypothetically, if this were another era and you even had 20 confirmed deaths from a novel vaccine, a novel treatment, that would be enough to...
	Oh, yes, yes.
	Four deaths before has been enough to revoke.
	Nine deaths, 11 deaths, dang fever, other places where they screwed up.
	We cite those in our Supreme Court petition.
	I'll be publishing the Supreme Court petition, cert petition, at vivabarneslaw.locals.com this week, which goes through their history of screw-ups.
	You know, 1953, 55, 59, 74, 77, over and over.
	Just recently, just a few years ago, many examples where government agencies rushed the approval based on drug company lies that led to the needless deaths of often people as young as children.
	And that's what they're doing here.
	And so credit to Florida, hopefully other attorney generals across the country, other governors across the country, other district attorneys at the county level recognize they have the same, not only opportunity, but obligation to protect their citizenry from one of the most dangerous drugs in history.
	And again, you take the number of adverse events, deaths and disabilities, from this vaccine alone, so-called vaccine, it's a drug, it's not, it's a therapeutic, it's not a vaccine, by the common understanding of the word through medical history, the FDA's own history until two years ago, and most ordinary Americans.
	And that's what matters for labeling and marketing and advertising purposes, is what the ordinary person understands it to mean, not what somebody secretly defines it in a regulatory agency somewhere.
	But all of them can pursue these cases.
	All of them.
	There have been deaths and disabilities all across the nation, as you can find in the VAERS database.
	Any prosecutor in the country can open up a case against Pfizer or Moderna, and they should if they care about protecting their community from harm.
	If they think I'm wrong, open that up to find that out through the grand jury process, too.
	Just have a meaningful, independent inquiry investigation.
	There's a reason they're hiding these records.
	It's the same reason they went begging to the federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas in the Brooke Jackson United States v.
	Pfizer whistleblower false claims Ketam case, begging him to continue to delay any discovery in the case while the court decides their motion to dismiss the case.
	Which the court granted their delay of any discovery for months and months now.
	Same reason Pfizer's been trying to hide information from another federal court, I think Northern District of Texas, on FOIA grounds from an action brought by the informed consent network Del Bigtree and lawyer Aaron Seary.
	Same reason, they don't want the world to know the truth.
	Any of these grand juries can get access to that truth and they should try.
	Now, in the Brooke Jackson case, I got lectured again on professional ethical obligations about what statements to make about judges.
	People still think, I mean, who's filing?
	No, nobody's filed a complaint.
	So it's a judge just suggesting that you're licensed or you might be ethics investigated for continued statements in the court of public opinion.
	Robert, did he mention?
	Which statements in particular or just overall anti-authority rhetoric?
	It was him taking the bait on Pfizer's filings.
	So Pfizer's arguments for delaying discovery is to attack me and attack Brooke Jackson for public comments critical of Pfizer and critical or interpreted to be critical of the court.
	Now of note, they selectively edited very small statements out.
	But I was annoyed that the court just accepted those statements on face value, or at least appeared to.
	And so the court delayed discovery.
	The court's grounds was it might become an unnecessary expense for both parties where he dismissed the case.
	We said, we're not worried about the expense.
	We want the discovery.
	And he just went along with Pfizer's request anyway.
	Now, and after he finished that, he then launched into talking about ethics rules.
	And the ethics rule he cited is one that has been meaningfully revised, I think, maybe even in his lifetime.
	I'm not sure, depending on where his age is.
	What the ethics boards used to provide, and there's all this confusion out there.
	Ordinary people think that there's something called the bar that separately regulates lawyers.
	There isn't.
	In America, All lawyers are regulated by the Supreme Court of the state or the federal district court that they are permitted to appear in.
	Those are the courts that have disciplinary authority over them.
	Almost all disciplinary authority goes through the state Supreme Court of the state you have been licensed in.
	It is the state Supreme Court that dictates this.
	Deeply problematic to me, the state Supreme Courts just eviscerate the separation of powers.
	So the separation of powers says the legislature legislates, the executive enforces, and the judiciary adjudicates, but not in the licensing of lawyers.
	The licensing of lawyers, the judges proclaim the authority, I frankly think usurp it, to say we will not allow a person to be represented by someone else in our proceedings unless we, the judges, say you can do so.
	And we're going to write the rules.
	We're going to enforce the rules, and we're going to interpret and adjudicate the rules.
	We're going to be jury, judge, and executioner, legislator, executive, and adjudicator in complete evisceration of it, of the principles of separation of powers every constitutional government, state, and federal was formed at in the United States.
	In addition to that, there's a glaring conflict of interest.
	What if the issue concerns the judges themselves?
	What if it concerns lawyers critiquing, criticizing, exposing, condemning the judges?
	The judges get to decide whether that was okay or not.
	The judges get to write the rules.
	The judges get to enforce the rules.
	The judges get to interpret the rules.
	And the judges get to adjudicate the rules.
	I will give a personal, professional example of why this led to such agitation for me.
	When I was a young lawyer in Tennessee, I've told this story before, but many people haven't heard it.
	I was representing victims of domestic abuse, including as part of a public interest organization.
	And there was a case involving a young boy and a young girl whose father was just horrific.
	And the young boy, seven, eight years old.
	To his great courage and bravery, disclosed to the court what his father was doing.
	I was not present for that particular trial because the lead of the organization was lead counsel in the case.
	So he comes back and he tells me that in fact the judge still allowed unsupervised visitation by the father despite the kid saying this is what's going to happen if you allow that.
	And the horrific abuse that would...
	Shocked most people.
	And I was enraged.
	And I said, how did this happen?
	And the lawyer, who's a very well-established, well-regarded lawyer, old-school liberal Democrat of the noblesse oblige type, you know, spent a lot of his life giving back to people.
	That's who he was.
	I met him when he ran for Congress years before.
	He said, look, he goes, oh, the judge fell asleep.
	And he goes, the judge has an undiagnosed medical problem.
	We all know it.
	And he falls asleep frequently on the bench.
	And he was asleep during this time.
	I was like, whoa.
	Why don't we raise that?
	He goes, I'll tell you right now, Robert.
	You can raise it.
	And if you do, you're going to be persona non grata in this town.
	And it will hurt every single client or case that you have.
	Because judges will be like, oh, you're one of those rats who rats out judges, who does bad things to judges.
	And they will punish you for your behavior.
	And it enraged me even further.
	And I realized that was the moment I decided I'm never going to be locked into a single town.
	I'm going to take a mercenary model of legal practice.
	So if I don't like how a judge is behaving, by golly, I'm going to say so.
	And if they want to do something, they can do something to me.
	But I'm not going to be in a situation where they can gut my legal practice because I only practice in that area of the geographic community.
	And in this particular case, the criticism that was highlighted, they're taking my interviews anywhere.
	You know, this is happening multiple places now.
	Multiple cases, too.
	And where they'll try to clip a little piece of it and say, look, look what this Barnes guy says.
	This is unbelievable.
	He's questioning the court.
	And they took a piece, two pieces.
	One was a comment that the court interpreted of me when he had previously denied discovery in the case that I referred to it, apparently, as a wuss decision.
	Actually, the word wuss.
	It's like, okay.
	And then the second objection...
	Big freaking deal.
	I mean, wuss is the...
	I won't say what it is.
	Wuss means nothing.
	It was a wuss decision, period.
	I have no apologies for that.
	And then second, was me being critical of him attacking my client, Brooke Jackson, over a tweet concerning Pfizer.
	That he interpreted that I was saying he was partial towards Pfizer.
	I think he misunderstood part of that.
	But putting that aside, he asked whether or not we wanted an evidentiary hearing on motions to disqualify.
	And of course, the grounds to disqualify are completely different than the grounds I cited.
	It's almost impossible to disqualify a federal judge, so you're mostly wasting your time.
	And the only time you can do so is when they have a personal pecuniary conflict or something of a comparable value.
	This also reflects the gap between how judges as a group like the world to perceive them and who everybody knows they really are.
	And this is about the myth of the law.
	In the myth of the law, we're taught in law school and judges want us to go out and propagate and preach.
	Is that all judges and decision makers and prosecutors and administrative law judges and government actors and politicians, when it comes to the law, all they do is go to discover the objective truth of the law found in the common law or statutes, depending as the case may be, or constitution.
	They discover its objective truth, and then they review and understand and find the facts, and they simply apply the law to the facts.
	And they're not moved by any form of extraneous bias or prejudice.
	And this is, I call it the myth about motivated reasoning.
	They've written books on it.
	It's called Elephant and the Brain.
	This isn't unique to judges or anybody.
	This is universal human beings.
	We are all, motivation is the master of our reason always.
	Reason is never the master of motivation.
	If you want to improve your reasoning, shift.
	Indeed, this is where the legal system as a theoretical conceptual model conflicts with itself.
	We say judges are these impartial, platonic, super philosophers, demigods.
	Who uniquely are unbiased and unprejudiced by anything in their life experience, or political attitudes, or anything else, or by their local culture, or by the court of public opinion, or anything else.
	They're just these demigods, these platonic philosophers, who all they do is search for objective truth in the law, search for it in the empirical evidence of the facts, and apply it and adjudicate it, and that's it.
	But the legal system also says...
	We need an adversarial process.
	We need an adversarial process to actually discover truth.
	And the adversarial process says we're going to shift the motivation of the lawyers to change their reasoning, to advocate for their client zealously and exclusively.
	Their duty isn't to search for truth.
	The thought is that truth will come out of that adversarial process.
	Well, what is that saying?
	That's saying that truth is not discovered by objective Platonic philosophers under the myth of the law, but is best discovered by people at...
	So there are some judges who believe that the ethical rules require we as lawyers advocate for this propagandistic myth of law, interpretation of judicial action, and that we can never second-guess a judge's opinion in any way concerning the judge's motivations.
	But that is, in fact, not what the ethical rules require, thanks to Jim Garrison.
	Jim Garrison sued some judges and some other people on grounds that the criminal libel laws were unconstitutional.
	And he won in 1964.
	Soon thereafter, every court, pretty much, there's a few states that haven't, changed their ethical rules.
	The ethical rules now only prohibit defamation.
	You have to make a statement of fact.
	Often it goes beyond defamation laws.
	They don't even allow a statement of opinion to be used.
	You have to make a statement of fact, and sometimes opinions can be defamation, but not under the ethics rules.
	You have to make a statement of fact.
	That statement of fact has to be false.
	You have to know it to be false or be in reckless disregard of its truth, actual malice standard.
	And it has to only concern the judge's qualifications or integrity.
	So it is only defaming judges, knowingly defaming judges, or recklessly defaming judges.
	I have never done any such thing here or in any case.
	The court cited those rules.
	The court apparently, I think, misunderstood those rules.
	Those rules do not mean I have to propagate the mythology that judges are not biased by their life experience.
	My criticism of this judge is not unique to this judge.
	The reality is in the federal bench and the state judiciary.
	I have two big objections.
	One is we have a professional managerial class because we have limited the act of adjudication to those with certifications and licensures and experience as lawyers so that the professional managerial class has a monopoly on the judicial power of the government.
	And I think the professional managerial class is the least competent, least capable, least morally worthy agency to make good decisions for ordinary people.
	Again, I'm a critic of licensure in general.
	I don't believe there should be any licensure for lawyers or anybody, frankly.
	I think it's a monopoly practice that inflates our fees and allows bureaucrats in the professional class to try to prevent ordinary people from getting competent, capable, meaningful representation.
	The second area of disagreement with the court is that I don't believe you promote judicial integrity.
	By pretending that judges are not human beings.
	I don't believe you promote it by lying to people about what motivates judges.
	The reality is most judges, particularly federal judges, come with a very limited life experience.
	That life experience is overwhelmingly raised in upper middle class families, number one.
	Number two, they go through the educational process that acculturates them with a distinct set of values different than that of many ordinary Americans in our tradition and our communities, particularly over the last several decades.
	And they overwhelmingly, as lawyers, have not only been limited members of a professional class, that means they have almost never been working class people their entire lives, but also they usually are appointed because they have worked for corporations or the government or both.
	They don't put people on the bench that have diverse life experience fighting for criminal defense rights and civil rights and ordinary people and plaintiff's personal injury.
	None of that.
	That rarely gets you onto the bench.
	And you're usually picked as federal judges have admitted themselves in scholastic publications because their attitudes are instinctual deference to authority.
	A deference to authority that extends to big corporations, that extends to the government.
	And my criticism of this court was too much deference to the power of Pfizer and the U.S. government rather than just look at the facts, just look at the law, don't defer to them at all, don't accept what they say on face value.
	After all, Pfizer is the biggest criminal drug dealer in the history of America or the world.
	They make El Chapo look like a corner street dealer on the streets of Chicago.
	They are the most criminally fine drug company ever in history.
	Why take their word?
	Why trust them?
	Why default to anything they say?
	That's my criticism of the court's prior decisions.
	It will continue to be, and it's not questioning his qualifications for the court.
	It's not questioning his integrity.
	It is questioning whether his life experience is leading him to make the best decisions in the interest of the law and the facts in this case.
	Robert, am I not wrong?
	I'm going to pull this up.
	I think Johnson& Johnson is a close second.
	Johnson& Johnson back in 2013.
	Johnson& Johnson to pay more than $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil investigations.
	Allegations include off-label marketing and kickbacks to doctors and pharmacists.
	Gee, I wonder where this could be relevant once upon a time.
	I don't know if Johnson& Johnson, how much was Pfizer ordered to pay?
	They paid even more.
	Collectively, it's ridiculous.
	If they had been an individual, they would have got life in prison or the death penalty.
	So, you know, in my view, they should have got the corporate death penalty for the crimes they've committed over time.
	But here they are getting to make false accusations and allegations about counsel and a whistleblower that the court just keeps reflexively accepting as likely true.
	And I also just don't think courts should worry about tweets, period.
	So, I mean, the court expressed concern over people responding.
	To tweets.
	In other words, you had like these tweets that somebody had said, I'm praying for the judge.
	I hope he doesn't get Epstein.
	And the judge like, I don't know what Epstein means, but it doesn't sound good.
	And it's like, no, it said someone praying for the court to do the honorable thing and not be affected by any blowback politically.
	But that's a random person.
	Well, why are we worrying about this in a court hearing?
	So that's why I disagree with the court.
	Now, I think he, as a judge, very smart guy.
	Very nice guy.
	Guy, if you met him on the street, you'd really like him.
	If you knew him, you'd really like him.
	It doesn't change that I think his life experience leads him to have an instinctive deference to authority in the case of corporations and governments.
	That's my criticism of him.
	That is not questioning either his qualifications or integrity, nor will I be silenced or shamed or censored into not speaking out honestly because...
	We need more lawyers being honest about judges in ways everybody can see, in which lawyers say all the time behind the closed doors, so that the American people have more confidence in the transparency of the process, because that will give them more confidence in the integrity of the process.
	Lying about judges being somehow platonic philosophers who are never impacted by any form of prejudice or bias makes us look like we are complicit in covering up a court system that doesn't always work as our ideal says it should.
	Yeah, no, no.
	The idea of silencing people on social media, it's an amazing thing.
	They tried to do it to build the wall.
	They tried to do it to Roger Stone.
	If they can't do it by way of explicit gag orders, they just want to intimidate the lawyers to shut up on social media, have their clients shut up on social media, not aggregate the knowledge of the internet.
	Well, if I didn't want what's happening now to them in Florida, that we continue to expose their criminal conduct in this case, maybe the most dangerous drug ever issued in the history of America.
	And their criminal behavior will continue to be exposed, whether as part of a Keytam case on behalf of the United States government, the United States people, the United States taxpayers, regardless of whether the Justice Department in Washington wants to try to stop that or prevent it or not.
	And even if it's not, we're going to keep banging at the door of the courts until the courts provide meaningful remedy, because in the end...
	These cases are about as much about the confidence in our judicial branch to meaningfully oversee what's taking place as it is confidence in our public health authorities and big drug companies.
	Okay, Robert, that was one heck of a...
	Not a diatribe.
	I mean, that's phenomenal.
	So by the way, okay, so hold on.
	With Brooke Jackson, the motion to dismiss is currently pending.
	Well, the court, to its credit, wants to take a long time.
	Detail, wants to take detailed time to fully evaluate and vet all the issues related to it.
	So I have no doubt the court is sincere about that.
	So the court has a bad docket because of the just the way federal some federal courts are dockets are way overloaded.
	And I had no problem with that.
	I told the court we're fine, moving a lot of things.
	I just wanted discovery to start.
	And Pfizer was screaming and yelling and hooting and hollering to prevent that.
	The court decided not to allow that.
	I disagree with the court's opinion, but I anticipated it would go that way.
	But we're otherwise waiting on the resolution of the motion to dismiss the case.
	In my view, the facts and the law clearly compel it going forward.
	We'll see whether the court agrees or doesn't.
	Whichever happens, the side that isn't successful is likely going to try to...
	If the motion to dismiss is granted, then you have a right to appeal.
	And we'll be going to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the U.S. Supreme Court case.
	But the issues will continue to be debated and discussed and outed in the court of public opinion.
	And we'll keep knocking on the doors of the courthouse until the courthouse listens to the American people about the problems that their absence and their failure to act and their being AWOL too often in these kind of cases is causing in terms of deaths and disabilities mounting across.
	Now, speaking of courts coming up with questionable grounds to get rid of cases.
	We have the Arizona Election Contest.
	Well, Robert, have I not understood this correctly, that Carrie Lakes Arizona Contest has a hearing date?
	Yes, so there's two different election contest tracks that are taking place.
	There's Carrie Lakes and the Attorney General candidates.
	Her case is scheduled for a motion to dismiss hearing on Monday, and if the motion to dismiss is denied, Then a full evidentiary hearing will happen on the 21st and the 22nd.
	I think we would be allowed to cover it based on my understanding of how the Arizona court rules work.
	So if the evidentiary hearing goes forward, Carrie Lake gets to present on the 21st.
	The government gets to present on the 22nd.
	The court has promised a quick order if it allows the trial to take place before the inauguration date, I think around January 6th.
	We will cover it live if we are allowed to and give commentary and analysis and context.
	I think Carrie Lake's case should go forward to a full trial.
	I think that judge is likely to allow it to go forward to a trial.
	The judge this past week authorized most of what Carrie Lake wanted from an evidentiary perspective.
	And I think many of the motions to dismiss grounds are weak.
	Now, another case was brought by Secretary of State candidate, I think Fincham is his name, His case was dismissed on Friday.
	And his case was different.
	The vote margin that he has to allege was counteracted by illegal ballots is almost 10 times the size of Carrie Lake's vote margin.
	So it was the reason why Blake Masters didn't file an election contest.
	10 times the difference over what aggregate number.
	Yeah, the vote margin.
	He had to show over 100,000 votes were illegally done.
	And that's a much higher threshold.
	Secondly, the lawyer who ended up handling his case, to my knowledge, is not really an election lawyer.
	He's an older lawyer who said he was willing to take it because he's, I think, 76. And what can the state bar do to him?
	And the state bar is usually just the delegated agency, again, of the state Supreme Court for enforcement purposes, due to him at that age.
	That does show some problems with the lack of quality Arizona lawyers willing to take these cases.
	However, Carrie Lake...
	Found a national lawyer to take the case and bring in a local counsel to be pro-hawk.
	There are people that had advised Fincham to do the same.
	Fincham didn't for whatever reason.
	So his challenge appears to, well, one, it's nowhere near as strong and robust as Carrie Lakes.
	It didn't appear to even raise, as far as I could tell, the full scale of signature match issues that she's raised, the full scale of it.
	But there's a certain magic language.
	Two years ago, I put up a my draft petition, election contest petition, on locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, so people could read and review it, understand what's necessary, and if they wanted to draft their own, they were free to do so.
	Use the language however they want it.
	Here's the key language you need in any election contest.
	You need just two claims.
	One, there's a certain number of illegal ballots.
	You don't have to prove fraud.
	Just that there's a certain number of illegal ballots, ballots that were counted, canvassed, or cast in some manner that violated the law.
	And second, that the number of those illegal ballots exceeds the margin of victory.
	It appears that allegation wasn't even sufficiently made in the petition.
	So there were problems with the petition.
	That said, the judge's ruling was an utter joke.
	And here's why.
	She spends half the opinion saying latches applies.
	She actually says in the opinion, and this is a judge appointed by Doofus Doocy, the former McCain-oriented Republican governor of Arizona, the exiting one, the one that's already invited Katie Hobbs, the Democratic candidate, into office while this election contest is pending.
	So that gives you an idea for how bad he is.
	People tell me there's very little difference between how Doocy and Hobbs will be.
	Governor, frankly, in terms of meaningful public policy.
	And then this judge, a judge that father was from India, mother's from Mexico, went around as women in the law discussion.
	That kind of biography, again, because I think life experience does influence judges, didn't give me any confidence that she would really hold the state to their fire.
	She may have had legitimate grounds to dismiss the election contest petition on the issues that I identified, but instead did a kitchen sink routine.
	A judge that wants to screw you and wants to rule against you will often do throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the opinion.
	That's a sign, frankly, of bad adjudication.
	Whenever I see that, I'm like, okay.
	You say, well, if it's not this, it's that.
	If it's not that, it's the other thing.
	If it's not the other thing, it's this thing.
	If it's not this thing, it's the other thing, the other thing, the other thing.
	That tells me you wanted to screw the litigant and you were looking for excuses rather than it actually being your reasoning.
	But nothing exposes that more than the absurd application of latches.
	Latches is a limited doctrine that is when somebody has been so unreasonable.
	In delaying bringing the case to court, that it's irreparably prejudiced your...
	I mean, I assume you've dealt with it in Canada, right?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	We have latches.
	It's the idea that you've waited too long.
	You've prejudiced yourself through your own conduct.
	I'm just taking something out of my pocket.
	But typically, overt, egregious, undeniable.
	In this case, Robert, I don't even know how latches could even come up.
	I mean, the dispute itself...
	It's not one that could have been litigated beforehand because nobody knew this was going to happen the day of.
	I don't understand it.
	We're going to get to the sanctions part afterwards because I don't understand how it gets dismissed, but how it's so frivolous on its face that they can entertain the notion of sanctions unless it just means something different in the States.
	No, it's corrupt unethical judges trying to intimidate lawyers.
	That's what it is.
	Listen to what's going to happen to Fincham and his lawyers.
	He's going to be sanctioned by a federal court for suing too early when he sued a few months ago.
	And now he's about to be sanctioned by a state court for not suing early enough.
	I mean, this makes the court look like a joke, and this judge is a joke.
	This ruling is a joke.
	It is a disgrace.
	She actually says that Fincham should have sued five years ago.
	Five years ago.
	When he wasn't even a candidate for office.
	When this office wasn't even up for an election.
	Now, of course, had he done so, he would have been dismissed for either lack of rightness or standing grounds.
	And he would have been sanctioned for doing that!
	So, sanction if you sue early.
	Sanction if you sue in the middle.
	Sanction if you sue late.
	Doesn't matter.
	I used to call it.
	And it's the worst.
	All of these bogus doctrines, these Pontius Pilate pretexts.
	Excuses for not making decisions are the worst in election law.
	Because here's how I used to call it.
	It's not ripe in spring.
	It's moot by summer.
	And it's latches by winter.
	Either which way.
	And it's no standing pretty much all the time.
	And if you challenge it...
	And you're not a favored group.
	If you're a Democrat, a favored group on the Democratic side, the NAACP, if you're a favored Republican, if you're from George W. Bush, one of those, then all these rules magically vanish.
	And suddenly, oh yes, we as a court absolutely can issue this relief and remedy.
	But if you're a disfavored populist, Who's not from any of those groups?
	It doesn't matter whether you're Ralph Nader and Jill Stein and the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party and the people on the left that I've represented, or you're the Libertarian Party or the Tea Party or the Constitution Party or the Taxpayers Party or Donald J. Trump or Mr. Fincham.
	By golly, all the rules don't apply.
	And what the judges do is they think...
	They think the reason why people have doubts about elections is because these mean lawyers, these lying lawyers, raise questions about the great integrity of our election system.
	And we just need to discipline these lawyers so that these cases never get brought and everybody will believe the myth again.
	No!
	They don't believe in our elections because our elections are often a crock.
	That's why.
	Because we have election officials blocking out windows so people can't see what's going on.
	Because we got ballots delivered by some rider truck at 3 a.m.
	Because we got counts that they can't count.
	One minute it's this number of ballots, then it's another number, then it's this number, then it's another, another.
	That's why people have questions and doubts about our election system.
	And those questions and criticisms have been from the left to the right over the past 25 years.
	That's why.
	And judges badgering people, sanctioning people, harassing people, replying ludicrous doctrines like latches to these cases are the ones who are embarrassing themselves.
	And what they're doing is not only are they impugning the integrity of elections, they're impugning the integrity of the judicial branch by approaching these cases in such a dishonorable and, frankly, intellectually dishonest way.
	You know, this was absolutely ludicrous to claim latches applies to he was supposed to sue five years before he was even a candidate.
	And Robert, I mean, the idea of sanctioning the lawyers itself is nothing other than an act of judicial intimidation.
	Like, in Quebec, first of all, unless the lawyer commits an actual crime...
	I've never heard of cases where the lawyers were held personally liable for any frivolous lawsuit of their client, unless they lied, fabricated evidence in an overt, determined manner.
	I don't even know how they came to this conclusion with Dershowitz in Carrie Lake's other case.
	But you just read the articles.
	McCausley, who's well into his 70s, seemed nonplussed by the suggestion of legal sanctions.
	I'm semi-retired, he said.
	I want to be out of the law.
	And then at the end here.
	McCausley said he took Finchman's case because someone needed to air the complaints about what he deemed as election misconduct.
	I'm here because as I go out, I'm concerned about my votes.
	My family is concerned, he said.
	And then they go, the judge will dismiss the case prematurely and then sanction the lawyer who took the case and did.
	Robert, did he do anything unethical?
	Did he lie?
	Falsify?
	It's just intimidation by a corrupt judge, intellectually dishonest judge.
	And what I mean by corrupt, I mean political prejudice.
	I mean political prejudice against these kind of cases and these kind of claims from these kind of parties.
	You can't honestly apply latches in a case like this.
	That is utterly laughable.
	That makes it a laughingstock of a decision.
	If the court had focused on, look, these certain allegations just don't add up under these contexts.
	Okay, fine.
	I might disagree with aspects of how the court's applying the facts of the law, but that's within a reasonable realm of decision-making.
	Applying latches and then sanctioning, threatening to sanction the lawyer?
	It's absurd.
	It's absurd.
	This is a joke of a judge.
	By the way, the judge was just recently re-elected in the same election she's being asked to throw out.
	So what do you think the chances are she's going to throw out her own re-election?
	That's a conflict of interest that, frankly, she should have withdrawn from deciding the case or accused herself out of the gate.
	Well, they got their precedent with Dershowitz and the prior Carrie Lake.
	Going after Alan Dirt?
	That's just dumb, to be honest.
	The federal court's going after Dershowitz because he joined questioning aspects of how the elections are governed in Arizona.
	It's a joke how they're governed in Arizona.
	Everybody can see it.
	People end up in three-hour, four-hour lines.
	A bunch of votes didn't get counted.
	Votes got mixed in with votes that were counted with uncounted ballots.
	Whistleblower after whistleblower stepped forward.
	A leading expert.
	One of the leading government experts in the country has come forward and said what happened in Maricopa County could not have happened except by intentional misconduct intending to suppress votes.
	And more than enough votes that constitute the margin of victory in Carrie Lake's race.
	So anybody pretending her allegations are inadequate hasn't read the complaint or is so prejudiced or biased that they can't deal with these complaints.
	That is one of the best filed, factually grounded...
	Legally justified, legally merited election contest that's ever been filed, period.
	And we'll see if the Arizona court that's on her case will help the judicial branch look a lot better than this joke of a judge did in this other case.
	Winston is telling me not to speak.
	I forget what we were saying.
	Don't speak.
	Don't speak.
	It was a Woody Allen movie from back in the day.
	Okay, so is that it?
	So Fanchum is dismissed.
	She had requested samples of different ballots.
	She got most of the requests, not all of them.
	The judge interprets a statute to require certain privacy applications to the ballot application of people's signatures.
	I think there's clearly a way to do that without worrying about privacy concerns.
	So I think that can still be done at the evidentiary hearing.
	But he granted most of her requests.
	And I'm assuming he's not going to dismiss and understands that latches would be a ludicrous grounds.
	There's no injury.
	Yeah, how could anyone sue before there had been an election?
	And when she did try to sue to raise some of these issues, her lawyers were sanctioned for raising the issue before the election.
	On grounds that it was speculation because the election hadn't happened yet.
	And the facts had not occurred yet.
	The facts upon which the lawsuit is based had not yet occurred.
	There's no injury.
	She hadn't suffered any injury yet.
	There's no injury until you have been denied an office that lawful ballots entitle you to.
	Until that happens, there's no injury in the election contest.
	Now, I know you mentioned it last week, which is good because it means there's new faces yet again.
	In the 21,704 people that are currently watching on Rumble, can you give us a two-minute, 20-second rundown on Brunson that I will clip and put to Twitter tomorrow?
	So Brunson is not a serious case.
	It's brought by some pro se litigants who want everybody tossed out for not keeping their oath about the 2020 election in Congress.
	So it's a politically, rhetorically effective suit.
	Legally, it's a meritless suit.
	It got dismissed at every single stage, and the people surrounding the suit have falsely propagated it and missed deliberately, either deliberately or because they don't understand how the Supreme Court operates.
	Misinterpreted the Supreme Court's actions.
	The Supreme Court did not request the case.
	The Supreme Court has not greenlit the case.
	The Supreme Court has done nothing it doesn't do in every case.
	The Supreme Court, to its credit, is very generous with its time about helping people file a petition in the right way, file it on the right time, file it in the right format, particularly pro se litigants like this.
	They're the best court in America by a long mile at helping the little guy.
	Properly get his petition before the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Great credit to the Supreme Court and its personnel on that side of the aisle.
	These folks are trying to interpret that as Supreme Court specially interested in the case.
	Supreme Court's going to take it.
	Supreme Court's going to handle it.
	And here's where you can donate now!
	To donate for what?
	You don't have any lawyers.
	You don't have any costs.
	You haven't suffered any financial injury.
	What exactly is the money for?
	As Tracy Beans pointed out herself.
	It's like, hmm, this is a case that's useless.
	And the reason why I'm hostile to it, I mostly ignored it.
	I get emails, texts, notes, and comments every single day from people who have been misled about this case.
	They think it's a serious case.
	They think it's a sincere case.
	They think it's a legally credible case.
	They think the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed special interest in it.
	None of that is true.
	Every case, the clerks are very solicitous about helping you process your cert petition, when you're pro se especially.
	Every case goes to a conference vote.
	They filed their cert petition.
	The government thinks there's no chance, because they know there's no chance the case gets taken, so they didn't even reply.
	If the court thinks they're even possibly thinking about taking the case, they request the government to reply.
	They didn't.
	They've already scheduled it for a conference where it will be rejected, guaranteed.
	There are very few times I guarantee anything.
	I guarantee you the U.S. Supreme Court will reject this case.
	This case has no chance.
	Frankly, From a legal perspective, it has no merit.
	It had no chance ever of being accepted.
	These are some pro se litigants who have done a good job raising a lot of money, misleading lots of people.
	And my problem with it is when it gets rejected, a lot of ordinary people, some of whom help give money to these folks, will feel all the legal systems are a waste of time, don't get involved, don't support it, it's not worthwhile.
	Because the folks around, these folks raising money, have misled everybody about what's taking place and what's happened.
	The Brunton case is a nothing burger.
	Big, fat, nothing burger.
	That might have been more than two minutes and 20 seconds.
	We'll see when I cut it up for tomorrow.
	Well, let's say, not speaking of nothing burger cases, but cases that are unlikely to succeed, Robert.
	Brendan Strzok, who was on the channel for an interview, Brendan Strzok is one of the January 6th defendants who was...
	Arrested for his involvement in the insurrection and his involvement, Brendan Strzok in particular, he's the guy who started the hashtag walkaway Democrats turning away from the Democrat Party, turning Republican.
	So there might have been some political animus that might have explained his treatment in all of this.
	He was on site on January 6th, live streaming.
	Which probably goes to a bit of the lack of criminal intent.
	One does not typically livestream their crimes to the world to see at the time.
	Didn't break into the building, but was on the front steps when there was a hoopla, you know, a bunch of people.
	An altercation.
	Someone was heard saying, get the shield, get it, get it, get it.
	People thought that was Brandon Strzok.
	It wasn't.
	Bottom line, he got arrested.
	I think he faced misdemeanor charges.
	He was under three months house arrest if I'm not skipping over some of his penalties or his punishment.
	But there were no felony convictions, no nothing.
	And let me pull up the two, the impugned statements for which he's suing for defamation.
	He is now suing, I think it's MSNBC, I forget now.
	Yeah, he's suing NBC because MSNBC is a part of them.
	But it's broadcast made by Chris Hayes and Ari Melber.
	Concerning him.
	And he's got several good grounds mixed in with some weak grounds.
	And it's the lawyer that has represented Devin Nunes in a lot of cases that got kicked.
	So I don't have...
	I'm not sure why people keep picking some of these lawyers that don't have the best track record and often sometimes, frankly, make very basic mistakes in the suits that they file.
	So like some of the statements they highlighted...
	Do appear to be agreed to in the statement of offense at the time he pled.
	So some of the, like the take it, I wouldn't have focused on that.
	Here is the statements that he has that were never alleged in any indictment and were never part of any plea deal.
	That he broke into the Capitol.
	Well, that's never been alleged anywhere, anyplace by the government.
	That he committed criminal insurrection.
	He was never been charged with insurrection.
	That he committed criminal sedition, never been charged with sedition.
	That he was seeking to overthrow the government.
	There's no criminal charge of that.
	They said he was a confessed, convicted felon.
	He's never been convicted of any felon.
	It was misdemeanor.
	I'm fairly certain it was misdemeanor charges that he pled to.
	He pled to.
	He was charged with entering the Capitol grounds, some other things, but he ultimately only pled to disorderly conduct.
	And so if I was pleading out the case, I would focus on the specific statements that are clearly untrue.
	The big one being claiming he's a confessed convicted felon when he's never been convicted of any felony in his life.
	That by itself has been found to be liable in a bunch of contexts.
	The question we'll come up with, is insurrection a statement of opinion or a statement about a specific criminal law?
	Is storming the Capitol...
	Is that a statement of opinion or a statement of law?
	Now, he's called a domestic terrorist.
	Well, are they referencing the law or are they referencing a personal opinion?
	Overthrow the government.
	Is that a statement of opinion?
	Is that a statement about a specific criminal law like sedition?
	Whether he attacked police officers.
	Well, the nature of what statement he agreed to, they're going to be able to cite to that the statement of offense at the time of the plea agreement.
	As being a sufficient factual basis for their allegation.
	Now, he never did attack police officers, but there's statements of him saying take it, and the take it appears to refer to other people trying to take an officer's shield.
	Okay, so I think it would be better off if you'd get more sympathy from the court.
	Just make it simple.
	It says he broke into the Capitol, and that he's a convicted confessed felon.
	He never broke into the Capitol, never been charged with breaking into the Capitol.
	Never confessed of committing a felony.
	Never been convicted of committing a felony.
	End of story.
	On those grounds, his suit that filed in the federal district court in Omaha, Nebraska, should go forward.
	But when you throw in a bunch of statements that are not necessarily actionable and you muddy the waters, you increase the risk of a case getting dismissed by a judge confusing all of them together.
	I guess it's the issue that you don't want to rely on only two because it's less likely.
	Two lines in the water will catch less fish than ten, but then ten lines in the water, they all get tangled, and then you catch nothing.
	Now, as best grounds on actual malice is under Nebraska law, they have a notice requirement before you file suit, and they refuse to correct at all, refuse to retract at all.
	The allegation is that they knew these statements were false at the time they made it, didn't cite or have a source, and never requested comment.
	So I think they have the failure to correct anything, the failure to retract anything, is evidence of actual malice that I think Strzok can use to have the case get past a motion to dismiss stage as long as he doesn't get a judge that just doesn't like the case so much or gets confused by the ancillary allegations that aren't the strongest part of the suit.
	But we now have both the Rachel Maddow and the Tucker Carlson defense, which are variations of the same, which is, who the hell watches Chris Hayes and thinks that you're getting statements of facts?
	MSNBC is around 1.2, 1.3 million.
	It's CNN that has collapsed.
	But MSNBC is actually, they seized the Democratic audience about two years or so into the Trump administration, and they've never given them up.
	What killed CNN actually was MSNBC rather than Fox.
	Now, Fox still is getting $2 million-plus, and nobody gets close to Tucker.
	Tucker beats any numbers that I argued for years that someone like Tucker would do better than Bill O 'Reilly, and people are like, oh, no, no, no.
	Not only does he do better than Bill O 'Reilly in total viewership by 10% to 20% on average, more importantly, O 'Reilly used to get people that were only looking at the latest Metasole or whatever you call it ad.
	I mean, God bless, but a really old audience.
	Tucker is the best, not only getting the biggest audience in general, the best at getting the youngest audience.
	And his presentation about the Kennedy Papers this week was co-equal with the presentation made by Mark Robert on America's Untold Stories with Eric Conley this past Friday.
	Well, Robert, I only saw the seven-minute segment, so I don't know if there was a longer one.
	No, that's the main one.
	So I said, I was listening to Tucker.
	I all of a sudden felt like the smart guy in the room because like, ah, I've heard all of this before in greater detail.
	Coming from Mark Robert, Eric Hunley, America's Untold Stories, do they have part one, part two?
	Did LBJ, CIA have a hand in killing JFK?
	What were the recent releases and documents that are now confirming what a great many people have known, believed all along?
	Well, a lot of these, what they really released as Grobert went through was more a distraction than focused on the main part.
	But there's just increasing evidence that's been released over the last several years that implicates the Central Intelligence Agency directly in the connections between Oswald and the CIA.
	The CIA long denied and tried to hide.
	And so that's the main thing people are continuing to point to and focus upon.
	And Tucker Carlson used it also as a good opportunity to out Mike Pompeo, saying that Pompeo encouraged Trump to keep a lot of these records hidden and more records that are coming out hidden, and that Tucker invited Pompeo onto Fox to interview about the topic multiple times.
	Politely declined.
	Exactly.
	He wants to be president because he's a deep state shill.
	He always was while he was at the State Department and while he was at the CIA.
	But the release of these documents shows there's no grounds to deny releasing of them.
	All of them should have been released years ago.
	They were supposed to have been released years ago.
	It's embarrassing that it was this way.
	Robert Kennedy used the opportunity to praise Tucker Carlson for his presentation and remind everybody.
	That the CIA and the deep state was what was behind the assassination of both his Uncle John and his father, Robert Jr.
	I mean, he's Robert Jr.'s father, Robert Sr.
	No, no, it's outrageous.
	But trust the government now.
	They surely would never do anything.
	Less cynicism than what they've already done in the past.
	Ah, Twitter files say otherwise.
	And apparently, Robert, like Elon put out a poll while we're streaming, should he step down as CEO?
	And apparently Taibbi's dropping some more bombs, which I'm going to have to catch up on afterwards.
	Robert, I'm going to just go to the little boys' room and do something else for one second, but the Metropolitan Nazi stolen artwork.
	If you want to talk about that one for like two minutes while I run, and I'll be back in a second.
	No problem.
	So it's one of the great Van Goghs.
	It's a Van Gogh that was of trees in a field, owned by a Jewish family in Germany, seized from them illicitly in the 1930s, sold.
	Sold initially to a German art dealer, who then, after World War II, managed to magically hide it.
	And this reflects the fact that the people running the army recovery of property ended up at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art.
	And they ended up magically with this painting that they somehow accidentally didn't recover for the Jewish family after the war.
	The Met owned it for almost 20 years or so, and then sold it in secret to a shipping magnate from Greece, who still has it in their foundation in a museum in Athens.
	Even loaned it to Amsterdam a year ago or so.
	A lot of what the tracking this painting down only came out in recent years because the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art's complicity and culpability in gathering, seizing, owning, and then reselling Nazi art was only recently exposed in a range of inquiries and investigations.
	And this is in part because the people at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art were connected to the Army efforts.
	And what agency did they work for?
	The Office of Strategic Services and the Central Intelligence Agency.
	The Office of Strategic Services, the OSS being the predecessor to the CIA.
	And so what you have is the intelligence agencies neck deep in profiting from Nazi stolen art, hiding it from other people.
	Using their roles at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art to facilitate this further after they used their position in the Army and the OSS and the CIA to get their hands on it in the first place.
	And by the way, in between, Victor Astor of the famous Astor banking family had the painting for some years as well, even though he knew it was Nazi stolen art.
	So it's a reminder that when it comes to Nazis, you just have to push a little bit.
	And when it goes to after World War II, you'll find a spook in OSS or CIA guy somewhere nearby.
	Robert, I went two hours.
	I had to pee so badly.
	I didn't get it out at the beginning of the show.
	I was like, can I do it?
	I couldn't do it.
	Okay, so I missed that.
	I'm going to listen to that afterwards, but I read it, and it's very interesting.
	So they filed federal suit for return of the property, restore of the monetary value of it that others have taken in the interim, and there's a right to do that under a range of laws, and because they're suing the Met, and it relates to, based on recent U.S. Supreme Court cases, they likely can sue the private Greek foundation because it's not suing a foreign government.
	The painting apparently is hanging there in Athens.
	How many of these suits have succeeded in the past?
	Most have.
	About 15 years ago, the dam broke on this.
	Originally, it was very hard to successfully sue.
	I think Schindler's List and some other things, records the government had been hiding for forever started to come out.
	And so all of a sudden they started returning the money, returning the art.
	I mean, not all of it by any stretch, but at least some of it.
	And so we'll see if that finally happens.
	It's a beautiful Van Gogh painting.
	Now, I don't want this.
	I was going to make a humorous segue, but I think I'll just avoid it and just skip into it.
	Robert, the latest on FTX.
	First thing first, I was listening to the congressional hearings where Kevin O 'Leary specified.
	His remuneration for having been the ambassador.
	Did you hear it?
	And do you understand how he got paid?
	He said he got $15 million to be the ambassador, for spokesperson, plus $3 million to cover the taxes.
	He got $1 million in equity and then $10 million in tokens.
	How do you understand that expression of remuneration?
	Is it $15 million, which included $3 million for taxes?
	And then that's $12 million net, $1 million, $10 million.
	So he basically had nothing?
	Or was it $18 million?
	I asked on Twitter.
	I haven't gotten an answer from Kevin yet.
	But how do you understand that?
	Yeah, I don't know either.
	And so this implicates tons of people.
	The class action suits continue to get filed.
	Now here, I will disagree with the bail decision because I'm a purist on bail.
	So here you have somebody who knew he was under investigation.
	Is in the Bahamas, discloses his location, is very public about it, goes nowhere, attempts to go nowhere, released a range of funds when requested to do so by government authorities, agreed to respond to congressional subpoenas and other document or testimonial requests.
	And despite that, because there's an indictment that has been filed in the Southern District of New York that has now requested his extradition from the Bahamas, the Bahamas went and arrested him.
	Jailed him, and the judge denied him any bail on any grounds.
	And it's like, here's the constitutional standard.
	The right to bail means that unless the government can prove that there are no government restrictions or restraints, that will preclude you from successfully fleeing.
	And I always have to show an actual evidence.
	Number one, judge, he's going to flee.
	Number two, there's no means to stop him from fleeing.
	Number three, there's no means to get him back.
	Now, the reality is the government can't prove that by a majority of evidence ever.
	In almost all cases.
	But clearly so in this case.
	Because he knew he had a chance to flee and he didn't.
	And this is what I tell people.
	No court rewards you for staying put.
	You are better off getting on a plane or a boat and getting out of Dodge.
	Because here's the politics of bail.
	The politics of bail is if you screw some criminal defendant over...
	And deny him and wrongfully imprison him.
	He can't sue you.
	There's no monetary relief he can get later.
	And the only guy who cares is him and his supporters.
	By contrast, let's say you do that for 100 people you screw over.
	Let's say there's one that you release on bail and goes and commits a crime.
	You're going to get politically crucified for it.
	So even though the law says the legal standard is, more likely than not he successfully flees and doesn't appear at trial.
	Because again, bail is just purely to secure your appearance at trial.
	There is no, I accuse you of a crime, you get to go to jail now.
	That's not America.
	It never has been.
	A lot of my friends on the right want that to be the law.
	They don't want to admit that, but when they're critical of bail provisions in New York or Chicago or other places, that's what they're really saying.
	They're saying, accusation, go to jail now.
	Go past the jury system.
	Skip it.
	Don't need a jury.
	Go to jail right now.
	They want to give the government all that power.
	And they're wrong.
	Our founders said they were wrong.
	Our founders said right to bail under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	And here he was denied his right to bail.
	And guess what?
	It worked.
	Because the Bahamian jail is one of the worst in the country that he got put in.
	Again, he could have been put in house arrest, guarded by police, with electric monitoring tests.
	There could have been a whole bunch of electric monitoring, a whole bunch of means by which he could have been restrained.
	There's almost no country in the world that won't extradite him.
	Fraud charges, pretty much every country extradites for that, without any hurdle.
	Other countries that don't have an extradition treaty with the U.S., they'll deport you in a second.
	They won't let you into the country.
	There are the number of people who have successfully fled after being indicted.
	The odds are somewhere around 1 in 10,000.
	Robert, some people are hypothesizing that there might be reasons for which the magistrate in the Bahamas is not releasing him.
	First things first, all of these principles are nice under American law.
	What's the standard under Bahamanian law?
	And how bad can this jail be?
	But the most important question, some people are hypothesizing that it's part of a conspiracy not to let it out so that he won't talk and spill the beans on the big players in this scheme.
	I think he's so arrogant that he didn't anticipate this happening and doesn't understand it, so it's not clear to me.
	He knows how to play any cards he might have in terms of information on anyone.
	I do think they accelerated the indictment solely to preclude him from testifying because he was scheduled to testify the day after he was suddenly arrested.
	Now, Bahamas, they have their own treatment for bail, their own provisions for extradition, but generally speaking, you usually get released.
	On some bail terms, rather than jail, it's usually violent, drug, high-risk people.
	Not people who knew that the indictment was coming, or could be coming, and took no preventative actions.
	Just the opposite, took cooperative actions.
	How bad is the jail?
	Well, you can get this answer.
	He's already waiving extradition.
	That's why they do this.
	They do this so that you waive your rights.
	If they can get you locked, they went to great lengths to get Wesley Snipes locked up.
	Because they knew, hey, we get them stuck in one of these hardcore jails that's a lot worse than a federal prison, then they fold.
	They're not able to raise money.
	They're not able to interact with their family.
	They're punished without conviction of a crime.
	They're punished without a trial by jury.
	They're going to capitulate.
	They're going to plea.
	They're going to give up their rights.
	They're going to give up their remedies.
	They're going to be limited on access to funds.
	And here he's forfeiting all of his rights to challenge extradition and any issues that may be present in the extradition because of how horrendous.
	And that Bahamian jail is notorious for violence and other horrible things, and they make it that way on paper.
	Somebody was like, whoa, you know, somebody on Twitter was like, why would the Bahamians have such a bad jail?
	Don't they want white-collar criminals there?
	Well, one, no, they don't want white-collar criminals there, except under protected political circumstances, number one.
	And number two, what utility is bribes if your jail is actually a good jail?
	If you have a good jail, if you have a jail that nobody is intimidated by, nobody's going to pay any Bahamian official any bribes.
	And that's currency down there in the Bahamas.
	So that's part of the reason you seek Bahamian office is to get the bribes.
	It was like when Joe Rogan was being critical of Dave Rubin on the issue of...
	Regulating construction and the rest.
	And he seemed to think that the problem in the third world was that the third world didn't have enough rules governing construction.
	That's why they had issues with construction.
	No.
	They got tons of rules in the third world, Joe.
	How else are you going to justify the bribe?
	No rules, no bribe.
	They got more zoning rules than anywhere.
	Anybody who thinks construction rules and zoning rules is why we have safety in America.
	It's clearly clueless about how those rules actually function.
	It's the risk of being sued and going out of business because you screwed up in America that makes things safe, not bureaucrats double-checking your work product.
	And I'm a bit of an idiot, so the idea is that he waives extradition means he's going to consent to be extradited to the states instead of challenging it because of how horrendous the prison is.
	And I just looked it up.
	They're going to put him at MDC.
	They're going to put him in the same place Epstein does.
	Oh, Jesus.
	And I just looked, I mean, I knew the Bahamas as a violent place.
	It's 25th in the world for intentional homicide, setting aside all their crimes.
	So he's not got to be in good company.
	There's videotape in there.
	You get beaten up.
	You get assaulted.
	There's a racial disparity that probably won't work in his benefit.
	He would need to be able to bribe people.
	And clearly he hasn't prepared any of this.
	And again, he's punished because he didn't flee.
	That's what happened.
	Because if he had fled and they had to negotiate, if he was not in the Bahamas where they could easily pick him up, he's in a totally different situation.
	He still gets to protect his legal rights and remedies.
	I'm just wondering, what are his parents doing in all of this?
	I haven't heard much about it.
	They haven't been indicted yet, but they were neck deep in a large number of financial transactions.
	So I suspect they won't get indicted, though.
	No, I'm just wondering in terms of getting their kid out of jail.
	Apparently they had access to their resources, but they...
	I think they're getting a lot of conventional lawyers, and it appears that he didn't even realize that his ex-girlfriend, that somehow COO, you listen to her talk, and you're like, how is that kid a COO?
	But very politically connected.
	She realized as soon as the gig was up, misled everybody into thinking she had fled to Dubai.
	In fact, she had gone to New York City and cut a deal and ratted him out.
	And she got exposed because, like an idiot, she went to a local coffee shop and she's so distinctive looking, somebody photographed her and went global.
	And somehow this guy didn't put one and one together.
	He's so egotistical that he doesn't recognize his risk at all.
	He's in complete denial.
	So he's a unique...
	There's a certain kind of criminal that convinces themselves they're not committing a crime and convinces themselves that what they're doing is actually good for everybody and that no one would...
	prosecute him if they just understood what happened.
	And he seems to be that kind of combination of delusional naivete.
	It's where, what happens when you combine safe space wokeism with being overly spoiled as a kid?
	You get SPF.
	I've listened to enough of his talking and enough of his demeanor.
	I think he's probably diagnosably on a spectrum and just doesn't pick up on cues like that.
	So it's not a question of being arrogant or narcissistic.
	I think he just doesn't pick up on cues and I also think he's the tool or the pawn in all of this and not the mastermind, but time will tell.
	Robert, if we're running out of time, let's blitz through some of the remaining suits.
	What do you have that you want to bring to the world's attention?
	Sure, so Nike is being sued for its vaccine mandate for violation of religious discrimination laws, so that's good to see.
	The University of Virginia is facing a class action for its religious discrimination.
	There, they're bringing the claim not under Title VII, but under the First Amendment, because the University of Virginia is a state actor, so they're bringing it under the federal civil rights claim, and they're bringing it as a class action, because the University of Virginia, and they're bringing equal protection claims, religious discrimination claims, religious expression discrimination claims, because apparently the University of Virginia said, you know, these religious beliefs are okay.
	To object to the vaccine, but not these religious beliefs.
	If you're part of this denomination, okay, but not if you're part of this denomination.
	If your reasoning is abortion, then no, you can't be allowed in because they lied to people about the role of aborted fetal cells in the development of the vaccine.
	They said, oh, that's misinformation.
	In fact, it was true, of course, all along.
	So that's an interesting case.
	We'll see how it progresses and proceeds.
	But one of the first to challenge it in that way.
	There's a New York suit challenging the exclusion of felons from the jury pool.
	You have a right to a fair cross-section as a criminal defendant to the jury pool.
	The question will be standing.
	Who can sue in that circumstance?
	The argument's equal protection because it disparately excludes black New Yorkers.
	Apparently, it excludes almost half of African American men from serving on juries in New York.
	They also call it a form of civil banishment that I think is a problematic, precarious use of political power.
	Well, it's funny.
	A side note for everyone watching is my kid's doing a civics class and was going to argue the devil's advocate to should convicted felons lose their right to vote and what's the best argument for that?
	Where can it be found in the Constitution?
	And I texted Barnes and I just said...
	I said, I think I know what I would raise as the best argument.
	What's your argument?
	He says, none.
	I don't know who argued the con, literally, but yeah, whether or not I know you on this, you say absolutely not.
	It's way too dangerous.
	If by a label, they can revoke all your constitutional rights, is that a power you want to give the state?
	And because that's all that is, conviction of a felony, now all of a sudden you have your persona non grata.
	You're basically banished.
	You have no legal protections of any kind.
	How does that make sense?
	So I've never been for giving the state that kind of power.
	Actually, that's a good segue just before I forget, Robert.
	Giving the state the power to banish you from being on a jury?
	How about banish you from becoming president?
	January 6th committee, going to recommend indictments?
	Did I?
	I've been seeing this Twitter account, which I think is just a load of shit, but it's Erica Marsh, who says apparently the word is...
	They're going to try to specifically vote on whether or not Trump can even run as president in the next election.
	Have you heard that?
	And why would that not be a bill of attainder?
	I mean, oh yes, I think it would be.
	But it's amazing that all these so-called, like Professor McDonald in Florida that talks about voting rights, all these so-called liberals who so deeply believe in protecting democracy are demanding that Congress pass a law banning people from voting for their opponent.
	I mean, nothing could further expose the utter falsity and hypocrisy of the so-called appeal to democracy of the left than the fact that they're trying to ban people, voters, from picking their leading opposition candidate.
	So I think that's a crock.
	We'll see how all that progresses and proceeds.
	I'm sure that's the kind of issue that would go up to the Supreme Court.
	But all these...
	The thing is for...
	They claim that Trump is really weak and that Trump will get crushed.
	If that's really true, why are they obsessed with keeping him off the ballot?
	Why are they obsessed with indicting him?
	DeSantis is more popular now.
	In fact, if he's the dead loser and DeSantis the guaranteed winner, then why in the world would you try to focus on him to try to exclude him from the ballot?
	You want him on the ballot, right?
	And so that should tell everybody they don't believe.
	When you see some polls saying Trump getting crushed, Trump losing, if they really believe that, they wouldn't be obsessed with him.
	If they really believe that, they wouldn't be trying to ban him from the ballot.
	If they really believe that, they wouldn't be coming up with these absurd criminal prosecution referrals, whether they want him prosecuted for obstruction and sedition and insurrection and conspiracy and all this nonsense that the 1-6 committee is going to refer.
	You never know with a D.C. jury.
	The grand jury might indict on some utter nonsense.
	But I think that this might be the kind of case, if they were to bring it, the Supreme Court finally fixes and stops the political weaponization of these laws that have long been very dangerous to civil rights and civil liberties in America and dissident speech in America because there's no factual or legal grounds to indict Trump on anything.
	And they're doing it after...
	You know, his account has been reinstated, and we saw and can still see his last two tweets.
	Insurrection, where he says, be peaceful.
	It's just, it's so laughable.
	Yeah, where he tells people to stay peaceful, don't cause any crime.
	Respect the police.
	Respect the police.
	We're the law-abiters, not the law-violators.
	All the rest.
	So it's utterly absurd to accuse him of any of those things, but it shows how political the Justice Department is currently and the D.C. grand jury pool and judges are and the Congress, the January 6th committee is, that they're even trying to talk about this nonsense, really.
	Rumble has sued New York.
	So this is a good case.
	New York has passed an online hate speech law.
	And the problem is they refuse to define it.
	So Rumble, you know, we drafted Rumble's current, or the rules they're going to be putting in place that's going through a vetting process, allowing a lot of third-party contact, communication, etc.
	But our rules have definition and specificity.
	And the reason they have that definition and specificity, it's like something like doxing in the Elon Musk debate.
	There are certain things that are outside the First Amendment.
	So if you disclose someone's personal address and identifying information for the purpose of harassment, knowing it is likely to cause harassment, then you're outside the protection of the First Amendment, which is what it appeared some people were doing in disclosing the private identifying information of Elon Musk and his family at the time they did so.
	That would be illegal, but that's the limitation.
	It has to have that purpose.
	It has to have that provision.
	By contrast, when Project Veritas interviewed executives on the public streets outside their private home, that was not doxing.
	They were not doing it for the purpose of harassment.
	They were not doing it for the purpose of getting other people to harass it.
	Their focus was asking the guy questions that were meaningful, not for purposes of putting him in fear of his well-being.
	However, Project Veritas was then banned by Twitter.
	The media celebrated it.
	What the media did was a lot worse.
	So for them to now say, oh, we thought doxing was totally fine.
	We thought it was totally okay.
	No, you didn't, you frauds.
	Their argument is that it's public information, even if this guy had to circumvent the PIA, the private identifying thing of the plane.
	They didn't take that argument when it was public information of the guy in a public street outside his home.
	They took the exact opposite position.
	When CNN went to the old lady's house who they thought was behind some of the tweets, the hypocrisy is stunning, especially when...
	And the duplicity and the double standards and, you know, horrible human beings like Taylor Lorenz, who has a long history of doing it, and then crying about anybody saying anything to her.
	So the double standards.
	But similar here, the problem is the state of New York.
	has passed an online hate speech law that imposes all these obligations on social media companies like Rumble without limiting it to the monopoly powers that be, which is where Trump's big tech censorship law is focused on.
	He's focused on those that are the large companies that have near monopoly scale power so it wouldn't impact the ordinary person, the ordinary small publisher.
	Here, this applies to every publisher, and it's very subjective.
	What it says is...
	If you do anything to, quote, vilify or humiliate people that are in a protected category and a random third person perceives it as vilifying them or humiliating them, then you have to remove the content and you have to change your rules.
	So Rumble sued, saying this is First and Fourteenth Amendment violation.
	First, you're requiring us to put up certain statements.
	That's compelled speech.
	That's in violation of the First Amendment.
	Second, you're banning speech based on its content.
	And that violates the First Amendment.
	And third, it's really overbroad and vague.
	We're subject to the random whim of a random third person.
	There's no objective limitations.
	There's no requirement of an appeal process.
	There's no limited definition of the word vilify, no limited definition of the word humiliate.
	That's why we chose words that have both the common sense and understanding, but also a legal specific interpretation.
	And New York's law doesn't do that.
	And so it's a good lawsuit brought by Rumble against New York.
	Hopefully it succeeds because it would show where you can regulate things within the meaning of the First Amendment.
	Doxing is not protected by the First Amendment.
	Publicly confronting someone in public is protected by the First Amendment if they're a public person.
	You can't do things that put a reasonable person in fear of their well-being.
	Stalking and certain kinds of trolling goes past the line.
	Certain things don't.
	And all of us kind of know what it is.
	I mean, I don't want to be a Supreme Court justice that says...
	They just want to, someone said, well, if I see Elon at a, oh, Elon just doxed himself.
	I mean, what was their grounds to do so?
	Like, Project Veritas had a specific public purpose of confronting an individual about illicit activities they were complicit in, in public, giving them an opportunity to respond.
	What's the public interest in the well-being and in the whereabouts of Elon Musk's son?
	But what's the public interest there?
	They're going to say that was a mistake.
	They thought it was Elon because they had geolocated based on public available information.
	Even that.
	What's the well-being of exactly where he is by coordinates at a specific time?
	If you want to say you think he's going to location X, that would have been one thing.
	But they were disclosing his location in real time on a constant basis.
	And the argument was that that's how people found...
	That certain people travel to Epstein's Island.
	And then it goes back to Elon's original tweet.
	And particularly after the fact, right?
	But disclosing in a constant basis where someone is moving about doesn't clearly have public justification in it that I can see.
	What is the public interest in knowing Elon Musk's coordinates at a given time?
	If you want to say...
	He attended this place.
	He was going to see Trump in Mar-a-Lago.
	Okay, I get that.
	But giving real live time coordinates to where if somebody wanted to harm them, they would know exactly where to go and when.
	That strikes me as past the pale of what's in the public interest.
	Okay, good.
	I feel somewhat more vindicated with my initial reflex.
	I didn't know that there was an actual extra layer to the discovering of where he was because there was the PIA, which privatized the jet.
	Which the media was lying about.
	Tim Pool, to his credit.
	He must get going out of his way mostly to protect his family.
	He doesn't really care that much if people know where he is.
	I think what enraged him here was that his family was with him.
	His family has been attacked in other instances including recent instances.
	So his concerns for that I think are well warranted and their conduct unjustified.
	And not First Amendment protected activity, in my opinion, under these circumstances.
	Now, speaking of First Amendment activity, the Supreme Court is handling a big case about if you solicit immigrants to come here illegally, is that free speech or is it criminal solicitation?
	That case is up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
	What state laws?
	Federal law.
	I'm just only thinking of false advertising or false statements in advertising.
	What's the facts behind that?
	So they're saying, come to America and we'll exploit you and encouraging illegal immigrants to come in.
	The theory is they don't want recruiters.
	They want to criminalize recruitment.
	The question is, is the law too broad?
	So the Ninth Circuit said it was too broad.
	I lean to the Ninth Circuit, not to the conservatives on the court, which think it's just fine.
	Unless they really work hard to limit that law.
	Now, there's a canon of statutory construction that says when a court is interpreting a law, it should find an interpretation that limits the law's effect and application so as to be constitutional.
	As long as the Supreme Court does that, I don't have a problem.
	So the government's argument is that encouraging illegal immigration for financial gain...
	As the statute focuses on, should be limited in interpretation to criminal laws that ban facilitation and solicitation of illicit activity.
	And that thereby is not really speech-based, but is conduct-based.
	And that there's a way to limit the law.
	And if that's how they limit the law, fine.
	That then is not free speech protected.
	I hope they do limit the law that way or agree with the Ninth Circuit because a broad definition that says...
	Hey, I want illegal immigrants here.
	I believe that there's an underground railroad and they're entitled to U.S. citizenship.
	All of them should be granted amnesty.
	It's whatever your grounds are.
	That strikes me as protected speech and saying that, well, maybe you financially gain somewhere and that happens and that magically makes it a crime.
	I've never been in favor of that.
	That's how they get to ban books.
	That's how they get to ban political ads.
	That's how they get to ban political movements.
	That's how they ban the ability to do a bunch of things because almost all speech requires money at some level.
	So I hope they limit the law to say, target...
	Now, this particular criminal case, the person targeted, was targeted because he was a smuggler and usually lied to people to get him here, got enriched by it, and then abandoned him.
	So, I mean, there's people who actually in California, for example, that pretend to be fake lawyers representing people in immigration cases, get rich and then abandon the client because they figure the client can't really do anything because they're an illegal immigrant.
	So hopefully the Supreme Court strikes the right balance by limiting the law, but applying it correctly to this particular defendant.
	All right.
	Now, speaking of questionable, like, religious issues that were percolating up across the board, one is Ranieri.
	The Nixxiom defendant.
	That was The Vow, the TV show.
	I think they made another documentary series about him.
	And so he was convicted of sex trafficking.
	And his argument was sex trafficking should require monetary value or monetary motive or both.
	And the criminal law just prohibits anything of value.
	Trafficking for sexual behavior for anything of value.
	One can define anything of value really broad, and that would allow them to criminalize a lot of things that are not now criminalized.
	In fact, arguably what's really happening is they're wanting to criminalize cult-like behavior when the law doesn't clearly criminalize cult-like behavior.
	So here Scott Adams has had some fair points.
	He's like, at what point are we just criminalizing persuasion?
	Anything of value?
	For example, the court said amusement is anything of value.
	Well, hold on a second.
	So if somebody engages in a sexual relationship with someone and gets amusement out of it, they've now committed human trafficking?
	I mean, so this should have been limited.
	The Second Circuit wants to get after Nixxiom as a politically, publicly disfavored individual.
	It does look like the U.S. government lied and cheated partially to get the conviction, but that's pending in other proceedings.
	I didn't like the way the court addressed this in the Second Circuit.
	It was way too broad, their interpretation of these laws.
	I'm all for aggressive prosecution of human trafficking.
	And I think there are examples here that did fit that.
	That's how they should have limited the law, those examples.
	Not start saying things like, if you recommend somebody date somebody for amusement of sexual behavior, you're now a sex trafficker?
	I mean, there's a lot of applications to how they put in the law that are very problematic in defining trafficking.
	Again, here, there was evidence that he used blackmail and extortion on particular women, one of them alleged to be underage, for which they had to engage in sexual activity with him to avoid the blackmail or extortion being used against him.
	That, to me, does fit the definition of sex trafficking.
	And is a very common tactic by sex traffickers.
	There was no need to say things like amusement constitutes sex trafficking.
	It strikes me as a court that wants to, one, criminalize cult behavior altogether when the statutes don't do it.
	Always force the legislative branch to do that.
	Don't try to rewrite in something you think should be there but ain't there.
	Not your constitutional rule.
	And then second, don't be interpreting these things in such a broad way that now you can go after anybody anywhere you just don't like.
	Beyond what all of us understand sex trafficking to be.
	Some might argue that's the feature, not a bug, Robert, especially when it comes to political accusations of sex trafficking, not to name any names in particular.
	When you talk about sex trafficking, you could argue some of the gender identity laws.
	I was going to go there, but I don't know what level the sex trafficking has in any of that, except for potentially the...
	I'm just waiting, Robert, for it to become a matter of time before...
	Gender expression involves sexual expression.
	And they're going to say, well, if a kid can consent to gender expression and it's a protected identity, that might include sexual expression at a point in time.
	And we are well past the slippery slope.
	No doubt.
	So there are two big cases on that.
	One, the Biden administration lost their attempt to force gender...
	They tried to use their control over Medicare funds, federal funds, to force doctors to engage in gender transition procedures.
	And so the doctors sued on the grounds that violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.
	They won the first case in a federal district court, I believe, within the Fifth Circuit.
	Now they've won again in the Eighth Circuit, where a federal court says that...
	The attempt to use federal money to dictate medical care on issues of gender identity constitutes a violation of people's religious rights under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, which limits what the federal government can do.
	The court found standing, got past arguments of rightness, mootness, and injury, and all that nonsense, frankly, and correctly enjoined the Biden administration's effort to force gender identity and gender transition treatment on doctors and medical care providers.
	Michigan has added gender identity to its constitutional protections through the Michigan Supreme Court.
	And so Catholic schools have sued because they have objection to issues on religious grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity for their schools.
	And their view is that there's one man and there's a man and a woman, male and female, and that's it.
	They don't agree with marriage between anybody other than between a biological male and a biological female.
	That the Michigan laws currently, as interpreted according to school authorities, don't provide for a religious exception or accommodation to religious schools, so they're suing on grounds that it violates their First Amendment rights, their right of church autonomy, their rights of religious expression, their rights of inclusion for what they want and exclusion of what they don't want, as well as rights of speech and assembly.
	So that's a good First Amendment case.
	It should prevail, but it shows that issues of gender identity are going to continue to be litigated throughout the courts as there's an effort by the professional managerial side on the left to force-feed this upon unwilling and unwanting populations, particularly where they have a political edge.
	Speaking of other religious issues, in Idaho, Credit to some university students, including some law school students, who had a no-contact order imposed on them solely for believing the same thing.
	They object on the grounds that one man, one woman is a definition of marriage under their religious tradition.
	And so the University of Idaho then imposed no-contact orders for a whole bunch of other students that they couldn't be around in ways that can later impact their academic access and academic success.
	Again, often without any hearing.
	And so they brought suit on First Amendment grounds on speech and expression, both in the exercise of religious freedom, as well as 14th Amendment grounds on due process for the absence of a meaningful hearing before they were adjudicated, given the scarlet letter of being bad for having a politically incorrect opinion.
	A federal court did toss the ivermectin case on grounds of sovereign immunity.
	So a Trump appointee said that the FDA has sovereign immunity.
	And that nothing they did was final.
	So he bought the FDA's lies.
	The FDA was like, well, we never did anything final.
	Yeah, we told everybody you're an idiot if you give ivermectin.
	We told people not to take it.
	We told people it was for horses.
	We told medical authorities around the state and the country to investigate doctors saying it.
	We encouraged the FDA, I mean, Twitter and other places to censor off social media, those raising it.
	But that wasn't final agency action.
	And this lame judge, Federalist Society judge, said, oh yeah, I agree.
	That's not final agency action.
	This is the kind of deference to governmental authority I'm talking about being problematic in the federal bench, particularly on issues of public health and war and military emergency.
	But last but not least on the agenda, right before we get to the Infernal Revenue Service, last religious case we have, a Native American wanted to wear an eagle feather on his graduation cap.
	Well, I can give you...
	This is the one that I actually was able to read, Robert, but this was from last week.
	Was forbidden from doing it, whereas other people in the class put on other pins and thingy things on their graduation caps.
	What strikes me about this is, it seems obvious, but the person actually sued.
	Native American, I'm not sure what the term is, indigenous, couldn't put a feather in the cap.
	Because they said it was a religious symbol, but allowed other people to put up non-religious symbols on their, what are they called?
	The graduation caps.
	Yeah, the tassel, or maybe the tassel is the little thing that goes on there.
	I haven't worn one in a little while.
	And Robert, they prevailed.
	Yeah, of course.
	I mean, it was a no-brainer.
	But it shows you how nuts they are.
	There's a school in Phoenix.
	This is, again, sort of your Republican establishment-dominated school system.
	And yet there are all these crazy woke values where they're discriminating against any true religious expression while they're allowing all these woke expressions.
	So properly raised it under both free exercise and free speech grounds under the First Amendment and prevailed.
	So congrats to them.
	IRS cases involve two of them.
	One of them is up for the U.S. Supreme Court.
	The IRS has decided to use a delinquent taxpayer exception to steal other people's records.
	So what they're doing is they're saying, this person, George over here, is a delinquent taxpayer.
	So let's go steal all of his law firm's records, bank records, including every other client the law firm has, or an accounting firm.
	Let's look at all the...
	And what they're doing is a dragnet of illicitly grabbing everybody else's records under the guise that they're just looking for the very limited delinquent taxpayers'records.
	That's all.
	And so this is the U.S. Supreme Court has taken the case.
	Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court clarifies.
	The IRS has no such authority.
	They can't.
	And when the IRS summons a bank, the summons itself is an administrative summons that's not judicially enforceable.
	They're supposed to give notice because it's a third-party record keeper.
	So that individual can then sue in court, file something called petition to quash an IRS summons, which forces the IRS to provide a lot of factual information and legal grounds to do so.
	And so that's not happening because they're hiding that information under the guise of delinquent taxpayer searches.
	And that's why we should not be giving IRS power, especially expanding the definition of reportable transactions to where now PayPal and everybody else It's going to be sending in every transaction and requiring you as an individual, you pay anybody over $600.
	Now you have to report it to the IRS, and everybody that's a third-party payer now has to report it to the IRS.
	Well, Robert, it's a good thing they got 87,000 new agents.
	To help enforce that.
	And the last case we have left is the crypto case against Yuga Labs and MoonPay.
	Some of the defendants are Jimmy Fallon, Justin Bieber.
	Haltrow, Kevin Hart, Steph Curry, Serena, Post Malone, Snoop Dogg.
	They're selling NFT tokens.
	By the way, it appeared to be pics of bored apes.
	Yeah, it's called bored ape.
	They were going through whatever that moon, the moon...
	Moonpay.
	Moonpay was.
	Robert, I don't understand how people are either so remorseless, have no conscience, or reckless they don't announce paid gigs while selling it.
	Jimmy Fallon in particular, in as much as he's an unfunny, I still thought he'd be honest about this.
	But they talk about these products like they've never discovered them before.
	And it's like, oh, I bought my Bored Ape off of MoonPay.
	Oh, yeah.
	And they're being paid to do this, not disclosing it, selling a product.
	No conscience whatsoever.
	Where's it going to go?
	I mean, I don't know how these things work.
	I mean, my problem with all of this is an attempt to label everything involving the crypto space.
	As a security.
	To me, this is too far.
	The SEC has gone too far.
	That if they are complicit in fraud, sue them on those grounds.
	But it's all promoter liability theories, for the most part, predicated and premised on laws meant for selling public securities in which you have an interest, an undisclosed interest.
	This was to get true promoters selling a stock and doing dump and pump schemes and things of that, pump and dump schemes.
	And things like that.
	Not people who are paid a little to advertise or market an NFT.
	So we'll see how that goes.
	But it's an attempt to, I believe, get the SEC's jurisdiction where it doesn't belong.
	But it'll probably take congressional reform to make that clear because the courts have not been willing so far to limit the scope of this.
	But maybe some of these big suits against some of these big names will force the issue to the forefront and maybe they'll find some...
	Better balance than exists currently.
	And when I was listening to the congressional hearings with Kevin O 'Leary and a few others, they were debating whether or not these are securities.
	And I think it's the Howey test.
	And there was one guy arguing for and a woman arguing against.
	And I said, the woman just makes a more compelling argument for why these are not securities.
	But if you want them to be treated as securities, amend the law and say tokens shall be deemed to be securities in as much as...
	So, made a compelling argument.
	It's very interesting.
	I think it's all scammish to begin with.
	Even if I bought one of Trump's NFTs.
	Well, but look at Trump.
	So Trump sells these NFTs.
	I think someone pitched it to him to help introduce him to the NFT market that he's a skeptic of.
	He's a skeptic of Bitcoin, crypto, everything.
	And they're like, watch.
	Watch how this can work.
	And this could be a useful solution in a wide range of other policy prescriptions down the road.
	So Trump took a lot of heat because Trump being Trump said he got a big announcement.
	And the first announcement he made was that.
	Now, the second announcement, when everybody was tuned in complaining about the first announcement, was a very substantive policy announcement about regulating big tech and government collusion.
	I broke that down in a Barnes brief at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, but upshot a lot of good policy proposals to prevent the government.
	We have these gaps in the law that don't make it clear that the government's not supposed to be in the election interference business, in the First Amendment censorship business.
	Trump wants to bridge those laws with clear prohibitions, civil and criminal provisions.
	Hopefully he expands that to include the right to sue these people when they violate that and with some fee-shifting provisions to allow private attorney generals to also enforce it.
	But also the limitations on big tech that applies only to the large platforms with near monopolistic power.
	Also positive proposals there.
	And of course, look at his NFTs.
	His NFTs sold out in less than 24 hours.
	And it's already, some of them are up 20 times more valuable than when you initially sold them.
	I was trying to figure out, I bought one.
	I don't know where it is.
	I mean, I know where it is.
	I don't know how to access it.
	I don't know how to trade it.
	But at one point yesterday, it was up to like $800.
	And now it seems to be back down to $300.
	It's all a flipping, you know, it's whatever.
	Trump got a lot of criticism for it.
	It's just Trump being Trump.
	If you don't like Trump marketing and making money, you haven't paid attention to who Donald Trump is.
	The man sold a game named after himself, crying out loud.
	What do you want?
	Oh my gosh, I forgot, Robert.
	It's the first night of Hanukkah and the kids are saying, we can't open presents until you get there.
	I have presents!
	None for them this year.
	Sorry, kids.
	I hope my wife got something because I didn't buy a damn present.
	Blue-Eyed Roof Korean in the chat says, Bored Ape Yacht Club used a lot of veiled racist tropes.
	You need to see the deep dive video.
	I will go watch it now.
	Robert, so what are your plans for the holidays?
	My last appearance will be Tuesday with the Duran at 1 p.m. Eastern Time.
	And then I'll be on the road to Tennessee and get back to Vegas around New Year's.
	And the next time we'll be live is probably Sunday, January 8th.
	We'll be in touch before then.
	And I'll be going live periodically.
	We'll have no fixed schedule as usual.
	Tomorrow I got the Norwegian artist who's coming on to talk about facing potential jail time for saying men can't be lesbian.
	So it'll be very interesting.
	Okay, we better go with this.
	I'm going to get...
	I'm going to be destroyed.
	Get out of here.
	I'll be there in a second.
	Everybody in the chat...
	Did you get a present to us?
	I hope Mum did.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you very much.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everybody, Happy New Year, Merry Christmas, but we'll see each other beforehand.
	And that's it.
	Hold on.
	Oh, wait, I want it to end.
	Oh, you know, you might get a present, Ethan, if you say VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Are you going to say VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com?
	Sorry, Santa Claus may skip the house.
	We're going to end with this, Robert, because it's worth reminding.
	Here we go.
	And then Robert Sticker will say our public advice.
	Everyone in the chat, if you're celebrating Hanukkah, happy first night of Hanukkah.
	Then also, you'll see there's many people that are tweeting.
	You know, these are Taylor Lorenz's loved ones.
	They have photos.
	Wow, these are all photos of your family members.
	Children.
	Yeah, they'll threaten children.
	They'll threaten my parents.
	I've had to remove every single social tie.
	I had severe PTSD from this.
	I contemplated suicide.
	It got really bad.
	You feel like any little piece of information that gets out on you will be used by the worst people on the internet to destroy your life.
	And it's...
	So isolating.
	And terrifying.
	It's horrifying.
	These are the people...
	And she's the number one person who's done that to other people.
	And we want to know where he is at all points in time.
	And it's censorship if we can't.
	But...
	Okay, this kid's driving me crazy.
	Hold on.
	Stop hitting yourself.
	Stop hitting yourself.
	Get out of here.
	Everybody in the chat, if you're going to go watch another show...
	Drop a good good so they know where you came from.
	Robert, stick around.
	Everyone enjoy the evening.
	Happy holidays.
	See you tomorrow.

▲