As soon as you make citizenship for some Canadians conditional on good behavior, you devalue citizenship for everyone.
I have greater faith in Canadians and in our institutions than the fact that we might sort of shrug as our fundamental rights are casually.
Brushed aside in the name of political expediency or a national emergency that actually wouldn't be one.
Our veterans serve Canada with honour and valour right across this country and all around the world.
They stepped up for us and now it's time for us to do the same for them.
Reducing the contacts, reducing the gatherings are going to be most important.
I don't say this to scare you.
I say this because we need to be honest with ourselves about what we're facing.
We need to hang in there together for a little while longer.
A number more months.
My job throughout this pandemic is to keep Canadians safe.
There's uncertainty and anxiety.
We're pulling together and following public health guidelines.
Will get us all through this.
I am absolutely, absolutely serene and confident that I made the right choice in agreeing with the invocation.
I'm sure he is.
All right, people.
So that is a clip from a channel called the Indie News Network.
Not mine, but I got a text message from a trusted friend who said, Viva.
First of all, you might like this video and you might like this channel.
And I watched it and I said, I'll do one better than that.
I'm going to start tonight's show with that clip and a link to the channel in the news network.
I don't know the individual behind the channel personally.
I just know that the person who vouched for that person is someone who I unequivocally trust.
And I said it would be my pleasure and my honor to put that channel on blast.
For anybody who's looking for Canadian content.
And by the looks of it, I think I am ideologically and politically aligned with the few videos that I was able to watch on that channel.
I was on Jimmy Dore Friday.
What day is it today?
It's Sunday.
On Friday afternoon.
And we had a glorious time.
I think the British expression would be taking the piss out of somebody.
But taking the piss out of somebody is almost like...
Mean-spirited, unfair jokes.
Jimmy Dore has finally taken an interest and has given me a platform to inform his audience of the insanity that is going on in Canada that, if it doesn't remain in check on everybody's, you know, the forefront of everybody's consciousness, will not remain in Canada.
I could rant about it like all day, every day, but all of you know this already.
Everyone here watching knows of the tyrannical abuse of Justin Trudeau over the last three years in particular, but really over the last eight years in general.
The corruption, the scandals, the lack of ethics.
Everybody here, all of you know this.
And Jimmy covered it on Friday, invited me on, and boy, howdy, did we have fun with this.
And a lot of people in the chat, and even, you know, out there...
Zoom out a little, Viva.
Damn it.
Like this?
I'll talk about the lighting in a second.
I'm working things out here.
A lot of people saying, you know, it's funny Jimmy and Viva are so ideologically different.
You know, Jimmy's a liberal, you know, far left.
Although I think even the far left now is calling Jimmy a far right.
Like I said on Jimmy's channel, there's no left and right anymore.
I genuinely don't believe it's blue-pilled and red-pilled.
The blue-pilled being the idiots who still think the government is good, and the red-pilled being the...
Informed, who know that governments have never been good, they never will be good, because there's a reason why governments attract psychopaths.
And this is a demonstrable statistic.
I think, like, the top five professions in which there is a statistical overrepresentation of psychopathy.
The professions which are the most likely...
Just for everybody who doesn't understand what just happened.
The professions, and for everyone listening on podcast, I just pulled up a chat that said, the autofocus is tracking your hands.
You see, what I've been doing is wearing a shirt with words on it so that the autofocus tracks the shirt.
The professions that attract the most psychopaths.
It's not an accident, by the way.
Law, medicine, and...
Politics.
And then there's a couple of other ones which are like variants of those three.
And there's also a good damn reason why so many lawyers become politicians.
And yes, I have worked for over a decade in the practice of law.
The level of what you would call narcissistic psychopathy.
Look, it's not the majority.
It's not even like a significant minority, but it's just statistical over-representation.
Psychopaths.
And government are psychopaths.
And Jimmy Dore and I, I think we see eye to eye on a lot of stuff.
Even the ones that are like the litmus test, like universal healthcare.
We both agree.
If the government would spend a fraction of what they spend to fund international conflict, military ventures, change of regimes in foreign countries, if they spent that on healthcare, we would have a solution.
You would have the private-public solution.
Public healthcare for those who can't afford private.
But instead of sending in the US, what do you want, $100 billion to fund a proxy war in Ukraine?
Hey, what are they spending on the military?
Trillions.
Instead of spending trillions on the military, just spend a trillion less and put that into healthcare for those who can't afford healthcare.
Do that in Canada.
We agree on a great many things.
Jimmy, not a liberal.
Well, Jimmy, I think, is realizing what happens now.
Once you go red pill, you then become far right.
There's no question about it.
So, okay, that's the intro.
We're going to talk about something else very quickly before we do this.
Let's do the standard disclaimers, a little bit of housekeeping.
No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
But we will be talking Pfizer.
We will be talking Carrie Lake, I think.
We will be talking Michael Flynn.
Suing the government for malicious prosecution.
We're live now on YouTube, on Rumble, and on Locals.
Because what happens now and what I've been doing during the week.
Yeah, look at this.
I'm going to get to all of the chat in Locals at the end of the stream exclusively.
What I do is, because of my exclusive agreement with Rumble, and I'm happy, I'm proud to do it.
End on YouTube.
Carry on on Rumble and on Locals.
And at some point, I think we might end on Rumble as well and then have a little exclusive portion of the after show live on Locals because now has RMTP or RTPM, whatever it is, PRMPT.
It's got that capability.
So it's fantastic, the functions.
We're live on all three.
If you want to support the channel through these things called Super Chats or Rumble Rants, know that YouTube takes 30% of all of that.
Kevin Rutherford with a $4.99 Super Chat says, who built the cages, David?
Who built the cages?
I can tell you who did.
Obama.
YouTube takes 30%.
If you don't like that, Rumble Rants, where I can now go here because of an app and plug-in.
See, there are no Rumble Rants to read just yet.
Rumble takes 20%, so better for the creator, better to support a platform that actually supports free speech.
If you want to support both Robert and I and what we do, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
You can just become a member.
No obligation to pay.
No expectation.
You're part of a community.
You get tons of free...
Stuff that's available to everybody.
And if you want to be a supporter, you get access to lots of exclusive stuff.
Seven bucks a month, 70 bucks a year, or more if you want to.
You're one of those people who likes to spend more than the base requirement.
And there's a lot of them.
It's actually very encouraging.
Now, Kevin Rutherford.
It is because psychopaths don't stand out as much in normal population of oddballs.
Can you think of many normal politicians?
Hello.
I see my child through the window.
I'm live.
No, I can think of a few normal politicians and they typically don't succeed the way the psychopaths and the mentally unhinged ones do.
Winston Shittenhouse.
I dress right, but I am not far right.
Hold on.
Oh yeah, bring it boy.
Get over here.
Winston Shittenhouse in the house.
You smell terrible.
We need to have the groomer come.
I've embarrassed him in front of everybody.
This is Winston.
Winston, meet Winston.
Winston, Winston.
He just burped.
Did you guys hear that?
He just burped on national interwebs.
Okay, down you go.
All right.
One more thing.
So housekeeping, I think we've done it.
Link to Rumble's in there.
I'll get the lighting, people.
I think the lighting's actually pretty good now.
The autofocus, I think I'm actually going to upgrade and go to streaming with one of them DSLRs or mirrorless cameras.
But we'll see.
Neon light.
I'm trying to work it in.
This is artwork.
Creationsbyziggy.com.
Wait, wrong way.
It's just freaking beautiful.
And merch.
You can always get merch.
Vivafry.com for your merch dreams.
Now, okay, so I became aware of this.
Where is it?
Here we go.
This is it.
Not now.
All right, James O 'Keefe.
So I come across...
Get a link.
Someone sends me a link to a fundraiser.
And I'm immediately about to give to it.
And I'm like, wait a minute.
If this is set up by Project Veritas, me no so eager to actually give to this fundraiser.
So I double-checked.
It's a bonafide James O 'Keefe set it up.
Fundraiser.
Give, send, go.
Because nobody uses go F me anymore.
Because go F me should, you know, go bankrupt.
Give, send, go for the Pfizer whistleblower.
I'm going to see if I can find the video of James at CPAC.
Here it is.
This is it right here.
Let's watch this.
We're going to watch this as part of the intro.
I gave a $500 donation, not anonymously, because I genuinely believe none of these things remain anonymous anyhow.
So if anyone thinks they're going to dox me for having donated to the federally incorporated not-for-profit Freedom Convoy...
Project Veritas, which I will not be donating to anymore because of what they did to James O 'Keefe.
I donated to this.
Courage is contagious, and sometimes it needs financial support because...
For reasons we all know, but check this out.
This is, by what James says, the whistleblower behind the Pfizer story.
But I've learned a lot of things over the last month.
Having been ousted from the company I founded 13 years ago, near days after the story.
And as this was happening, I was talking to one of these people.
And she was a little reluctant to go public, rightfully so.
She was scared.
It didn't feel right.
But after what I went through, we reconnected.
The individual who helped identify this man, who helped bring this to light, who was targeted, who was brought into a room, interrogated, who had a...
Red Van go to her home, harass her and her loved ones, who was scared for her life, was so inspired by the series of events that have occurred over the last three weeks that she's decided to go public with me on the stage right now.
Debbie from Pfizer, would you please come out here?
I was worried that I would end up in a body bag.
We're in a car accident.
But I realized that the spirit of fear is not from the Lord.
As a believer, I knew that I couldn't just sit there.
I couldn't just sit there and watch people get lied to.
People get gaslit.
It made me angry.
I think we all need to learn to not be fearful.
I mean, it's powerful stuff, setting aside the dramatic music in the background.
It's amazing stuff.
So there's a Give, Send, Go campaign for her.
Did I share the link?
It's the pinned comment on my Twitter feed for anybody who's not there.
What's with the background music?
There's an old saying in editing, if you notice the music, it's too loud.
But substance...
Overform every day of the week.
Never let the perfect get in the way of the good.
Yeah, so if anybody...
If you have something that you're able to contribute, the link is there.
And if you're not able to contribute, share the link.
I mean, that's...
Here, I'm just going to go get the tweet right now.
Oh, yes.
Give me the plug, please.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
All right.
Here it is.
Hold on.
I'm going to share this right now.
Barnes is LA time.
So here, let me do this.
Give, send, go.
Pfizer.
Boom.
There it is.
While we have the time, people, very rarely do I have like what I consider to be not an original thought.
I have plenty of original thoughts, but where I think maybe I've noticed something that...
People haven't noticed.
Now, I'm going to go back to the clip on Jimmy Dore just so that I don't know, quit everybody's appetite to go watch the entire thing.
You all remember that clip a while ago with Klaus Schwab?
I don't know where exactly he was talking.
I can find it out.
But the original clip was posted like nine months, ten months ago, maybe a year ago.
He's talking about having penetrated cabinets.
I've played it a dozen times on this channel.
And when Jimmy played it...
Last Friday, to highlight the fact that the government has penetrated the Cabinet of Canada, more than half of the Cabinet, I heard something for the first time in it, which I think if someone else noticed this, you let me know.
But here's the clip.
Here's another one.
You go, is it true that Klaus Schwab and the WEF have penetrated over half of the Canadian Cabinet?
Hashtag true WEF puppet.
Hashtag Trudeau sold out Canada.
Those are good hashtags.
No, they're not.
Another ratio, 9,500.
So, just so you know, Klaus Schwab, he is a puppet of the WEF.
He was their young global leaders.
And do you want to see how I know this?
Because here's Klaus Schwab.
I have to say...
When I mention our names, like Mrs. Merkel, even Vladimir Putin and so on, they all have been young global leaders of the world.
What we are very proud of now is the young generation.
This evil organization wants to take over the world.
I have better audio in my living room studio than they do.
You'll hear it.
Like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on.
President of Argentina.
So again, this is the world order.
It seems like the WEF and this kind of cabal of capitalists seem to be running every government.
Do you know what's interesting, Jimmy?
You played it this time, and now I didn't pick up on it the first time, but I knew nothing of Brazil.
He almost slipped up and said Brazil, and I don't know when this was, but it was definitely before Lula.
So he might have been ahead of his prediction by claiming hold of Brazil with the election of Lula.
But I know that Brazil or Argentina.
Listen to it one more time.
President of Argentina.
And then, you know.
Just small coincidences.
The president of Brazil on the WEF website implementing compelled vaccination in Brazil if people want to keep their government benefits.
All right.
Barnes is in the background.
Let me see.
I want to hear what Barnes says.
Maybe I picked up on something.
Lulu was before Lula.
Vladimir Putin.
I'd say he makes it sound so delicious, like gravy and cheese.
All right, we'll see what Robert says.
Robert, bringing you in here.
Boom shakalaka, sir.
How goes the battle?
Good, good.
So we're going to see each other in, what, less than a week?
Yeah, we won't have a show next week because, sorry, we will be live in Las Vegas for the first VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com meetup.
Of folks.
So that'll be fun with special guest Mark Grobert and Eric Hunley.
We will record part of the show where we'll be talking about some of the sins of Sin City, some of the hush-hush stories from Las Vegas, including the Vegas shooter, and what some of the theories may be about that, which we'll make exclusive to members and as a content plus production for others that can be available for basically $10, something like that.
And after the show.
But yeah, so we'll be live in Vegas for members that have tickets next Sunday.
Robert, you heard the clip.
That was Klaus Schwab saying how he penetrated the cabinet of Argentina.
This was before Lula.
I guess it was after and before Lula because Lula was president before Bolsonaro beat him and then again afterwards.
So I guess he, you know...
Bolsonaro did beat him.
He didn't run in that election.
Okay.
So, Bolsonaro arguably was or was not in the WEF, you know, the Young Global Leaders, but Lula clearly wasn't.
Look, am I hearing things or, you know, going one step too far that he mentioned Brazil before Lula got re-elected, and now that Lula got re-elected, maybe now Brazil is part of the Young Global Leaders.
We'll see.
I mean, I think in terms of Lula, Lula's always just wanted to be a major player on the stage.
So far, he's reversed positions of Brazil at least.
Partially on the Ukrainian conflict, came out with his vaccine mandates to get social benefits for families with children, things like that, that are different than some of what some of his supporters thought was going to happen.
So we'll see how he actually governs.
First time around, he governed as sort of a left of center.
Slightly populist, but not as populist as he campaigned on.
And so far, he's been much more of an establishment politician since his election.
The Biden administration interfered in the case to try to produce him.
The Brazilian court system released him from prison so that he could run and then refused to hear any meaningful election challenge.
And now they're apparently trying to round up Bolsonaro supporters and purge them out of the military using their own January 6th type event.
So a lot of the critics of what was taking place in Brazil, Bolsonaro comes from the right populist side of the equation in Brazil.
Was a critic of the Ukrainian, didn't get Brazil engaged in that conflict whatsoever, and was a Trump ally, I think is currently in South Florida, planning his comeback in Brazil down the road too.
And for anybody who missed my interview with Paulo Figueiredo, who is the grandson of a Brazilian president in 79 to 84, call him Bolsonaro supporter.
I don't think he's shy about it, so you might want to...
If you want to write him off as partisan, you'll have your basis.
But a fantastically interesting, insightful interview where he goes into the Lula corruption, Operation Car Wash, the insidious corruption that even Bolsonaro might have taken a little too far, and now there's a pushback to that.
So it was a very, very interesting discussion on Rumble.
Paolo, what's his last name again?
Paolo Figueiredo, which means...
I wasn't going to try to pronounce it.
He's interviewed me before, and I've talked to him before, so I know him, but pronunciation is not my strong point.
Figueiredo, and it means fig orchard or from the fig plantation.
Alright, Robert.
Well, let's just mention what's on the menu for tonight before we jump right in.
Yeah, and for those that are, some people have asked for like an order of discussion so they can know, you know, where things are going.
So we provided that on our locals board here.
I mean, the first case we'll discuss is...
General Flynn files suit for his wrongful prosecution.
Then we have everything at SCOTUS, which includes foreign bank account reporting requirements and fines, what happens to abandoned property and disputes between states, the Biden student loan issue, and what may happen to a big elections case based on changes in the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Up third will be Carrie Lake takes her case to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Dominion versus Fox.
Then we have the big update that is the big case for today, which will be the Brooke Jackson case.
Made the oral arguments this past week in federal court.
Brooke Jackson versus Pfizer on behalf of the American people for the fraud that Pfizer committed.
Then we have a brief update on the World Health Organization treaty that some people are still getting confused on.
Some people asked about the UN agenda.
The, you know, sometimes called the 2130 agenda, 2150 agenda, 21 agenda, depending on which label you use and whether that's legally binding.
A 15-minute cities and what's that all about.
Then we'll discuss the Murdoch verdict.
Not too long about it, but, you know, just a brief snapshot.
Juicy Smollett is claiming double jeopardy as a reason so that he can never serve his very short sentence.
The George Allen Kelly case, that's the border rancher, being charged with now second-degree homicide and aggravated assault in Arizona in the very controversial case because a lot of it looks like self-defense.
A kidnapped victim who the family is suing OnStar.
The Department of Justice wants to deny Trump immunity for when he was president.
Related to January 6th.
Also related to January 6th.
Those insightful words.
Sorry, I shouldn't interrupt the list.
Sorry, Barbara.
No problem.
January 6th defamation case that is going to proceed against the Daily Dot.
A case I'll be filing this week on behalf of Megan Fox against the Wauwatosa School Board for its denial of free speech rights.
The Florida Blogger registration legislation that is being proposed.
A major case about a major U.S. bank that went woke and how they're trying to destroy people and what it might mean for the future for the rest of us.
The historic case of the week is about the interestingly named lawyer named Khan from Kentucky, on which there's been multiple documentaries about.
The Tennessee trans law that went into force.
The Oxford school shooting, one of the state court cases, dismissal on immunity grounds.
Shock, shock.
And the sort of rapid fire will have the California surfer fight, which is kind of a fun little case, unless you're on the other side of that.
And then Jordan Peterson has raised the issue about deepfakes being libelous, and Michael Knowles appears to have been libeled by the Rolling Stone.
And then we might, we'll see if we can work it tonight, Robert.
Maybe we end on Rumble and have like a 15, 20-minute afterparty on Locals where we get to some of the tips, questions, and chat on Locals where we are simultaneously streaming.
Okay, so let's, starting with Michael Flynn, and someone just said, hold on, let me see if I can bring this up here.
It says, and to think, Dave, Viva, you started by making, here we go, nice numbers, and to think you used to make vids in your car.
First, I miss those days, but I don't think I can go back to them, but the Michael Flynn saga.
Was one of the original sagas that I followed.
Not from beginning to end, because I only got into it in the middle, but it was one of the sagas from my car.
We had Jussie Smollett, we had Amy Cooper, Michael Flynn.
The 30,000-foot overview, for anybody who doesn't know, he was prosecuted for lying to the FBI in the context of...
It was Crossfire Hurricane, where they took him into a room and asked him questions about some of his communications with someone from Ukraine.
I forget who it was.
And he basically said to the FBI, look, what do you ask me this for?
You have the transcript of the calls.
All of his answers to the questions were equivocal in that I'm not sure, I can't quite recall, yada, yada, yada.
FBI goes after him for having made false statements to the FBI.
He pleads guilty.
And I forget the name of the first judge, but he pleads guilty to a first judge who ultimately recused...
It was the same judge.
No, no, it was before Emory.
Well, there was a judge assigned to the case.
Before the judge that presided it, but he pled before the judge that became the controversial judge.
I thought there was an issue about his first plea deal being arguably invalid because it was made in front of a judge who was conflicted.
It was that that judge was ever assigned the case in the first place.
He ultimately, but my recollection is he disqualified himself before the plea.
Okay.
And it won't change much in any event, but then he gets in front of Judge Emery.
It was Emery, right?
Or Emmett?
Emery.
Emmett Sullivan, right?
Emmett Sullivan.
Anyways, and we went through all of that.
To say that judge was biased is an understatement of the millennia.
Ultimately, he then moves to rescind his guilty plea.
Oh, Jesus.
So much should happen today.
Anyway, he gets pardoned.
He gets pardoned.
Now he's suing the government for $50 million for malicious prosecution because they knew that it was malicious prosecution.
And even if he pled to...
Making false statements.
It was in the context of an investigation that should not have happened in the first place.
I mean, out of the 50 million bucks, he lost tens of millions of dollars in potential business.
He, in fact, had to sell his home to assume his legal costs.
Ruined his life, which some people suspect was the goal of it all along.
Allowed everyone to discredit him.
Whether or not it pushed him a little bit too far on the QAnon side of the election stuff, who knows?
Irrelevant.
Suing for $50 million.
Robert, did I miss anything?
And am I being too cynical now for thinking he's got a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding on this claim?
The key component is he's bringing a malicious prosecution and abusive process claim, which is allowed under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States government for law enforcement officers only.
And so if they have the power to either search, seize, or arrest, then they can be held liable for particular...
This all arrived originally back in the time of the Constitution.
You could sue a federal government official and they could raise lawful authority as their defense.
Then the U.S. Supreme Court started coming in and granting sovereign immunity.
Sovereign immunity is a doctrine that is completely foreign to the Constitution, doesn't exist in the Constitution, is completely contrary to the Constitution.
The very idea of sovereign immunity derives from that the king is the agent of God and as such can do no wrong.
So you couldn't sue the king because that would be like suing God.
And by definition, he could not have done wrong.
By definition, the American Constitution rejects and repudiates that principle of divine rule.
And yet courts just decided to invent, out of whole cloth, many conservative justices proudly preach sovereign immunity to this day, showing that we don't really have any judge in America that's a true constitutionalist, in my view, because sovereign immunity is no business in our constitutional fabric.
But once they started doing that in the early 20th century, it caused enough public uproar that Congress went in and changed the law to allow the U.S. government to be sued in certain instances.
And those instances include certain claims that can arise under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
That includes the right to sue a law enforcement official for abusive process or malicious prosecution.
You have to administratively exhaust your remedies first, and then you can file suit.
The malicious prosecution law depends on the jurisdiction where the prosecution was brought, typically.
Now, Michael Flynn has brought this suit in the state of Florida in federal court because that's where he now resides, but most likely the substantive law under the choice of law principles will be the law of the District of Columbia governing malicious prosecution.
Do we presume that there's going to be a motion for change of venue, or if it's going to be the applicable laws of another state, would they not move it to that state?
Generally, no.
Generally, plaintiffs have a right to sue where they want to, and there is venue under the federal law for that to occur.
They could argue for transfer of venue, but they generally don't argue for transfer of venue in these cases.
But the choice of law principles don't depend on that law being the venue of where the case is being presided over.
So in all likelihood, D.C. law will apply.
It's sort of federal law adopting the state law of the jurisdiction at issue, even though it's a Florida federal judge who will be applying it.
And under what the first requirement of malicious prosecution, abusive process is just kind of another form of malicious prosecution, which just means you've used the legal process in some way that was of lawful means but an unlawful purpose.
The first requirement is you have to have a dismissal on the merits.
And their argument is, and what was unique about Flynn, is two things unique about Flynn.
First, that he pled to it.
They later challenged the plea, but that's an unusual fact pattern for a malicious prosecution case.
The second aspect is, while the government ultimately moved to dismiss the case, on grounds there never was probable cause, the courts never approved it, because what happened was, even though the government requested dismissal, Sullivan refused to do it.
Went up to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
It was kind of in place that the court should do so.
It wasn't clear he was ever going to do so.
So Trump ultimately pardoned him to prevent a scenario where Flynn could be left hanging in the wind and Trump no longer president.
That also is a distinct, a unique fact pattern as well.
So how that impacts, you won't find many cases that fit this fact pattern in a malicious prosecution context.
what he has going for him is twofold.
First, that the U.S. Justice Department did make a formal statement to a court And let me stop you there because I forgot one important fact is that he withdrew his initial plea because it was determined that the Department of Justice withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn.
And some people might say, well, why would he have pled guilty if he knew he was innocent?
The process is the punishment, but that was a very material fact, is that the Department of Justice withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn, and so he pleaded that as the basis to one of the bases for, I forgot that Emmett Sullivan refused to grant the dismissal, despite the fact that the government made the motion to dismiss itself, but they said it was all partisan, an all-partisan play, so he was right to inquire further into the reasonings behind these.
Yeah, it was really nuts.
So usually the hard part of a malicious prosecution case is if a grand jury has indicted you, state or federal, courts generally say you can't bring a malicious prosecution case because that's almost to the point of non-reviewable finding of probable cause.
And you have to not just show that you are innocent.
You have to show there was no probable cause to bring a malicious prosecution claim.
And that's a much lower standard than conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, what's unique here is that's precisely what the Justice Department said in their filing to Judge Sullivan.
They said there was no probable cause here.
And so that probably gets him over the hurdle.
Normally, you have to show that the grand jury was defrauded in some way, that there was perjured testimony, falsified testimony, very high burden to meet at the pleading stage, even the pleading stage of a case.
But given what the government's official declaration that gave him, once they made that, Not only that we move to dismiss, but there's no probable cause here.
That gave him the basis to bring a malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims under the law of the District of Columbia as applicable under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
So I think the case should get passed a motion to dismiss.
Doesn't mean it will get passed a motion to dismiss, but I think it should.
I think he has the legal merits and the factual predicate.
To do so.
Tracy Beans of, I think it's Uncover DC, you can find her on Twitter, was doing a long breakdown of his allegations.
And what, it's also a very good, I think it's Jesse Binnell brought the case.
And they do a very good job of detailing the whole history.
And that the whole history was that every single stage, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice violated.
Not only their own rules, but rules that were intended to assure that only people who they had probable cause committed a crime had done so.
They did so in that basically it was an entrapment set up.
It was a perjury trap at the interview stage.
It was under false pretenses.
They then misrepresented.
What took place at the interview by not recording their notes in a timely manner, by modifying their notes in ways that were contrary to the actual conversation, by not tape recording aspects of the conversation.
Then the Justice Department withheld exculpatory information, not only from Flynn's defense, but also from the grand jury that issued the indictment.
That would have been independent grounds to pursue malicious prosecution.
Then they threatened Flynn by going after his family for illicit purpose, going after his son and threatening his son with prosecution.
And so he has the, and that the whole background of this was the illegal spying on the Trump campaign, that it was part of what they called their backup plan, basically.
The insurance plan that Stuart Stoke was talking about.
Exactly.
The insurance plan to take out Trump in case he were to win.
And so people want to know the whole Flynn story.
The complaint does a good job of detailing that whole story.
But I think he should have enough to get into discovery at a minimum.
And there are some unique legal challenges he faces.
It will probably be the luck of the draw, but Florida federal courts are a little better than the District of Columbia federal courts, that's for sure.
And then the 11th Circuit is probably a more friendly forum than the D.C. Circuit would be, given what he went through in that court, in that circuit.
Maybe a fight over motion, over venue, we'll see.
But it's a well-established federal claim.
Based on the Justice Department's admissions and subsequent evidence that developed of bad faith conduct, which is what you need for malicious prosecution, you need not only you prosecuted someone without probable cause, there's been a determination that it's dismissed without probable cause, and you need malice.
And he has lots and lots of evidence of malice.
Stupid question, maybe.
Is this going to be a jury trial or a judge?
Yeah, if it goes to you.
Motion to dismiss and summary judgment, yes.
Okay, so that's it.
So the judge will adjudicate on those preliminary motions of law, and then if it ever gets anywhere past discovery, it'll be a jury, a trial by jury.
Well, Rob, they'd want to then move venue to get to the District of Columbia if they can to avoid a jury in Florida?
The problem they have is that...
The Florida federal judge would determine a move of venue.
Generally, plaintiffs get to pick their own venue.
There's a preference for that in the law.
He lives and resides in Florida.
That's where the injury and damage has been accrued.
It's not like there's a lot of critical witnesses that are only available in the District of Columbia.
There's a whole long list of grounds to transfer venue.
Generally, federal courts don't transfer venue very often.
So they may try, but that would speak volumes to their own recognition of bias in their favor in the District of Columbia.
And whenever you say grounds, I hear everyone in the chat going, grounds?
In reference to the other trial.
Okay, fascinating.
And maybe, I keep saying I'm going to do like a new vlog out of the car.
They just take so much damn time.
Robert, there's some Supreme Court cases, and I know if you send me something, it's got some broader meaning than what I'm able to fathom.
Starting with the moneygram.
It's the abandoned instruments of sort of financial instruments.
I don't exactly fully know the context of how there was an abandoned financial instrument or similar financial instrument of a moneygram interstate.
I guess somebody issued it, died, and they're trying to figure out who owns this abandoned property, the abandoned property being effectively a money order.
If anybody doesn't know what moneygram is, it's like you're sending money from one person to another cross-state.
And so I guess the sender died or it would have to be the recipient died.
Sometimes they didn't die.
It's just, it's when the sender, so the sender usually goes in, pays cash for an amount of money to be transferred to someone else that they can pick up anywhere there's a MoneyGram location.
If they have the monetary control number and identification that matches the ID of the person, the recipient.
However, sometimes the recipient never picks it up.
And we don't know why.
Maybe dead, maybe something else.
The next step is for MoneyGram to return it to the sender.
But sometimes they have no means to reach the sender.
And they don't gather certain data about the sender, including legal residency in many cases.
And so usually just some contact information.
And so what happens is, in those instances, the money escheats to the state.
The state always has these wonderful estates.
That's why everybody should have an estate plan.
That if you don't, the government often gets to grab your land and property and money.
And they like it that way.
Now, there's arguments that the IRS cheat laws should have never been that way.
That's another point for another day.
It goes back to principles where it goes back to divine rule, basically, that all property is really the king's property unless otherwise determined.
That's where a lot of his cheat law originates.
That's why I'm not a fan of it.
But putting that aside, so what happened is the state where MoneyGram was incorporated, Delaware, was grabbing all the money.
And this had gone through fights in many different contexts in the past, and the federal courts applied a common law rule.
There's not a lot of federal common law.
It's mostly state common law, but there's a little bit.
And where there'd been no specific legislation, they would allow a state like the state of incorporation of the company with the property for it to go there, to that state.
But Congress came in, didn't like that, changed the rules so that, in fact, it had to go to the state where the recipient...
Made the original transaction.
And Delaware wasn't honoring that because they were interpreting money grams to not be...
Like checks and other written financial instruments that that specific law applied to.
So the U.S. Supreme Court was deciding who gets this abandoned property, was interpreting federal law, and in the process of interpreting federal law determined that, in fact, this belongs to a money gram instrument is just like a written check for the purposes of the law.
And consequently, it's the state of the recipient that gets it.
So Delaware is no longer going to get to this windfall that they were getting before.
It's a unique case also because it's an original complaint case.
It's a reminder that U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to take these.
These are disputes between states.
A certain prominent case in 2020 was a dispute between states where they have original jurisdiction.
Somehow in these cases, they have no problem asserting their proper original jurisdiction.
Unlike that election case, they just couldn't find a way to take.
So no broader meaning than that, other than that, it's money orders are deemed to be the instruments, financial instruments of sorts.
So the state to which they were being sent, where the recipient was.
No, I'm sorry.
I think it's the state of the donor.
Sorry.
Okay.
Interesting.
But I know the other Supreme Court, they haven't yet ruled on it, Robert, before we even get into your pleadings of last week.
The student loan.
Now, okay, we were talking about it in our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
I shared a link which the media fawning over the attorney representing the government, that they have the authority to do this.
They're fawning over her as an individual and not over the legal arguments that she's raising, like powerful, compelling, she was poised and yada, yada, yada.
Sort of glossing over the arguments, but...
The arguments that they're, and I'm just getting suspicious when the media focuses too much on the individual but not on the arguments, flags go off.
As far as I can tell, the steel manning of the argument as to how this is a legal forgiveness of debt is to abstract from the student loan aspect of this.
It's not sort of just a way to get a few cheap votes with students.
They're relying on COVID as if to say the law that we're invoking to grant this forgiveness of debt.
It's because of a catastrophe, a pandemic, whereas had this been a hurricane, an earthquake, or whatever, and people who owed money had been incapable of repaying that money because of the crisis itself, well, there'd be no question, and therefore this pandemic is the excuse for which we can now forgive, I don't know, however many hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan it is.
Is that a very disingenuous argument that the Supreme Court, if they're so inclined, can sink their teeth into?
You know, for public support and to please the masses to say, yeah, we're going to forgive the student debt because it's not the forgiveness of the student's debt per se.
It's because it was induced by this catastrophe known as COVID pandemic.
Very little chance the Supreme Court goes along with that theory.
The only way they have a chance to prevail is if the Supreme Court decides no standing to sue.
And I don't think they'll be able to make that determination.
Justice Thomas highlighted that question early on to those challenging the rule, and they explained very clearly how they had standing they would be negatively impacted.
What you have is some state entities that collect interest on these loans that would no longer be able to collect interest on those loans.
And so they would lose a lot of money.
And so that was always the key is who could sue.
That was the tricky part, but they found someone who could, in fact, sue.
And so under those circumstances, and Biden administration tried to opt out of everybody else, but I think that that should be sufficient for them to find standing.
And if so, the Supreme Court will say this was not...
Within the power of the president to claim COVID emergency authority to radically rewrite the rules of contracts across the country.
I mean, I asked the question, even though the moratorium was another example where the Supreme Court sort of kind of seemingly went along with it.
But if this is going to be true for student loans, why would the COVID argument not be true for all debt?
Oh, yeah, or anything else.
And remember, ultimately, they did reverse that.
Moratorium.
They said the moratorium was an excess of authority.
They initially said they were going to give them a little more time.
Biden continued with the moratorium, so they came back in and Kavanaugh flipped back and said, no, this was never constitutional.
And so if the moratorium on evictions is not within the authority of the CDC, then forgiveness of all student loan debt is not within the authority of the president.
Okay.
And nothing more on that.
So when are we supposed to hear, get a judgment on that?
It won't be next week.
We won't know.
It's usually several months.
Okay.
The other one, FBAR, or as I like to say, that left someone FUBAR'd.
This is a provision of law that requires a filing in the event that you have a foreign bank account or interest in a foreign company.
And if you should even unwillingly or unwittingly fail to provide this form on your declaration for taxes that you own, Interest in a foreign corporation, foreign bank accounts.
The government says, we can fine you $10,000 for this unwilling, unwitting failure to report.
In the case at hand, it's an individual who, for whatever the reason, and I don't know if he was a suspicious individual which allowed them to get this far up, it was either several hundred or several thousand accounts or interests, and the government fined him $10,000, not...
For the report, for failing to report it, but per account, what did it come to?
$27 million or $2.7 million?
I think it was $2.7 million.
So they fine him $2.7 million.
So everybody do the math as to how many infractions that has to be at $10,000 a pop.
And he says, no, it's $10,000 for failing to report one report per year and not per account.
And they took him to the Supreme Court of, I was going to say of Canada, they took him to the Supreme Court and, you know, lo and behold, the Supreme Court said, no, that's not in the spirit or essence of the law.
And I guess reduced it to $10,000 after he spent however many millions on legal fees.
Robert, what's the broader impact of this?
And did I miss any details?
No, it's a massive, massive win for those fighting the IRS on FBAR issues.
Because for those that don't, I mean, what is it?
You have a lot of people who are...
Dual citizens in particular, or Americans who go to work overseas.
But this is a classic example.
This is a guy who was born in Romania, escaped communist Romania, came to the United States, and then after communism fell in Romania, went back to Romania, worked in Romania, then years later came back to the United States.
This is not who, by the way, foreign bank account reporting was originally intended for.
What was it intended for originally?
It was intended for U.S. citizens that were using foreign bank accounts to evade taxes by hiding income offshore.
That's who it was for.
Not for people who are doing business overseas or have dual citizenships or are living overseas.
That wasn't the point or the purpose of it originally.
That's not how it was sold, at least, when Congress passed it.
But it's been widely misused and abused.
By the IRS.
They've been ridiculously aggressive by multiplying the number of accounts.
Somebody finds out they're behind.
They file an account.
And also often it can catch accounts you don't think it catches.
So if you even have $10,000 in an account at any point during a year, then it catches you.
Most people don't think of it that way if it was just like a brief transaction in an account.
It catches accounts you have a so-called signatory or other interest in.
This can be accounts you don't even control or own or accounts that you may be a signature cardholder but are not for you.
So it can catch a lot of innocent people and a lot of innocent conduct.
And they were threatening and extorting people, basically, by multiplying the fine that was supposed to be per form.
And they were saying, no, it's per account and per transaction and per year.
And so they were multiplying it all over the place and extorting people into paying ridiculous sums of money.
So it's very important the U.S. Supreme Court come in and clarify this, clean this up, revoke the IRS's authority to keep misusing and abusing its power in the F-bar context.
And so it was a great ruling on that side of the aisle.
Peter Rossi says assuming guilt.
No, not in this case.
In this case, the law says even unwittingly failing.
It could be a bona fide, sincere accident.
Oh, completely.
No willfulness required.
All right.
Now, I forgot we've been on Rumble and YouTube for 50 minutes, people.
We're going to get into the Carrie Lake Supremes right now, and we're going to do it exclusively on Rumble and Locals, and not because we can't talk about it on YouTube, because it'll be on YouTube tomorrow.
Just so that everybody watching this will now know, go over to Rumble, and YouTube gets the leftovers.
Not live tomorrow.
So we're ending on YouTube.
Here's the link one more time to Rumble.
It's in the pinned comment, people.
Go over there.
See you there in 3,348 people.
Should be moving over to Rumble now.
Three, two, one.
Booyah!
There is a U.S. Supreme Court.
The last U.S. Supreme Court case is that big case about elections.
Does the state legislatures control the rules of presidential elections and other elections in particular?
Pending before the U.S. Supreme Court stems from a decision made by the North Carolina Supreme Court.
The North Carolina Supreme Court in the midterm elections flipped from Democrat to Republican majority.
The new Republican majority has said, we're going to re-examine that decision because it was a very controversial decision at the time.
Because of that, the U.S. Supreme Court has asked for additional briefing on whether they really need to...
And continue to hear the case, given the North Carolina Supreme Court may reverse.
So that big case may not end up being heard at the U.S. Supreme Court at all because the North Carolina Supreme Court is highly likely to reverse itself on that account.
But the other big election case are the two Arizona cases, Carrie Lake to the Arizona Supreme Court, and I'm going to mispronounce his name, Abe Hamada.
I'm sure I got that wrong.
I apologize in advance.
Who was at CPAC this week talking with John Solomon of Just the News about his case still pending before the Arizona trial courts.
You might have to field both of these for the most part, and I'll ask my questions if I have any because I'm not as familiar with what's going on as you are, obviously.
Starting with Carrie Lake, what's the latest?
It's just that she filed to the Arizona Supreme Court, requested expedited review, and they granted it.
At this point, they've just granted that they're going to expedite review.
Not that they are actually going to take the case or hear the case.
So that's all it's at right now.
She has very good arguments because the Arizona Court of Appeals, for reasons we have for articulated, there were many legal errors in that court's decision, 11-page decision.
So if the Arizona Supreme Court wants to clean up its law governing elections, they should take the case.
Even if they weren't to rule in favor of Carrie Lake, they should at least...
Clear up the law and clean up the law because there are many legal errors made that contravene and contradict Arizona Supreme Court's own precedent going back as far as a century of case law.
So Abe Hamida described what's happening in his case as he has requested a new trial on his election contest because it turns out there were thousands of provisional ballots that had never been properly accounted for by Maricopa County.
And that would be, I think his election margin is like 200 votes.
It's the smallest election margin in the history, modern history of Arizona elections, statewide elections.
And if there's enough provisional ballots, it will change the outcome.
And based on their initial review, three quarters of the provisional ballots in question are actually Republican ballots.
And so these are, for people that don't know, a provisional ballot happens when for some reason you're not allowed to vote at the election precinct.
And so they say, okay, we'll let you vote a...
Provisional ballot.
You take your ballot, you cast your provisional ballot, and later, if it turns out you were entitled to vote, we'll then count your provisional ballot.
Because provisional ballots are almost, well, by definition, are all done at the precinct, at the voting center.
And given Republicans were disproportionately showing up just on election day.
Which Trump, to his credit, has realized now is a mistake that he did in 2020, in his 2024 CPAC speech, has reversed course on that, so this can't happen again as easily, is that they were disproportionately Republican ballots, three to one Republican ballots.
They've been able to confirm that by checking the names of the people that cast those provisional ballots.
And so if those provisional ballots are properly counted, or just like 10% of them are.
It'll change the election.
Ab Hamada will be Attorney General of Arizona.
So we'll see if the Arizona courts have the courage to step up to the plate in his case.
I wouldn't bet the bank on it, given the history of Arizona courts, sadly, in election contest, as we've seen in the Cary Lake contest.
But he's got an exceptionally strong factual grounds that he actually won the election in 2020 for Attorney General.
I'm black-pilled, Robert.
I don't have faith in anything anymore.
And before we get into the other...
Subject matter where people are misunderstanding things potentially and where I might be getting caught up in the frenzy, the WHO treaty and the risks that it might entail.
Let me just bring up the rumble rants because I'm able to now.
Look how beautiful this is.
Slammer68 says RFK Jr. wins presidency.
Barnes for Attorney General.
Viva for Ambassador to Canada.
That would be funny.
Lone Star Texas says, Viva should do a Rumble-only interview with Ryan Dawson on the whole Epstein-Maxwell episode.
He'd blow some minds here.
Thanks for making Jeremy McKenzie's story known, sir.
Thank you.
Jeremy McKenzie's GoFundMe.
Not GoFundMe, holy cows.
Go F me.
Give, send, go ended Friday at noon at $36,000 and made Jeremy use that money for the woes that he's going to go through in the near future.
Fraser McBurney says, if you're Canadian and planning to vote for PP, watch this, that's Pierre Poiliev, watch this video.
Oblividan, how about we lose the military spending and the social spending, then we can all keep our money, donate to charity, and we won't need the social programs.
And Grandpa's Place says, in rivers and bad government, the lightest things float to the top.
You know, they say the cream rises to the top, but the unfortunate thing is, so does the SHIT.
Poop, unless you have like...
Speaking of which, we have one last election case to briefly cover.
There's been a lot of media lies in the Dominion versus Fox case.
And a good breakdown, I won't go into great detail here, great breakdown by Glenn Greenwald, who pointed out how much the media was lying about it.
This is what precipitated the Russell Brand debate on Bill Maher with John Heilman, the MSNBC commentator.
He was...
They're falsely claiming that Fox personalities were saying something to their audience that they didn't believe, that they really believed the election was pure and the greatest election in history without any doubts, but they were telling their audience something different.
This is false.
Tucker Carlson believed there were serious issues with the election.
He just didn't think the Dominion and Sidney Powell allegations were true, number one.
Number two, he was public about that.
He was one of the biggest critics of Sidney Powell at the time.
So the media has been trying to take little clips and little pieces of Tucker Carlson's testimony and text records and creating this false narrative that he was deliberately lying to his own audience in order to maintain that audience.
Completely false.
That's not what happened at all.
And so there's been a lot of misrepresentations.
But for that, you can go to Glenn Greenwald's episode a couple of days ago on Rumble that breaks it all down about the lies the media is spinning.
I've been very critical of Fox on aspects of this, critical of people who push the Dominion theory as being a red herring mostly.
The media stories that are coming out are mostly false against Fox.
I'm going to see if I can pull up the video from Glenn.
It's an hour long, so it's not quite, you know, like a car vlog.
And I'm going to probably talk about it at some point this week as well.
And if you haven't seen Russell Brand, what's that guy's name?
Heidelman?
Heidelman.
Heidelman.
Heilman.
His Twitter handle is an unfortunate J Heil.
He pretends to be like Hunter Thompson.
He's nothing like Hunter Thompson.
Hunter Thompson would have probably shot him if he showed up on his property.
He's having a back and forth with Russell Brand and he says, give me one example of a reporter on MSNBC who came on air and lied and knew that they were lying and behind closed doors were saying, I'm going to go on air and lie.
First of all, An impossible premise that he set up in the first place to presume what people knew and what they say behind closed doors, but setting that aside, Russell Brand then lets him have it, boy howdy.
There's just so many lies that they said on MSNBC.
Whether or not Rachel Maddow actually believed that the vaccine stops transmission, doesn't matter.
She said it.
Whether or not she knew that it didn't when she said it, who the hell knows?
She said it.
It was false.
They said things that were false on the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.
Everything.
Time and time again.
Prove that they knew that what they said was a lie when they said it.
Impossible to do.
All that we know is that it was false and they should have known better.
And now that they made the mistake, they should be correcting themselves, which they're not, because that would undermine their credibility.
Pathological liars.
Speaking of the pandemic, Robert.
Okay, so I shared this link in our Locals community.
I forget her name now.
I'll have to find it.
But the Locals knows it.
It's someone who's in charge of a woman's rights entity.
Raising the flag on this draft-proposed WHO treaty for basically a global pandemic response that, on its face, would seem to usurp all nations of their national autonomy and subjugate them to the WHO New World Government, One World Government, New World Order, whatever you want to call it.
We talked about it a couple times where we say, like, despite whether or not they draft a treaty, whether or not...
They become signatories to any international treaty.
These treaties have to go through national law.
In the states, it has to get ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, if I'm not mistaken, Robert.
Yeah, so there's some people out there that believe that the President of the United States can unilaterally discard the Constitution.
They think he can say, oh, I've signed a treaty that hereby denounces the Constitution, and now it overrides.
No.
Can't happen.
And they're getting confused on executory agreements.
Executory agreements means that whatever the president can lawfully do now, he can lawfully do.
That's it.
In other words, the president can sign an agreement with another country, with a bunch of countries, with another international organization, that in terms of his lawful powers, he will exercise those in a manner consistent to that agreement.
Its enforceability is always an open doubt, but...
Putting that aside, who can sue or get remedy if he doesn't?
But that's it.
He can't pass legislation.
He can't do anything that's unconstitutional.
And that doesn't make a treaty law.
So all this nonsense out there that people are saying, oh, they can circumvent.
No, they can't.
The president can't just say, I hereby ignore the Constitution and discard it because I signed a treaty.
Doesn't happen that way.
Can't happen.
At the risk of people calling you controlled opposition or Mossad now, some people are raising the argument that there is arguably or might be an attempt to circumvent, what is it, it's the Vienna Convention on Treaties or whatever the Vienna law is on treaties, which does stipulate the procedure through which nations have to integrate into their national law any treaty that might be signed at the international scale.
That's just on the Vienna provision.
Our U.S. Constitution governs everything.
So nothing's constitutional.
Unless it's constitutional.
And the only way any law can be governing law under Article 6 of the United States Constitution requires three things to happen in a treaty context.
First, the president must propose the treaty to the Senate.
Second, the Senate must pass by two-thirds consent that passed that treaty.
Even then, no enforceable law in the United States, no implementing legislation until the legislative branch by the House and the Senate and the President sign implementing legislation.
Even then, if that law delegates too much authority to a, like let's say the World Health Organization, to where the World Health Organization is doing legislation, which is the proposal under this treaty.
That they get to pass their own rules to implement and enforce this.
That violates the major questions doctrine of our separation of powers.
So they can't do it.
Last but not least, it still has to pass the rest of the Constitution.
So even if they pass a treaty, you can't pass a treaty and implementing legislation that says First Amendment gone, can't happen.
For that, you need to amend the Constitution, which requires support by Congress and the states.
So unless you amend the Constitution, The Constitution still limits what that treaty can do, including can't violate First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, or the Tenth Amendment, which reserves things like pandemic policy, for the most part, to the states.
So consequently, there's now people are right to be concerned that the World Health Organization wants to run the world.
Because that's what they want to do under the guise of pandemic control.
They want to control equity policy.
They want to control economic policy.
They want to control local public health policy.
They want to control social policy.
They want to control everything.
So people are right to say this is a one-world government globalist power grab.
Where they're mistaken is they can't just unilaterally do it in violation of the Constitution.
But the provisions of law of which you speak relate to treaties.
Now, what about the argument that some people are raising?
They're not even going to call it a law.
They're going to call it an agreement, a bilateral accord.
It doesn't matter what they call it.
It isn't governing law in the United States.
It is unenforceable.
And if there's an attempt to enforce it, it violates the Constitution.
So anybody can sue and win.
But Robert, the moratorium which had to go to the Supreme Court...
Well, people can always argue that the Biden administration may try to do so, but they don't need a treaty for that.
They can try that right now.
I mean, the treaty doesn't change their constitutional power.
Might somebody try to violate the Constitution?
Of course.
The treaty makes no difference in that context.
That's the executive branch still trying to violate the Constitution.
Their pretext, their excuse, has no legal effect of any kind.
And that is the argument that they're going to say, well, Biden will come up with an executive order.
We hereby recognize the agreement, not the treaty.
He could do that.
But he could only do so to the degree of what he could do right now.
So if it isn't constitutional for him to do it right now, it's not constitutional because they signed a treaty for it.
That means there has no legal effect whatsoever.
And so people are being misled on that aspect.
Well, I...
I watched the interview.
I watched that person give the interview.
I got a little nervous because now I understand the underhanded manners in which they can try to implement as, by way of executive order or whatever, you know, whatever surreptitious method.
It's not a treaty, so we're circumventing the Vienna Accords.
There's like the Climate Accords.
They mean nothing.
Same with, like, people are worried about the various UN agendas that are out there, 2030, 2050, Agenda 21, etc.
All of it's non-binding.
So should people be concerned about that there's an agenda out there that under the climate apocalypse predictions, it wants to completely control society?
Yes.
Are those legally binding?
No.
They have no legally binding effect on the United States whatsoever.
You have not assuaged me.
All right.
Well, anyways, now you've heard it, folks.
So you know where the risks are, and you do make a good point.
Well, right to be concerned.
Don't take the bait on thinking that somebody can unilaterally overturn our Constitution.
And most people don't know of the national procedure, federal and in Canada, the same, that's required to implement in national law a treaty that's signed at the international level.
There is some merit to the idea they're going to slip it in through the back door, call it an agreement, try to circumvent treaties laws in the States, come in by way of executive order, in which case, you know...
Have fun at the courts for the next three years while you're not collecting rent or whatever else the WHO wants to implement.
The bigger risk, however, is that it's just going to be private enterprise that's going to implement the measures, not governments, and tough shit.
Yeah, and there was concern in that same respect as to 15-minute cities.
There's a legitimate concern and mistaken concern at the same time about that.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with this at all.
15-minute cities?
Yes, so the original idea for 15-Minute Cities was that everything should be within 15 minutes walking distance or bicycle distance for all your essentials.
The goal was originally, actually, it was a new urbanism movement that was intended to actually recreate small communities.
That was the point of it.
Now, what's happened is it's been hijacked.
By some people who want to distort it and contort it into a control mechanism and quasi-concentration camp in your neighborhood protocols.
By saying, you know what we're going to do is, under the guise of environmentalism and disguised as a 15-minute city plan, we're going to suddenly put filters on the traffic on when you can leave your own neighborhood by vehicle.
And people rightly in Oxford and other places were like, whoa, this is insane.
So what's happening is there's legitimate, everything's getting thrown into, they hear the words 15-minute plan now, and some people are thinking that automatically means the Oxford plan of trying to control your ability, basically locking you into your neighborhood.
That's not what...
80% of 15-minute plans mean or what's historic meaning.
That's the misapplication, misappropriation of the term to try to get away with something else, an ulterior agenda that's being set.
And that part's a legitimate concern.
The fact checkers, of course, are getting this fact check wrong as usual about this in terms of how they're describing the legitimate concerns they're too dismissive of, while some people on the right are ignoring the...
There's another context for the 15-minute plan historically that doesn't have this nefarious aspect.
And so it's important to balance out and correct what exactly is being propounded or proposed in a particular case.
But, you know, we got a lot more than 15 minutes for the oral argument in the big case of the week, Brooke Jackson versus Pfizer.
Robert, look, I'll toot your horn just in case you're too modest to do it.
It is arguably one of the biggest...
I can't imagine a bigger whistleblower case in the history of the world.
I was just talking about with someone today where we're talking about the idea that it's now become mainstream accepted if it's not proven, you know, very likely that this originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, a lab that we now know was being indirectly funded by Fauci himself through this.
I forget what the name of the third party NGO is, EcoHealth Alliance or whatever.
Can you imagine?
And now, globally, they attribute, what, 9 million deaths to COVID?
9 million deaths.
It's a form of genocide.
I mean, genocide, you say, has to be intentional.
So when there's a starvation under the Soviets, it's not genocide.
It's just bad governance.
We're talking in the order of 9 million people who might have died at the hands of government-funded gain-of-function research coming out of a lab in China that was denied.
Known to be potentially true, if not true, while denied.
People lying under oath before Congress.
And then, as conveniently as this might be, set aside all the death.
The government empowers itself beyond any realm of the wettest, wet dreams of a Hitlerian dictator.
Big Pharma begins lining their pockets by signing these contracts, which we're going to get into in a second, about, you know...
Procurement of vaccines, which they never test for effectiveness on transmissibility despite the warranties and representations that they make to the public.
They make tens of billions of dollars while putting out a jibby jab that might actually be causing the deaths of an additional hundreds of thousands of people, and likely so based on the numbers.
It's horrific hell on Earth in reality.
The apocalypse has already happened to some extent.
But, not to get too ahead of ourselves, Brooke Jackson.
The Faisal whistleblower came out and said that these trials were...
Bunk would not be a word.
My question to you, Robert, is why would they even conduct the trials instead of just pretending to conduct them?
Like, why even do it and leave this mess as evidence?
Just lie about it.
Make the whole thing up.
Who the hell's going to know?
At least you won't have any evidence of wrongdoing because nothing will have been done.
Brooke Jackson came out, whistle blew.
You filed a key TAM lawsuit, which you're going to have to, you know...
Refresh everybody's memory again.
And then filed lawsuit against Pfizer for reprisals for her having blown the whistle.
And you had oral arguments, and I think the oral arguments were on the Ketam aspect that the government has made a motion to dismiss.
Or sorry, Pfizer made the motion to dismiss.
Government jumped on board.
And you had your oral arguments last week.
They lasted longer than you expected.
Give us the rundown, how it went down, and whether or not you feel optimistic or...
Whether or not anybody should feel stupid for feeling optimistic.
Brooke Jackson has brought a claim.
She was involved in clinical trial work in the pharmaceutical arena for...
Better part of two decades.
Was a supporter of vaccines.
Wanted to see this vaccine work.
Was brought in to supervise part of the process on behalf of Ventavia that was subcontracted by Pfizer to perform the third stage of the clinical trials to assure the safety and efficacy and the immunization capacity of the COVID-19 drug for the prevention of COVID-19.
When she was there over about a three-week timeframe, she witnessed extraordinary malfeasance and misfeasance.
This includes, but is not limited to, the complaint has hundreds of paragraphs and hundreds of...
Additional evidence of documentary evidence and testimonial evidence where she witnessed extraordinary and exceptional breaches of the basic standards and rules and regulations governing clinical trials.
Clinical trials are the only metric we have to measure whether a drug is safe and effective and has immunization capacity.
So this was the key measurement in order to be able to know what this drug would do.
And what she saw was needles sticking out of bags.
What she saw was people's private information plastered on walls.
What she saw were people being rolled out in corridors without, you know, suffering in some cases adverse events without being monitored.
People's blood being taken in the wrong way.
People informed consent not being given.
It was supposed to be a randomized placebo-blinded.
It was neither randomized nor placebo-blinded in any meaningful manner.
It was unblinded repeatedly.
They weren't even giving the vaccine at the proper temperature.
They weren't taking baseline data to even know what the effect of the vaccine was.
And what they did is instead, they went in and doctored the data, fabricated the data, falsified the certifications, falsified fraudulently.
And submitted fraudulent invoices to the Defense Department and to the Food and Drug Administration.
So in September or fall of 2020, she calls the FDA.
Because first she goes up to her entire chain of command, says, hey, this is a problem, this is a problem, this is a problem.
The feedback she gets is that this is systemic.
That there's nothing they can do to fix it.
That because they're under such a rushed timetable by Pfizer, there's no way they can get done what needs to get done in time.
So their only choice is to behave in this way.
And so ultimately, when they're unable or unwilling to remedy it, she directly contacts the Food and Drug Administration.
Whoever she contacted at the Food and Drug Administration appears to have turned around and told Pfizer about it.
And by the end of the day, she was fired.
So she's summarily released, dismissed.
She then goes to the government with this information.
The U.S. Attorney's Office there in the Eastern District of Texas, cases brought in Beaumont, Texas, opens an investigation, keeps the case sealed for more than a year while they conduct this investigation.
We still don't know what the results of that investigation were because we've never been given the outcome of that.
So we file suit and an amended complaint under the False Claims Act, sometimes called the Key Tam Laws, as well as a retaliatory discharge claim against Ventavia.
And this is a law that was put in place after the end of the Civil War.
What happened during the Civil War is often in collusion with corrupt government agents.
The various contractors and vendors for the Civil War, providing things like blankets, food, shoes, guns, you name it.
We're providing bad blankets, bad food, bad medicines, bad boots, bad shoes to people, ripping them off en masse.
Congress and the American people were enraged after the end of the Civil War, and so Congress passed a law that said, you, the ordinary American person, if you know a whistleblower claim, you can bring suit on behalf of the American people.
And Brooke Jackson bravely and courageously...
Did so.
She did so after she's summarily fired for talking to the FDA.
She does so after the Pfizer lawyer tries to get her on the phone within 24 hours.
How did the Pfizer attorney know this?
How is he aware of this?
She does so despite the fact that sometimes her mail is being opened up before she opens it.
That kind of thing is happening at an escalating level, but she doesn't let that get to her, bother her.
And when the government appeared to be slow playing the case, slow rolling the case, Under the Biden administration, she disclosed the underlying information, which she's legally entitled to, to the British Medical Journal to let them independently investigate.
This is one of the most well regarded, well respected, peer reviewed publications in the world on medical science.
They independently vouch, independently verify, independently vet all of her allegations and they conclude she is precisely telling the truth.
They out.
The Pfizer's misconduct.
The article goes big throughout Europe.
Maybe part of the reason why various European governments start pulling back the vaccine authorizations.
The U.S. media tries to suppress the story.
We serve the suit and it's unsealed.
After it's unsealed, the government chooses not to intervene in the case.
That allows us to unseal the case.
Sorry, the government says we're not intervening, meaning, Brooke Jackson, you're free to do it on your own, but we're not taking up the case for and on your behalf.
Correct.
And they notified me.
They wanted us to keep them informed.
At no point during this time period did the government say that her case was anything but legally correct and valid through this whole time frame.
Then Pfizer moves to dismiss the case.
They demand a hold on all discovery, an abatement of discovery, until the motion to dismiss is heard.
We object to that.
The court rules in Pfizer's favor on that.
And I was critical of the court on some of those decisions.
But the court scheduled oral argument on the motion to dismiss.
And to the court's credit, I think whatever the decision the court makes, it will be made based on the court's honest interpretation of the law.
Even if I disagree with it, it will be an honest disagreement about the law, not anything else.
Some people were concerned because Pfizer had hired one local counsel that turned around and hired Brooks, former local counsel.
Then Pfizer hired another local counsel that was the former law partner of the judge.
So they were concerned about this.
My impression of the court is it's a straight shooter, honest, independent court.
And even though I've been critical of some of the court's past decisions, the court presided over this hearing with complete fairness, allowed a full, robust discussion and debate.
Questions were insightful and incisive, showed a complete recognition of the pertinent facts and material issues of law.
And so it was one of the fairest hearings I've ever experienced.
And I, to be honest with you, wasn't expecting it.
I understand people's skepticism about the federal judiciary's willingness and readiness to deal with corrupt, big, powerful entities when the government's not demanding they do so.
And so the U.S. government did not move to dismiss itself.
It simply filed a statement of interest in the case.
And the Biden Justice Department was like, please, Judge, please let Pfizer dismiss it.
We're not moving to dismiss.
Government didn't show up to make any arguments in favor of dismissal at the oral argument, despite being invited to do so by the court.
I believe that the local U.S. attorneys do not agree with the decision that's being made at the top of the Biden Justice Department.
And they even tried to, the Pfizer people tried to say, well, Barnes is suggesting there's some sort of political conspiracy afoot.
That's very common sense.
This isn't about Trump versus Biden.
This isn't about Republican versus Democrat.
The top-ranking officials in the Biden administration have a patent conflict of interest.
They chose to mandate this drug on members of the military, on their employees, on their contractors, on their vendors, many of whom have now been injured by that.
So they have no interest in the world finding out what a big fat fraud Pfizer pulled on the whole world, an orca whale-sized fraud on the whole world.
And that's why, in my opinion, there was this sudden Belated statement of interest that became Pfizer's predicate at the hearing.
The court allowed almost four hours of argument.
It was the longest oral argument in a federal district court I've ever been a part of.
The way it started, we walked in.
It's me, Warner Mendenhall, Alexis Anderson, a young lawyer right out of law school, about a year out or so.
This was her first oral argument ever.
And this is how I like to intern young lawyers.
I told her about a week before, I was like, why don't you have your first oral argument as part of this case?
Take a part of the oral argument.
It's just one of the biggest cases in the history of the country.
But she was game.
She was spirit.
And she made very effective, good advocacy for Brooke Jackson's retaliation claim before the court.
The court, to its credit, is one of those judges that's very cognizant that young lawyers are not getting opportunities.
And so he has special protocol in place to encourage and invite young lawyers to make argument on motions.
He's like, the only way we're going to get skilled lawyers at any point is if they're in the courtroom getting to take responsibility up from the beginning.
And Lexus Anderson is a very young, conscientious lawyer who's very committed to these causes, is litigating these cases all across the country as part of my firm, and did a great job.
But it's us with Brooke Jackson.
Credit to a lot of ordinary people who showed up.
They packed the courtroom.
It's probably one of the few times the federal courtroom for an oral argument on a motion to dismiss has ever been packed in Beaumont, Texas.
There was media outside and all of that.
It was independent media.
Epoch Times, other people like that.
InfoWars.
Of note, the institutional media was still hiding and pretending the case didn't exist.
And so we go in.
Now, there's the local counsel that's from Beaumont, very nice guy on the defense side, very friendly.
I knew his reputation beforehand.
Totally up and up guy.
The rest of the lawyers, usually I'm kind of the rude one against corporate lawyers or government lawyers in the courtroom.
I'm just not always be buddy-buddy, but I always try to be civil and polite, and the court had emphasized the importance of that in the court's mind.
I got the rudest treatment I'd ever got.
And that's saying something, because I've had some rude treatment.
But the Pfizer lawyers would just stare down, wouldn't shake hands, wouldn't engage, wouldn't talk.
I was the evildoer who had brought this terrible, horrible case against this great, great, reputable company.
It's reputable, all right, but not just in a good way.
$2.3 billion in criminal and civil penalties in 2009.
Johnson& Johnson had $2.2 billion in 2012.
Two of the top three highest payouts for criminal and civil penalties in pharmaceutical history.
Pfizer is the biggest criminal drug dealer in history.
They make El Chapo look like a street corner dealer by comparison.
So the book The Constant Gardener by John Le Carre made into the movie of the same name.
Was based on Pfizer's illicit and illegal experiments or was influenced, and that was where they got the idea for, in Africa.
So that gives you an idea of who Pfizer is.
One of the worst offenders in the country, in the world.
So we go in, we sit down.
The judge gives his sort of decoy.
He says, look, I'm not making a ruling today.
I want robust argument.
I want everybody to be civil.
But I have some questions out of the gate for Mr. Barnes.
I think I was the only lawyer the judge identified by name, so he was, for good or bad, he was already familiar with me.
I get up, and I had in my argument, structured, what I brought into court was two pieces of paper, well, not two pieces, literally two packets of paper, and both of them were the contracts, the statement of work and the base agreement.
And on the very back last page, I had all my notes.
I tried to have only one page of notes for oral argument.
And it'll have little citations and little things that will cue in my brain, like little doors in a house, like Cicero recommends for means of learning and means of memory recall.
Things that where it would go through arguments that I had mapped out in my head.
The judge asks three questions.
Goes to three portions of the contract, those first three questions.
They were my first three that I was actually going to make in my argument.
They were the very three provisions of the contract I was going to build my entire argument around.
And let me pause you there for a second.
This is the contract that has been shared and highlighted in our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
That's right.
You can go to it.
Find it yourself right there.
It's pinned at the top.
And you can go through.
I've highlighted a whole bunch of sections.
And you can see it and read it for yourself.
So the first thing he reads, the very first question he asks, the very first provision he reads is, Mr. Barnes, doesn't this provision right here state that Pfizer will meet all requirements of the Food and Drug Administration for clinical testing?
Isn't that what it says?
Because remember, Pfizer's argument is, our contract didn't require us comply at all with any FDA rules and requirements.
Doesn't that say that?
Yes, Your Honor.
Second question.
There's a provision that Pfizer was deliberately misinterpreting.
Pfizer kept saying that all the rules were out of scope for the project.
The way Pfizer did so was by just lying to the court and to the world, by not quoting the sentence that that phrase out of scope comes from.
Because right before the words out of scope are the words not related to this project.
So what it says is, by the way, we have all these rules and requirements about clinical testing, chemical compounds, manufacturing protocols, regulatory requirements, all these provisions, to the extent they apply to something not related to this vaccine project, that's outside the scope of the project.
They're just making clear we're not superimposing a new supervisory structure over Pfizer unrelated.
To what's called the large-scale manufacturing process, which is the definition of the whole vaccine project that's being paid for.
Their argument was that their deficiencies and any deficiencies that there might have been in the trials would have been out of scope and therefore not bound by any FDA contractual requirements under this agreement.
Correct.
Even though the language that they had to strip the whole sentence out and all the rest of the claims for that to be there.
And so the judge says, isn't this what this says?
Yes, Your Honor.
And he says, and then this is section three.
Look at this one.
He goes, doesn't this reference that there's going to be no payment, no deliverable until there's FDA approval and authorization?
And doesn't that, at least by application, bring in that first sentence that says Pfizer will meet all requirements of the Food Drug Administration for the clinical testing?
Yes, Your Honor.
So, needless to say, I was, I mean, when he first called me up, I was like, oh man, I hope this isn't like a long lecture and we're going to get into a whole, you know, whatever.
I thought it might go AWOL, might go sideways.
Mr. Barnes, did you tweet this out on January 23rd?
Mr. Barnes, have you been on TV with this Canadian rebel, troublemaking lawyer?
Nobody got in there saying, Bobby Barnes!
Bobby Barnes!
Nobody, none of that this time around?
No, no.
I mean, like you said, one of the best hearings I've ever been a part of.
Judges' opinion I disagree with.
It will be solely because he has a different legal interpretation than I do.
Very sincere, very well-intended, one of the best conducted hearings I've seen.
Because there were three things.
There was one, which had to be out of scope.
Two, you don't get payment unless you produce a deliverable that meets the FDA requirements.
What was the third?
Well, the first one was right at the very beginning of the contract that says Pfizer will meet.
All the rules, requirements, and regulations of the Food Administration for clinical testing.
That's the very first question he asked.
Doesn't it say that?
Doesn't it say that right there?
So that was the entire architecture of my argument before we even got into an argument.
So I was like, yes, Your Honor.
And then he was like, okay, so if I understand correctly, you're bringing three claims.
You're bringing a claim of express fraud.
You're bringing a claim of implied fraud.
And you're bringing a claim of fraud in the inducement.
Do I understand that correctly?
Yes, Your Honor.
And he goes, and that's these provisions, in your view, support that?
Yes.
All right.
He says, now we can go move on.
I was like, well, this is going a lot better than I thought.
So I sat down.
Pfizer got up and made all its whiny arguments.
It kept quoting the out-of-scope thing in the wrong way over and over again.
It realized they were in trouble.
So what Pfizer started doing was saying, Judge, the government says don't do it.
Judge, the government filed a statement of interest.
Don't do it, Judge.
The government said don't do it.
In fact, they went further.
They said, you, Judge, you don't even have the power or the authority to govern us.
If the FDA says we're okay, end of story, Judge.
You can't even investigate further.
Nobody can investigate further.
Their representation of the government's position is probably as disingenuous as their interpretation of the first...
The first three points we discussed.
The government not getting involved was not a we oppose formally or we support anything.
It's figure it out and we don't want to get involved at all.
Correct.
And all they said was the statement of interest said dismissal is supported by Pfizer's claim.
But we're not joining the motion to dismiss.
But dismissal is supported by these interpretations.
But we're not joining the motion to dismiss.
And the court highlighted they've been invited to participate and said, nope, nope, nope, we're not showing up.
Let me ask you another question, though.
Is it possible that the government is not speaking out of both sides of its mouths, but rather just, it doesn't want to positively affirm a statement that it knows to be false, so they just say Pfizer's saying it.
If what Pfizer says is true, then dismissal is warranted, but they don't get in trouble for making, okay.
Correct.
That's my view.
And I think there's a conflict.
I think the local office that's being required to file that statement of interest didn't have any interest in filing that statement of interest.
That came from somebody at the Biden Justice Department that panicked at the last minute, that thought, we're going to win, Brooke Jackson's going to win and get into discovery, and that's going to embarrass a bunch of high-ranking Biden administration officials who mandated this thing.
So by golly, you shut it down, and they got this compromised, mealy-mouthed piece of paper.
Is it ever too late for the government to say we're taking up the case for and on behalf of Brooke?
Never too late.
But if they do that, is there not a conceivable fear, if I'm thinking conspiratorially, that they can do that only so they can sort of proceed but not as vigorously as Brooke Jackson and you might do it?
There's always that risk.
So the point that my colleague and co-counsel Warner Mendenhall made, and part of his argument was, Judge, if the government wanted to dismiss, they have all the legal authority to come in and actually dismiss.
So they haven't moved to dismiss.
They're not even here.
So all this claim about, please judge, please judge, look at this statement of interest, please don't let it go further, please don't let it go further, please don't let it go further, is a weak argument.
They tried to convince the judge that it's binding precedent in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that if the government isn't pursuing the case, the judge is not allowed to pursue the case.
And the judge was like, hold on a second, are you telling me that even if you lied to...
The FDA, and even if there is a political conspiracy afoot to keep these lies secret, that the federal judiciary has no role in the process under the False Claims Act?
And Pfizer's lawyer, that's right, that's right, Judge.
So their argument is one from power, not from principle.
And so when I got up to make my argument...
Given that he'd already made my initial argument for me in those line of questions, and it was clear he wasn't taking a side.
He was just showing, I know what the arguments are on both sides.
So once I realized, okay, I don't have to hammer home to him what the contract says, because he's asking the questions out of the gate, telling me this is what the contract says.
He knows that.
And he'll figure out what the law is subsequently and make his own determination and decision.
So I focus on the broader philosophical background.
And I think it's always, I don't recommend people have like written arguments for all argument.
I always just, you know, have some little notes and have multiple paths you can go down so you can play it live.
Because you never know where the other side might go.
You never know where the court may go.
You don't know how things might, you know, progress.
So be able to shift on a dime.
And you can only do that for cross-examination and other things like this too.
You can only do that if you're not locked into a script.
You have multiple options laid out for you.
Here's what I'm going to do with this.
Here's what I'm going to do with this.
In the one U.S. Supreme Court case, everybody agreed, was the big case in the False Claims Act for determining what's called materiality.
Because that was their main argument.
Their main argument was, their plausibility argument was, Judge, she only witnessed this version of the fraud that happened at these three places.
Let's just assume it didn't happen anywhere else, even though there's evidence that it did.
And so it's not substantial enough to mean that all the vaccine clinical trials were bad.
That argument doesn't fly because that's a discovery issue because we have credible grounds to assume that what she witnessed was commonplace, not rare and exceptional, number one.
Number two, if they lied about that, why wouldn't they lie about a bunch of other stuff?
But number two, on the materiality issue, the U.S. Supreme Court did, in 2016, issued a unanimous decision in a case called Escobar that arose out of Massachusetts, where basically what was happening was a medical clinic.
Was providing people that weren't qualified to provide mental health services to somebody's kid who ended up dead.
And they sued saying, you really committed fraud because you sought reimbursement from Medicaid for those services when your people weren't even qualified to do so.
But there was nothing explicitly in the contract between the Medicaid and the state health facility that required them to be able to have to disclose that.
And so the issue was, okay, that's an implied theory of fraud.
U.S. Supreme Court said absolutely an implied theory of fraud exists, number one.
Number two, it was a unanimous decision.
Number three, it's the biggest decision in this area of law by everybody's recognition.
And last but not least, it was written by the one, the only, the inimitable.
Justice Clarence Thomas.
And so I went right to, Justice Clarence Thomas explained what materiality is.
I was even having this debate with somebody on our board.
I was like, well, if you look at the contract, the contract's really focused on the manufacturing part, the production and distribution part.
But it makes clear at the very beginning of the contract why that is.
It says, look, Pfizer will meet all these requirements.
And we don't have to superimpose our own U.S. Army requirements because Pfizer will meet those requirements already.
We don't have to replicate all the FDA rules because Pfizer will meet those.
And the safety and efficacy of all the rest is repeated throughout the entire document.
For a document that supposedly has, according to Pfizer, nothing to do with clinical trials, kind of weird how clinical trials comes up over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in that contract.
You might say that President Trump designed a beautiful contract, maybe the greatest contract ever.
That's what some people are saying.
That's what the contract required, complete compliance.
So I went to the court and said, let's get back and let's look at the broader policy here.
Justice Thomas said, when you're trying to figure out materiality, was the lie something of consequence?
You don't have to prove it would have.
You only have to prove it could have impacted the decision maker in writing that check, billion-dollar checks.
In fact, the court pointed out, it was like this one invoice, $154 million.
You're saying I can't investigate?
That's the other thing the court found.
Highlighted in that very beginning set of questions.
That's the only thing I forgot to mention.
He said, there's this invoice here, right?
And does this invoice say that this will be in accord with and work performed by, in accord with the agreement?
Doesn't it say that?
For this $154 million?
Yes, it does, Judge.
Good point.
That's the explicit fraud as well as the implied fraud.
So, on top of fraud and the inducement, all of which are recognized theories for false claims act.
And so I said, let's look at the broader policy.
Justice Thomas just broke through the brass tacks.
And what he explained was, when you're trying to figure out materiality, ask yourself, what is the very essence of the bargain?
What is the very essence of the deal?
He goes, let me give you an example.
Let's say the government buys firearms.
And it turns out the firearms don't actually fire.
He goes, but let's assume that wasn't in the contract.
Let's assume there's no rule or regulation that even requires it.
Can they get away with it?
Can they get away with delivering firearms that don't fire?
He goes, of course not, because the very essence of the bargain is that the firearms fire.
So my point was, Judge, what does all these documents say?
What is the very essence of the bargain here?
The Trump Defense Department specifically said over, over, over, over again, here's what you're going to deliver to us.
Here's what we want.
Here's what we're seeking.
Effective vaccine for the protection of COVID-19.
And by the way, they distinguish those things.
They say there's three things you could give us.
Something that's diagnostic, something that's for treatment, or something that's for prevention.
And remember, the definition of vaccine in the contract was prior to the FDA changing that definition a little bit later.
So they were using the definition of immunization.
So they said, what we want is a safe effect.
They know drug companies can produce placebos at scale.
It wasn't about, hey, can you produce 500 million pills tomorrow?
Saline injections.
We can produce them.
Yeah, all right.
That wasn't what was the defense prototype being sought here.
They wanted to say, they said, Pfizer, you're telling us you can deliver a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 at speed and scale.
And so while a lot of the contract is focused on speed and scale, it's only doing that because it keeps emphasizing you're going to comply with those FDA rules for safety, efficacy, vaccination, and prevention of COVID-19.
Remember that.
That's why it says it in plain language right at the beginning of the contract.
And so my point to the court is very simple, Judge.
Just like the firearm that didn't fire, what Pfizer delivered was a drug that wasn't safe, wasn't effective, wasn't a vaccine, and wasn't for the prevention of COVID-19.
If all that this thing did was not work, it would have been better.
It seems that it would have been better than what it actually did.
It would have just been ineffective.
But it wasn't a vaccine.
It didn't inoculate against the transmission or infection.
Let me stop you there, though.
It used the definition of vaccine before the FDA changed it, but it was changed in 2015, was it not?
No, this current definition of not requiring immunization wasn't changed until late 2019, early 2020.
Okay.
I'm sorry, late 2020, early 2021, after the contract was done.
So when it uses the term vaccine, when I'm reading this contract, it was using it in the sense that we typically understood it in that it would prevent infection.
And we know that because it keeps saying...
For the prevention of COVID-19.
Which it distinguishes between prevention and treatment separately.
It could be a treatment, could be diagnostic, but what we're looking for is for prevention.
And it said, Pfizer, you're only going to be immune under the PREP Act if you comply with these provisions too.
So that was what the contract provided.
It said, look, we look at the very essence of the bargain.
Do we have any doubt?
That the government would not have entered into this contract, would not have written the check, had they known the drug was not safe, not effective, not a vaccine, and didn't prevent COVID-19.
Does anybody have any doubts that that was material?
We all know it was material because it goes to the very essence of the bargain.
And that's what Justice Thomas told us to look at.
And it was $2 billion, correct?
Oh, yeah.
I mean, it's been billions more.
I mean, the billions just keep adding on and on and on and on.
And we emphasize, otherwise, we think if the court thinks there's anything inadequate in our complaint, then amendment is the remedy, not dismissal.
And if the court has any doubts about ambiguity or materiality as to whether that even can be effectively proven, then discovery, not dismissal, is the answer.
So most of the people who watched...
The proceedings came away with the conclusion that we would likely survive the motion to dismiss in some stage.
We'll see.
We'll see what happens.
I know that Pfizer would be shocked to have to experience discovery or permission of amendment.
But the bottom line is we're right on the facts.
We're right on the law.
Brooke Jackson courageously took this case forward.
It is the biggest whistleblower case in American history.
It is the biggest...
It's the biggest public health scandal in American history.
It is arguably the biggest public health scandal in the world, in the history of the world.
And so it's, you know, it's mini Chernobyls happening all the time, all around the world, knowingly and deliberately and intentionally by Pfizer.
And, you know, my conclusion, it was simple.
Pfizer lied, people died, time for discovery.
And I'm showing just a portion of the contract here.
Well, this is not my highlighting.
I think this is your highlighting.
Therefore, in response to a request by the government, Pfizer is proposing to manufacture at scale and fill finish for provision to the government a state-of-the-art candidate vaccine developed in collaboration with BioNTech and capable of providing protection against SARS-CoV-2 threat and related coronaviruses.
Subjects to technical, clinical, and regulatory process.
Success, I'm sorry.
Here's the other thing.
Throughout the contract, the judge already knew it, so I didn't have to go in great detail on it.
It requires Pfizer to keep producing what you send to the FDA, what you're submitting to the FDA.
It requires Pfizer to provide clinical data directly to the Defense Department.
It requires Pfizer to update them if any risk alert takes place.
I guarantee you, Pfizer didn't tell the Defense Department.
While Trump was still president of Brooke Jackson's allegations.
I almost guarantee they kept it secret.
One of the reasons why they're so terrified of discovery in this case.
And as Warner Mendenhall, my co-counsel made clear, since they're raising the issue of materiality, if we get to discovery, one of the first people we'll want to depose are people like Anthony Fauci and others.
Because we'll see who knew what, when, where.
We'll see what was happening.
But the reality is, the Trump contract was a very good contract.
It was written to only pay for a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 at speed and scale that could be produced domestically in the United States.
Pfizer knew they didn't have a safe vaccine.
They knew they didn't have an effective vaccine.
They knew they didn't even have a vaccine!
And so consequently, they should be held liable.
They robbed from the American people.
As I pointed out to the judge, the government's own Vaccine Adverse Event Report System data shows tens of thousands already dead and millions disabled.
And it may be greatly underestimating what that is by historical VAERS numbers.
Because VAERS historically underestimates deaths and disabilities by a tenfold or a hundredfold ratio in prior surveys and studies conducted by places like Harvard, by the way.
So the court understands this is one of the most consequential, the most consequential in my view.
Public health and whistleblower case in American history, and this is about the role and the right of the judiciary to supervise such cases when brought by whistleblowers, and that the executive branch doesn't get to hide behind conflict of interest in personnel in order to get away with this fraud.
And so we'll see what the judge ultimately determines and decides.
But credit to everybody.
Warner Mendenhall made great arguments.
Alexis Anderson.
Explained why Brooke Jackson was, in fact, discharged in a retaliatory way for retaliatory purposes.
The timing sums it all up.
The judge kept making the point that usually you guys are saying these claims aren't plausible, but usually that's when you don't detail facts and have conclusory legal conclusions.
There's a lot of facts alleged here, as the judge made clear.
So Brooke Jackson, and credit to Brooke Jackson, who's continued.
You people can find her at iambrookjackson.com.
Also, I am Brooke Jackson on Twitter.
The IamBrookeJackson.com has her whole story.
You can see it for yourself, see her history for yourself, the details of her allegations and accusations for yourself.
And again, if you want to read the contract for yourself, you can go to VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com where I put up a highlighted version there.
It's Brooke without an E. Let me just see if I can get this.
That's correct.
So, hold on.
I screwed something up here.
I am Brooke Jackson.
I'll find it afterwards.
Robert, for the time being, let me just bring this up.
There's a number of chats that I want to bring up because some are on point.
Uphill Rider says, now that millions have taken the vaccine, does that count as mass-scale clinical trial?
Yeah, but it doesn't mean that it's safe after that clinical trial.
Obama called it a clinical trial, but that still wouldn't comply with clinical trial standards.
Wolfgang Second says, a great informative show.
Thank you, Viva and Robert.
Uphill writer.
Is part of the remedy you seek for Pfizer and FDA to admit all of this in public and encouraging young people to stop taking the vaccine?
What is the remedy you're looking for?
I mean, this is the only case that right now can keep Pfizer from continuing to do harm and can hold Pfizer accountable.
This is it.
This is the only case right now in the world that can do so.
B to 1989 says, you give me hope, Robert.
I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Kapo Sooth says, when did the FDA approve vaccine?
December of 2020.
By the way, they had originally agreed in the contract to deliver this by October 31st.
So they screwed Trump over twice.
First, they denied Trump the political benefit of...
Him having a vaccine that he could talk about prior to Election Day, and then what they delivered wasn't even a vaccine.
Kitty724 says, so glad you mentioned the constant.
Gardner was my first thought when our emergency use forcing of this vaccine.
Ger, thanks for all you both do to bring truth into the light.
I have to read that book now.
Ukraine has barred.
All opposition parties and independent media.
Ukraine is streaks ahead of Trudeau's as a tyrannical fascist regime.
Is the war a distraction?
Kenzie67 says Ukraine has already instituted digital ID vax passes using Dia app.
They have also a war app for the public.
It is bad.
What do people think of UA spending money while begging for war money?
Yeah, I read this from UK Minister Matt Hancock discussing inventing variants to scare Britain into lockdowns.
Hancock also wants immunity for sending sick elderly care into homes.
I'll get to that one in a second.
It's as bad as you can imagine.
It's as bad as you can imagine, but worse.
It's why Chris Sky wants to be mayor.
Chris Sky might be coming on sooner than later, people.
There are 10 cities in Alberta alone.
That are signed up.
Okay, spot on.
The 50-minute statement was derived from humans, and this is from Jane Catherine Barry.
What...
We do this without government guide.
Kenzie 67, Bill Gates and China have control via WHO?
WHO.
The treaty is enforceable via international law, sanctions, fines, etc.
Yeah, but that's still not the case.
And Robert, how is it they can be part of the Paris Accord, which is, in effect, a treaty?
Because we never were.
That's why it was never enforced.
It was never passed by the Senate.
That's why Trump could just say, I officially declare we're out of it.
And that's why the Western participation was voluntary and China's lack of participation was non-sanctionable.
And that should answer that there's this video going around that mistakenly...
There's some articles and ideas out there that there were no clinical trials, that no clinical trials were required, that in fact this was a bioweapon designed by the government.
There's somebody saying that the...
Pfizer's defense is that the government ordered the fraud and that Pfizer said that in court.
Pfizer never said that in court.
That's not the case.
And you can read the contract for themselves.
This was not a Defense Department bioweapon.
They were absolutely required to comply with FDA rules.
That's why it's all over a relatively short contract.
That's why there's so many references in one way, shape, or form to safety or efficacy or immunization and capacity, to FDA approval and authorization, to FDA compliance, to FDA rules, FDA restrictions, clinical trials.
Not there by accident.
Not there by coincidence.
Not there by chance.
That's why right at the beginning, it says Pfizer will meet those requirements.
So people, that's a completely fake.
A completely wrong interpretation that people have seen circulated out there.
It's intended to immunize Pfizer, and it's as big a lie as the one Pfizer told the taxpayers in the first place to get all that money.
Robert, do we do...
Well, I think next on the list is Murdoch.
Murdoch verdict.
So, okay, I'm not taking flack.
It's just that there's people who watch this day in and day out, and they know every little detail, and they obviously think their opinions are the right opinions.
I watched the Netflix three-part series, not the HBO one, after the trial.
And watching it after the trial, I followed the trial, but by no means daily like a lot of people.
But I think I got the gist of it.
Look, I think Murdaugh is guilty.
And in as much as I think O.J. Simpson is guilty, despite the acquittal, but I do appreciate all of the arguments for why his conviction might have been rendered...
Notwithstanding, it was not beyond a reasonable doubt.
The arguments against the legitimacy of the conviction, I mean, there's a few big ones.
They lied to the grand jury about some of the evidence that they did or did not have as it relates to the bloody shirt.
There's no direct forensic evidence, or I should say there's no forensic evidence.
There's no weapon.
There's only ballistics in as much as they're reliable as to the nature of the shots that they reflect firearms that are owned or were owned by the Murdoch by the Murdoch's.
And then, you know, those are pretty damn strong arguments to say there's reasonable doubt to avoid a conviction.
The flip side is you have an accused who lied about the most essential element of his otherwise, you know, airtight alibi as having...
Fallen asleep and not been at the scene of the murder within moments of the murder.
There's also the argument that they don't know exactly what the time of death was.
They just have a window because of when the cell phones went dead and when he discovered the bodies.
He lied about not being at the scene of the murder within proximity to the murder.
This is a guy who has systematically lied in all respects.
The day of the murders is confronted by his partners at the law firm as to having embezzled, stolen, defrauded $9 million from the law firm.
is a, you know, One of his kids killed Mallory Beach in a boating accident.
The other kid is suspected to potentially have been involved in the beating death of a...
Potentially his lover in 2015.
The wife allegedly might have pushed the babysitter down, the housekeeper down the stairs and killed her.
I was like, okay, you might say there's room for a reasonable doubt.
All things considered, I mean, if this guy's not the murderer, well, somebody's going to get off scot-free, luckily.
But what's your take on the entire thing?
I mean, I think I know, but what's your take?
So I'm not surprised by the jury verdict.
My view was, and my view generally is, that jurors make up their mind before they sit down.
They don't often realize that, but having done lots of, not only jury trials, but mock juries, which really allow you to explore this, to explore what biases they may have beforehand and then before they hear the facts and so forth, you see this in live time.
Given how short they deliberated...
Three hours?
No questions for the judge.
And basically they admitted that they had made their decision within like 45 minutes from at least what some jurors have said afterwards.
Quite frankly, that's not a jury that did their job.
So when you have a double murder trial where someone's life is on the line in terms of the defendant and you have weeks and weeks of trial testimony, when you rush to a verdict, you didn't do your job.
So every one of those jurors should be embarrassed.
They should be ashamed.
They should be humiliated.
Because you didn't uphold your oath.
You violated your oath to those jurors.
I say this even in cases where I think somebody's guilty.
Because if you do your job, you should take days to go.
I had a great conscientious jury in a case where they convicted my client.
But it took them longer to deliberate than the trial took.
Why?
Because the foreman, who I picked because he admitted his bias up front, which was amazing, and he ended up being the most deliberative guy, he wouldn't let them vote.
Until he says, we're going to go through, what are the instructions first?
Second, we're going to look at all the evidence and how it fits those instructions.
We're going to have a robust discussion to make sure we're reviewing this, like the movie 12 Angry Men style.
And then we'll vote.
And that's a conscientious jury that takes its oath seriously.
This jury did not, in my opinion, based on what we've heard so far.
I'll just say, I want to say one thing.
I saw Rockstar in there.
It says, Veeves, do you believe woke Netflix BS?
No.
I'm just watching it in retrospect now.
There's stuff in there that we all agree upon as fact.
And everybody's saying, like, you get bias from this.
The Netflix documentary did the best argument possible to raise the idea that it would have been one of the angry, disgruntled teenagers from the boating accident.
The Netflix didn't really point to Murdoch as guilty.
I just have my own biases, which is when the guy lies about having been at the scene of the crime within very close proximity to it.
Given what else happened that day, given the fact that he lied about pretty much everything, it becomes, I know it's not beyond a reasonable doubt, it becomes very reasonable that this guy, given opioid addiction, could have been out of his body when he did this.
Yeah, my view is that on that, going to that issue, if I had been on the jury, I would have voted not guilty because I didn't see evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
In particular, I was focused on forensic evidence like...
Where are the weapons?
Where is the residue?
Where is the blood that should have been on him?
Where is forensic evidence connecting him to the murders?
And everybody that was attacking him, for the most part, was focused on him.
And what I said very early on is that he's clearly a criminal narcissist.
That's where I agreed with the body language panel, behavior panel, that he was lying in the interview to the police, but I had a different interpretation of its meaning.
I don't think it was because he committed the murders.
I think it's because he's a criminal narcissist.
And his first reaction is not to have a natural human emotional reaction.
His first reaction is, how do I make sure the world doesn't know who I am and doesn't catch me for being an unemotional narcissist who's a drug abuser and criminal and thief on a regular basis who's living a fake life and has my whole life?
Like a lot of Southern prosecutors, just saying.
This guy came from a long family of Southern prosecutors.
Maybe a coincidence, maybe not.
So I have...
And we highlighted from the get-go, the one piece of evidence that was the worst piece of evidence for him was him being heard on tape within minutes of when the government alleges the murders occurred.
And so I thought him taking, as you pointed out, him taking the stand and admitting he lied was very damning.
And I thought, and jurors have now confirmed that as well.
Clearly a tactical mistake in letting him testify.
Now maybe he overrode his defense lawyer's objections because criminal narcissists often think they can fool anybody anytime.
But you can have a criminal...
As O.J. Simpson pointed out, he could be a criminal liar and not necessarily a murderer.
O.J. might know a little something about that.
O.J. chiming in is the exact thing that a successful murderous narcissist might do.
Here's my advice.
It's classic.
To the third question, are there appeal grants?
Tons.
The only question is whether there are courts.
Basically, this judge allowed everything in.
And most legal commentators watching it and observing it, including Nick Ricada, Good Logic, and others, Andrew Branca, legal vices, to be distinguished from legal bites, legal bites bad, legal vices good, just saying, is that this should not have come in.
This was all, hey, this guy's a bad guy, please convict him.
Even the jury said that that motive evidence wasn't very persuasive to them.
They just focused on what you focused on.
He lied about when he was there.
We're going to say that means likely guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Also, it points out something I pointed out.
You're hearing almost none of these jurors talk in terms of beyond reasonable doubt.
If they think he did it, they were going to convict, even if it was by a preponderance of the evidence.
And people might get angry with me in the chat.
I'm acknowledging that I think he's guilty, but whether or not they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt, and I understand the arguments.
And especially three hours of deliberation, this is not a...
What's the other guy who ran the car into the people in Waukesha?
Oh, Waukesha, yeah.
This is not like a Waukesha type thing where, yeah, he couldn't convict him.
It was undisputed that he did it, basically.
So here I can understand.
There's no direct evidence, although people might still debate forensic evidence.
There was expert evidence that said the forensic evidence is inconsistent with him committing the murder, based on the trajectory of the shots, the location of that.
And so the fact that the government didn't have, the prosecution didn't have their own trajectory expert.
Tells me that that trajectory expert is true.
Because if you're the government, one of the things you want to do is put together how he did it.
They never did, really.
They never really explained that.
On cross, did they not explain that he could have just been kneeling down when he shot?
Even that, it would be the weirdest way possible.
And even then, it would be difficult, and it was still inconsistent with aspects of the forensic evidence.
And again, that's my point.
The government had prosecution, they do this all the time.
They put their own expert people, they're usually the ones putting one on, that explain the trajectory evidence.
They didn't.
That was a huge red flag that their own people were like, actually, we can't produce competent expert testimony that's consistent with the trajectory evidence.
So I think they convicted a criminal.
All right.
Or maybe some margaritos in Mexico.
There were other players involved in all of this.
All right.
We'll cover Juicy Small A next week, save the double jeopardy case.
But another big murder case a lot of people asked us to talk about was the George Allen Kelly, the border rancher.
Okay, see, I'm not up to date on this, Robert.
So what happened is, so this is his story.
So he was initially charged with first-degree murder.
The Mexican government is demanding he be charged with first-degree murder.
The judge only held him over for second-degree murder and aggravated assault because the evidence was so weak at the hearing.
So he's a rancher along the Mexican border.
He says he's had a history of problems of people crossing his land, but not just people crossing his land, which is the way the media portrayed the story.
It's like, oh, okay, a legal immigrant crosses his land, so he just goes out and starts shooting him.
That's not what the evidence appears to be.
What the evidence appears to show is that he's had a history of drug dealers and armed people and robbers and assaulters coming on his land.
And he hears a gunshot from inside the house.
He's an older gentleman.
And so he goes out and he sees people that appear to be carrying guns and in camo with camouflage bags and the rest crossing within a couple of hundred yards in his own property.
So he says he fired up in the air and then immediately contacted Border Patrol.
Border Patrol came out.
They found nobody.
Nobody.
Many hours later, he's out and his dog is sniffing around something and he finds further out.
A dead body.
He calls in.
By the way, if he did this deliberately, would he call in or would he just bury the person in the backyard?
Just food for thought out there.
He immediately calls in the Border Patrol.
Says, I found a dead body out here.
They decide that he must have shot them in the back.
They apparently, because some of these people were testifying, somehow illegals were testifying in court.
When supposedly they went back to Mexico.
So have they been given a sweetheart deal that they get citizenship to fabricate testimony potentially against somebody?
What's the prosecutors up to down there?
I'm just curious because that seemed a little anomalous to me.
And he thought someone else killed the person.
Because he's like, I just fired up in the air.
This shouldn't have killed this person.
And so he has a robust self-defense.
He has an argument that he's now being charged with reckless homicide and aggravated assault.
But he says I didn't shoot at anybody.
I wasn't trying to cause any harm to anybody.
I was just trying to scare people off.
And to my knowledge, didn't shoot anybody.
And the fact the border agents came and didn't find anybody is confirmation I wasn't the one who shot them.
There should be two very easy questions to answer here.
I don't know how far along the evidentiary process they are, but on the one end, bullets.
Should be there, and trajectory should also be there?
Like, why wouldn't that be determined in and of itself?
Apparently, they didn't have a lot of that evidence so far.
Instead, their main evidence was some of the other illegals that claim, emphasis claim, they were with them at the time, the person who was shot, and they saw an old man from the backyard pull something and fire at them and shot him in the back.
And it's like, I was curious, like, how do they know this person was even there?
I mean, why is this person here in the U.S. now?
They said they went back over the Mexican border when they saw the shooting take place.
This all smells real bad.
And they admitted they paid somebody to come across, but they don't explain in detail as far as I can tell who that was.
So what you have is, I mean, it gives some idea of the aggressivity.
In places like Southwest Texas, a friend of mine was telling this story.
Illegals will actually break into military bases and try to steal guns and weapons and other things.
And why is that?
It's because a lot of these groups are not your ordinary looking for farm work like this guy's story was.
I'm doubtful of that story.
Or maybe he was forced to do so.
You can't rule that out either.
Everything about this screams drug cartels making a drug run of some sort.
Not just an illegal immigration run.
Now, in Arizona, his self-defense rights is if he, you know, they have a strong castle law, strong protection of your home, strong self-defense laws.
You can use deadly force if you fear that, if you have reasonably fear, and often it's a presumed reasonable fear under certain circumstances.
Andrew Bronco, Law of Self-Defense, I'm sure will do a very good breakdown on this because this is his area of expertise and do a deeper dive on it.
So I recommend people look to him for that.
Also, if you just like politically incorrect jokes, the man's a master of it.
And I was going to say, Branca obviously vehemently does not agree with my very, I'll say, prejudiced opinion against the Murdoch.
So we were having a minor back and forth on Twitter, but I defer to his expertise.
I just know what I think.
Especially in the law of self-defense.
I mean, how you interpret the evidence is kind of a different matter.
But in the law of self-defense...
Very robust.
And I don't necessarily recommend him for relationship advice, depending on your circumstances.
But he has more of an old-school approach, shall we say.
Caused a little controversy now and then.
But he is one of the funniest human beings on the planet.
And one of the quickest-witted people.
But he's fantastic in the area of law of self-defense.
But my understanding of Arizona self-defense law is that if he reasonably feared either aggravated assault or aggravated burglary...
Which he claims he did.
Then he would have justification to use deadly force anyway.
And of course, he's claiming he wasn't even using deadly force.
Nor did he think he was reckless in how he was firing because he didn't believe it impacted anyone.
And he's got the argument that he didn't cause this death.
Because again, they came, they searched, they found nobody.
What's more sensible is that somebody else, that was somebody who got AWOL.
It is not uncommon at all.
They don't pay the fee.
If they were AWOL for any other reason...
That he was summarily executed by drug dealers and they just stuck the body on that rancher's backyard because they were ticked about him shooting in their direction before.
I don't understand how you don't have the bullets that match the gun that the guy presumably has.
He didn't dispose of his gun.
And that if it was shot in the air...
They found AK-47.
But according to him, what he saw that day was people carrying AK-47s.
So it's not clear if that match will be enough to prove that it was his bullet that caused it.
And then there's a question of intentionality, and then there's a question of self-defense.
But it looks to me like more liberal prosecutors trying to strip people of their self-defense rights when they're constantly facing criminality from the massive invasion of criminals along This is, this is like, Mutatis putandis, the prosecutions and the McCloskeys for having riots and protests in front of your house, and then the second you even ostensibly defend your house or your property, you get persecuted and prosecuted.
So they make an example out of you for defending your property from the consequences of the lawlessness that results from their policy and their tolerance.
Okay, that's interesting.
Well, to be followed.
Absolutely.
Now the...
Brief case on this.
A elderly, a kidnapped victim's family has sued OnStar.
So this is, it's an interesting case, Robert.
I read it and it makes me angry to read it because it's like customer service.
And I'm not saying this to be funny now.
It seems that companies have gotten too big to even deal with standard customer service issues.
But this has like serious consequences.
A woman, an 80-some-odd-year-old woman gets kidnapped from her house and driven away by the kidnapper who ultimately killed her.
In her car.
It's like a 2012 Buick.
Equipped with OnStar.
The family calls OnStar and says, geolocate the car.
You have real time.
You can track it like bing, bing, bing.
Where's the car?
Let us know.
They say, no, we're not letting you do that.
They call the car and say, are you all right?
And she says, you know, basically not giving proper answers.
Law enforcement.
Also, they don't give the information to law enforcement.
Apparently, when they had called the elderly lady.
It triggered the kidnapper guy who was driving her home.
U-turned.
She's found dead.
They're suing, obviously, the murderer.
And they're suing OnStar for damages because on the basis that OnStar's negligence or failure to respond, failure to provide information to law enforcement resulted in the death.
I presume this is going to get settled out of court before it gets to judgment because it seems inexcusable that this is not like a backdoor entry into an iPhone.
This is...
Tell frickin' law enforcement where the car is and don't, you know, tip off the criminal who may have kidnapped an elderly lady because that's what the family was nervous.
What do you think?
Am I wrong?
Yeah, no, I mean, the facts are pretty damning for OnStar.
When I first saw the headline, I was like, how in the world is OnStar responsible for some other kidnapper?
And then you read the facts and you're like, holy cow.
And then the family kept calling, you know, and told them what they thought had happened or what they were concerned about.
And OnStar basically did everything possibly wrong and in the process may have caused her death.
In the sense of, or may have prevented the prevention of her death.
May have impeded the otherwise successful—why they just wouldn't give the info to law enforcement.
It's like you have someone there who's behind a phone and says, we're going to call up, and she answered the phone, so she must be fine.
Yeah, exactly.
This is sort of a—well, we'll get more into this case next week, the DOJ's Trump immunity.
Because the court hasn't ruled on it yet.
Same with the January 6th defamation case and the school board speech case, which is going to be filed next week.
We'll get to those next week.
But the Florida blogger registration legislation, it's only a proposal.
So yes, somebody has made a nutty proposal that says if you talk about a Florida governing official, you have to register with the government.
You'd have to register, Viva.
Wouldn't it be ironic if in my flight from Canada, I end up in a country that requires vaccine proof of Proof of vaccination to get into and proof of registration of blogger, which is exactly what, you know, the problem with Bill C-11 might end up being in Canada.
Hilarious.
One thing we've noticed now, public pressure does have impacts on politics.
So raise hell.
Yeah.
But it's not a good look when stupid laws or stupid proposals come out from a government that you otherwise support, where you say like, okay, I'm cool with it now because it's DeSantis, but I won't be cool with it if it's...
Nikki Fried, for example.
So yeah, bad laws are bad, whether or not they're under good tyrants or bad tyrants.
Exactly.
We have two big cases about a woke bank and the historic case of the week.
And then we'll have five rapid-fire cases to wrap up tonight before we go over exclusively to locals to answer locals' questions at the end of the show.
The woke bank case is a case of mine as well.
It's why I was in Austin, Texas as well.
It was a busy, busy week because we had to prepare for the oral arguments.
And there you're looking at thousands and thousands of pages of pleadings and court cases that you're reviewing, trying to figure out every possible angle, anticipate every possible question.
So that was very consuming.
And at the same time, two major depositions and motion practice in this woke bank case.
Here's what happened.
It involves U.S. Bank, organized out of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
And it's a local division of it called the Community Development Corporation, based in St. Louis.
Michael Qualiza.
He has spent the better part of 20 years rehabbing and refurbing and improving and revitalizing urban cores and inner cities for disproportionately economically distressed and often minority populations.
He does so by going in and finding buildings that need major repair that could revitalize the whole community, provide jobs, provide employment, just upgrade the feeling of the community, using the old broken windows theory in part to do so.
And, I mean, he did the Roosevelt Hotel in New Orleans, part of a bunch of great hotel projects across the country, along these lines.
Has brought to U.S. Bank over half a billion dollars in deals and transactions.
Over 50 million dollars in profits.
They pitched to him, redoing the International Shoe Building in downtown St. Louis, Missouri, and remaking it into what became a boutique hotel known as The Last Hotel.
Now, the way in which he does all these projects is he incorporates tax credits, federal and state, new market tax credits, historic tax credits, credits meant to help refurb old buildings and to rehab and revitalize distressed communities.
That's what the Last Hotel project was all about.
But while he's doing the project, he keeps going through one weird thing after another by the bank.
The bank tells him it's going to be this great profitable project.
They withhold key information about certain risks concerning the project from them throughout.
Then he's dealing with a construction company that's patently overbilling, that violates the way in which they do contracts and the way they overbill for millions of millions of dollars, sues them to try to get relief for that after they actually sue him first, and the bank interferes and intervenes in the case against him and forces him to write a bogus check.
To them, or a check on bogus grounds to them and not recover any of the monies.
Then later on in the process, they'll do a bunch of other things, including being hyper-technical in the contract language to try to default him, to try to charge him excess interest.
They'll use the pandemic to try to put him out of business.
Even though the pandemic is causing all these problems that everybody else by federal law has given relief from certain loan provisions, U.S. Bank is not, even though they're putting their own tax credits at risk and their own customers and investors and partners at risk by doing this.
And for a while, he couldn't figure out why until Zachary Boyers, the head of the Community Development Corporation unit, basically tells him on the phone that he's been personally targeted.
What bank is it again, Robert?
U.S. Bank, one of the biggest banks in the world.
U.S. Bank Corps is a technical name, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and it's the Community Development Corporation in St. Louis that's running it.
So he retained me.
You dig into the file, and what you find is that the lawyer for Community Development Corporation, someone by the name of Stephanie Greasy, talked about what her and Zachary Boyers, the head of the division that controls this.
What they had committed to after Michael Brown and Ferguson nearby St. Louis, a great organization called Forward Through Ferguson, a bunch of other groups, where they said their job was to weaponize their position of power, to leverage their position of power, to go after their political adversaries.
In some of their speeches, they would capitalize racial equity.
It's what happens when a bank...
Goes woke.
They decided to even sacrifice and risk the bank's own financial interest to personally destroy Michael Qualiza, to make his life a living hell for years.
And they did so.
This is the danger.
And think about it for everybody else out there, why this bank, pending in Federal District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, and the St. Louis Division, this case has broader ramifications than just...
Michael Quiliza of the last hotel in St. Louis.
This case goes to everybody.
If they're willing to go after somebody who has made the bank tens of millions of dollars and brought more than half a billion dollars of business and made their reputation look great because they're rehabbing and revitalizing and refurbishing poor distressed communities, disproportionately benefiting poor and working class African Americans in particular, what do you think they're going to do to you and me when they decide we're no longer welcome?
When we're the kind of folks who give to Canadian truckers protesting in the Capitol.
If they can destroy Michael Qualiza, they can destroy anybody.
So this case goes to everybody's interest.
It's what happens when a bank goes woke.
Credit to Michael Qualiza for being willing to stand up to it and try to fight back against it.
But it's scary and terrifying what U.S. Bank did in this case.
I was trying to analogize it to something, but I won't.
I forgot what it was.
All right, Robert.
Our historic case of the week.
The lawyer, unfortunately named Khan.
K-H-A-N.
No, C-O-N-N.
Okay, well, I'm sorry.
All right, so what is this historic case?
Because I don't know.
I think it's another Netflix documentary series.
So this is the lawyer in Kentucky who became kind of world famous by scamming the social security system.
Now, what's interesting is if you dig into the case, two big things are missing from the documentary.
So what happened is the Wall Street Journal stumbled on this during the shutdown because a Wall Street Journal reporter was like, why has there been so much increase in Social Security disability payments?
And he finds this one judge in West Virginia that presides over that part of Eastern Kentucky, Social Security claims, approved like 99%.
Now, anybody that knows Social Security Disability, it's actually very hard to get it.
On average, you lose more often than you win.
And it's not like the benefits are making you rich.
It's like $900 a month on average.
So he's like, I wonder what that is.
So he starts investigating, and it turned out there were two court clerks.
They're kind of busybody personalities, to be honest with you.
But the court clerks had been trying to expose the malfeasance in their courtroom with this particular judge.
He digs further and he discovers that almost all the cases are this lawyer in eastern Kentucky who was kind of a wild lawyer.
I mean, he was driving like Phantom Rolls Royces around and all that kind of thing at huge houses.
He had porn stars appearing in his videos and commercial advertisements.
They were singing folk songs for him.
But he became very good at getting people disability benefits very quickly.
Now, it did not, in fact, mean that those disability claims were false, but we'll get to that in a second.
They dig in, and what had happened is he had effectively created a standardized system for creating falsified petitions, not because the person was undeserving, but because the judge was requiring the petitions have a certain kind of testimony in them with certain kinds of doctor's evidence, even if it didn't match what the actual individual claimant was requesting.
And the judge was signing off fast and rapidly, getting these people's benefits quick.
It was making the local lawyer very wealthy and very successful and very prominent.
Dug in and they considered it one of the biggest frauds in the history of the federal government.
He became even more famous because when he was supposed to show up for his sentencing hearings after he got a plea deal, he decided to take off, said bye-bye, and went down to Central America.
They caught up with him about seven months later.
Apparently he had 17 wives?
Something like that.
I mean, the guy was setting a real record.
So there's all these wild parts of the story and all the rest.
But the real interesting part to me...
Was that when they dug into the scam, he wasn't the one who set up the scam.
The judge was the one who set up the scam.
The judge had a daughter get into trouble when she was running for judicial office, no less, get caught with drugs and other things.
He needed some quick cash.
He went and kind of twisted the arm of this Social Security lawyer because he had a lot of power over him and said, you need to get me some extra cash.
You're going to hire my cousin here to paint your house for like 40 grand.
Because I got to get extra fees to the defense lawyer to make sure this thing goes away with my daughter.
And then he got a little taste of it, and he was an alky to boot.
And he's like, you know what?
Here's what you're going to do henceforth.
And you're going to get lots of money and be really real prominent, but you really need to do this.
And he set up the scam.
The judge was running the scam from top to bottom, left to right.
He was also, because he was so quick and efficient at getting cases done, the local office was winning awards for the federal government, getting little plaques.
And so when the whistleblowers inside the operation, like I said, kind of busybodies, but honest whistleblowers too, were ratting out what was happening with the judge, everybody else was enraged.
They're like, you're going to take away our awards.
You're rooting this for all of us.
Yes, how can you do this?
Think about this.
It's a perfect case to expose how government bureaucracies actually work, how easy judicial corruption can happen, but also how bad bureaucracies are.
Their incentives are so distorted.
And so all they care about is a little plaque in their promotion, their extra vacation time and seniority.
It's ego, Robert.
I'm just finishing Russell Brand's audiobook on recovery.
Ironically enough, I'm having a little snifter of gin, but it's addiction to success.
It's addiction to all of these trivial things of life that...
They're like, in our small ecosystem, this is what's important to us, and we want to maximize it, and how dare you blow it for all the rest of us, even though what good is all the wealth of the world for he who has sold his soul?
And when they finally get outed, who do you think the Social Security Administration takes it out on?
I'm going to go ahead and say the unfortunate people on Social Security.
That's right.
They suddenly and summarily deny all of their benefits.
Putting these people who had, you know, nothing to live on completely out on the street.
A bunch of pro bono lawyers fought back.
Then when the full assessment was done, most of the people that got benefits actually always deserved them.
The only reason why it was done in this wacky, corrupt way was because the judge was the one requiring it for a certain standardized testing, not because these people actually didn't qualify.
That, in fact, there wasn't really much fraud at the end of the day.
But that's classic.
I mean, in between, they harassed the whistleblowers.
The chief judge of the district actually had a private investigator, had all these weird, you know, questionable connections, almost like Dixie Mafia kind of connections, spy on and then lie about the whistleblowers.
You know, like, I mean, tried to do, you know, all these crazy things.
But the most brutal retaliation.
Was of the ordinary people.
Because the big thing that's missed in the whole documentary is that since the 1990s, more and more working class people are dropping out of the economy entirely.
I realized this in Southeast Tennessee and North Georgia when about 10 years ago, all of a sudden lawyers used to do personal injury work.
We're doing social security disability work.
I was like, what the heck is happening?
And the problem is they're not just dropping out of the economy.
They hit about 40, 45, and they're dropping out of society.
They're not raising kids.
They're not staying in families.
They're not taking care of elders.
They're not going to church.
They're not going to community.
They just have quit on life.
And where it shows up is places where we've taken away pride in work, where we've taken away manufacturing, where we've taken away mining, where we've taken away the ability, particularly of working-class men, to support a family.
They've just quit on themselves and quit on life.
And they get disability, criminality, do drugs.
And that's the part that they're missing from the whole picture.
That the real reason there's been a massive growth in so scary disability is the politicians in Washington have betrayed working class communities in our manufacturing and mining communities in this country.
Robert, if you entertain me, instead of the rapid fire, can I just go through some of the tips that we've had in our locals community?
Oh, sure, yeah.
Oh, we have some big tips.
We have some big tippers.
Well, we got 102.
I'm going to share the screen because it might be easier.
We've got 800-plus people watching in Locals, which is amazing.
That's just...
Okay, so here.
And for those out there, you can watch live now on Locals as well as Rumble at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
I only changed my name to the abbreviated Viva Fry so everyone could see the Viva Barnes shirt.
If I do this here, Robert.
Here we go.
We got 815 people watching, which is beautiful.
And I'll read these one by one.
S. Laird sent a $1 tip.
It said, your Jimmy Dore appearance was lit.
Was lit, Viva.
Watched his clips yesterday and said, yeah, it was fun.
I swore a couple of times.
MSDunn2011 says, thank you, Viva and Barnes, for sharing Blue's story.
Robert is right.
You're a genuinely nice Canadian man.
I have my moments, but it's only about irritability, frustration, and...
Black pill.
I'll be in Vegas for March.
So that was from MSDunn2011.
SwissQ $5 says, I'll be in Vegas for March Madness wearing my Duran cap.
Gantet, a $4 tip says, are you going to cover Florida blog or build a stream?
Done and done.
SateshiApe, speaking of car accident, didn't Kemp's daughter, Kemp's daughter, boyfriend, have one in 2020?
I don't know about that.
Robert, do you know about that?
I do not.
AlexP11375.
I can make a pattern with these numbers in like five seconds.
Viva Barnes is...
Vivia Barnes is Viva Barnes.
Tony...
I mean, he meant Viva Barnes.
In what district did Flynn file his suit?
In what district?
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
So that's a better district.
Hopefully they don't just move to, you know, get to DC, the swamp.
MightyPay says, Robert, please consider keeping the chat open later like you used to.
It's an easier, better way to communicate with others in ways that can't be done via board posts, and it's a good way to build community in this forum.
What I'm going to see if I can do, I'm going to see if I can just keep the live stream going, but just remove everybody from the video so everybody can continue chatting.
We'll see about that.
Satoshi Abe, $2.
Robert should be SCOTUS for once.
Pure Constitutionals.
I would pay money to see that, Robert.
We Sangle or Wes Angle?
One dollar.
Robert Barnes.
Wouldn't parts of the same argument you make about sovereign immunity be applicable to eminent domain?
Yeah, in part.
I mean, just compensation was supposed to take care of that, but it's inconsistently applied in my view.
We got John Ady's music.
With the F-Bar decision, can people who were screwed over sue to get their money back?
Robert.
They make it tough to get refunds.
No refunds.
It's like Bernie Sanders.
There will be no refunds.
Thank you for supporting the government.
John 80s Music said, did my direct message go through locals get through to you guys?
I don't know.
I'll have to check for that.
Can you give us a link to the European article, please?
Which one is that?
Pam Walker.
Let me screen grab that and see if I remember what that is afterwards.
Grumpy.
Old Jock, $4 tip, says Australia has a constitution that was supposed to protect us.
This sounds like Canada.
Unfortunately, Australian government is corrupt.
Australian courts are corrupt.
Our dear leader is asking for carte blanche to rewrite the constitution.
Also, our dear leader, vaccine passport, yes.
Digital ID, yes.
15-minute cities, check.
Blow up coal power stations and ban gas production and exploration.
We are well underway to owning nothing and being happy.
Sounds like Canada, man.
All right.
Better on a camel.
Can Pfizer...
I'm trying to figure out what that name means.
Can Pfizer be sued for reckless manufacturing processes that don't produce consistent batches of the vaccines?
Robert?
We're looking at that and looking at whether or not Anthony Fauci can also be sued, given the confirmation of what we talked about earlier.
Oh, that would be good.
I don't wish ill on anybody.
But I would love for Anthony Fauci to be sued and found guilty after a fair trial.
Okay, Swiss Cheese says, You're mi hero, Robert Barnes.
Sophie Agape says, Thank you, Barnes.
Sophie Agape says, My last coin is $4 to thank you.
It's 10 cents a coin.
Everybody wants to know.
So this is from Ginger Ninja.
I know Barnes, rightly so, is a skeptic when it comes to politics affecting the judiciary, but Paul Barnes saying he believes this motion will be decided in good faith?
Question mark!
Exclamation point.
Question mark.
I may just have a sliver of hope.
Am I losing my black pill?
Come from black pill diva?
Yes, you are.
And you might take the black pill as an enema.
Robert, that is the question that we're basically asking in Canada.
We're like, how can the banks be punished for debanking people, Jeremy McKenzie in particular?
In Canada, nobody gives a shit, regardless, which is the bigger problem.
It violates various federal law, violates various state law.
Because U.S. Bank legally had to be a partner in these transactions with Mr. Qualiza.
So because in order for their investors and partners and customers to get the tax credits, by law they had to be an investor.
And that meant they had to do fiduciary obligations associated therewith.
So there's breaches of duty of good faith, breaches of duty of fair dealing, not just breaches of contract.
On top of what's called a prima facie tort in Missouri, where no other tort covers the conduct.
It means if your lawful conduct was for an unlawful purpose, you could hold them accountable.
So a prima facie tort has been brought.
Negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation has been brought because they withheld key information from them all the way through the process to try to bankrupt them as part of this political, personal, vendetta campaign.
So there are ways to get remedy under U.S. law when the banks go AWOL.
But we've got to be alert to more of it, and the bank's got to be held more accountable to it, because otherwise this will accelerate and escalate fast and badly.
Robert, look, very rarely do things actually happen in real time.
I just got a new notification from Chris Pawlowski.
Let me bring this up in incognito so I don't accidentally show who I've been DMing like a flipping idiot that I am.
I have nothing embarrassing in my DMs.
I just don't want the world necessarily knowing who I have been DMing because they might want confidentiality.
Is it this one or is it this one?
No, it's this one right here.
Check this out, Robert.
What do we say?
Here's an idea.
Rumble takes zero from creators for in-app tipping and we challenge big tech in the courts for antitrust.
We've had some nice legal wins and it doesn't hurt to add more to the name of helping creators.
Vote below.
People!
Of the 21, 20,000 people still watching right now, go check it out and vote on it.
Robert, okay, so hold on.
Let's put this here before my wife kills me because now it's like, I hear stomping upstairs and it's not the happy stomps.
Wednesday, sidebar, who do we have?
Oh, I just emailed it over to you.
Son of a beasting.
Hold on.
Don't worry.
I'm an idiot.
I should have just done this.
We have somebody for this week.
We also have, I think, Garland Nixon for next week.
And then we have Edward Dowd a couple of weeks after that.
For some reason, I'm blanking on who we have this week.
Hold on, I'm getting my email.
My goodness.
Okay, let me refer...
But we have a good guest.
I know that part.
Yeah, I got the email.
Oh, I know, I know, I know.
It's the Department of Justice.
A lawyer who is exposing election fraud and doing a lot of great work during the Trump administration, has been a constant, continuous target since then, was a target while he was at the Justice Department.
He was one of the few people trying to get into what happened in the election.
Jeffrey Clark.
Son of a gun.
My emails have just, I can't find emails anymore.
So we got a sidebar Wednesday night.
Tomorrow I might be doing my first jujitsu, mixed martial arts.
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.
We'll see about that.
I might have to document it.
And we still have time for the five rapid fires.
Do it, do it, do it.
Let's go for it.
Here.
So the Tennessee has passed a law limiting the ability of drag shows to appear in public places where children can be present.
I think the law will be held up as constitutional because that's always been something.
Protection of children in public places has been reasons to limit certain sexually explicit conduct.
Robert, let me stop you there.
Drag has been around for a hundred years.
Why are people now all of a sudden obsessing with presenting it to children?
The history of drag is that it used to be in American speakeasies.
It used to be...
Look, if not, it was adult entertainment.
If that doesn't mean sexual by nature, it still means adult entertainment.
Linked to the gay community.
Nobody cares about that.
Nobody would give a sweet bugger all about drag shows if they were geographically limited to age-appropriate crowds and locations.
Without getting blackpilled, Robert, because I can only get blackpilled on this, what the hell is the infatuation with rubbing drag shows in the faces of children?
And why do drag queens and kings want children as their audience?
It's a question that answers itself.
Separately, there was a dismissal in, I believe, state court of people who sued the school system over the Oxford school shooting on sovereign immunity grounds, of course, and governmental immunity grounds.
My understanding is that's not the federal civil rights one that's been dismissed.
The state one, and then that one will go up the Michigan Court of Appeals as to whether it's constitutional.
That scope of immunity will be a case worthy of tracking.
Fun little California surfer fight.
That it turned out this small beach town in California allowed basically a surfer gang.
I read that, Robert.
It was like Point Break in reality.
The Bay Boys.
They had such a beautiful surf spot.
They didn't want anybody else in it.
And the city allowed this, a gang, basically, to erect a structure that basically limited anybody who could access this wonderful surfing spot to locals.
Apparently, like the city and others were involved in ticketing cars, towing cars of outsiders who came in, physical, verbal harassment, assault, intimidation to prevent people from getting there.
They sued under some law that I have no idea what the law is.
It's about coastal.
Yeah, coastal access in California.
And the question was, does that only apply to development in the real estate sense, or does that apply to simply access?
And the California Court of Appeals said, no, the meaning of development is access in a broader sense.
That was the point and purpose of the law, was to make sure the public had the right to access the coast.
It's the reason why Malibu is always trying to keep people away.
You have a right to a certain part of, there's a certain public right to a beach.
You can go behind David Geffen's house and smile at him and sit there.
They're on the beach and read a little book as long as you're on the public access side.
They're always scamming and scheming to try to prevent it in Malibu.
I lived there for a long time, witnessed it firsthand.
But it was an interesting little case.
And then two other cases just popped up today.
Jordan Peterson expressed concern about deepfakes.
It's always kind of, at times he's funny what he gets irritable about.
Like sometimes the irritation is very understandable and then sometimes it's a little grandfatherly-like.
Well, Jordan, for all of his He's not that he's sensitive, but he's a big target.
And he's like the number one.
There's going to be deep fakes of Jordan Peterson saying bad stuff.
And then people are going to believe it, and it will lead people to believe bad things about Jordan Peterson.
And I totally understand it.
And especially since he's got such a distinctive voice and a distinctive delivery.
If a deep fake can deliver it in a believable manner, he's not safe.
But above all else, nobody's safe.
So, Robert, yeah.
Now, to the degree that it would be a parody, it would be completely protected, of course.
So there's a bunch of these deepfake parodies out there.
That's completely protected.
To the degree it's not parody, however, then it would be liable, and Jordan Peterson would, in fact, have a claim over those circulated.
Against whom, though?
The programmers of the code?
Well, it's just like defamation.
Anybody who shared it, who vouched for it, who made it their own statement, would in fact also be liable and responsible for it, unless they make clear that it's parody.
And then the last case we had, Michael Knowles appears to have been liable by Rolling Stone.
So Michael Knowles gave a speech at CPAC.
The Conservative Political Action Committee that meets once a year in Washington, D.C., where Donald Trump gave a big speech as well.
And what he laid out was that the ideology of transgenderism is a dangerous ideology that does harms, including to people who think or identify as transgender, in his opinion.
Rolling Stone suggested that he wanted all the transgender people killed.
So that is classic libel.
If Rolling Stone doesn't change it, then Michael Knowles has a pretty robust claim for libel.
And I heard it.
He said trans ideology has to be eradicated and not trans people.
And he specifically said in order to protect the people who think they are trans, that this ideology is hurting them as much as it's hurting anyone else.
So he clearly did not want any harm to people that identify as trans.
He believed he was better protecting them if this ideology...
I can't imagine what it would feel like to be him right now.
I heard what he said.
And not just that.
Trans ideology is damaging to homosexuals and gays and lesbians.
Because it takes a gay person and it says, you're not gay.
You have a problem.
You're actually a woman in a man's body.
And so being gay is not even a thing for you.
You have a deeper problem.
And I just go back to my interview with Tulip R slash Richie.
Where they're telling gays to go lop your dicks off, and then they wake up and they say, what the hell did I just do?
I'm just a gay person, and I was led to believe that I was actually a woman in a man's body, and I had to deface, mutilate my body to be happy.
But Robert, this is going to be lighthearted to some extent.
The idea of deep fakes becoming real where people believe them.
Everybody knows Pleb the Trucker, who put this...
Think together from a picture that I shared where I had a relatively blank cup and a blank shirt.
And people can believe now that I actually posted, I support Pierre Poilier, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, which I don't.
And to make my point, I re-superimposed Joe Biden on the mug and let's go brand it on the shirt.
But these deep fakes will get so believable, you will not be able to distinguish reality from fake.
And it's going to screw things up.
It's going to screw people up.
But the bigger risk is that you go on social media, you're going to be seeing deep fakes of people that do not exist, espousing opinions that they don't espouse because they don't exist.
But people are going to be led to believe that other people are believing these things.
It's going to normalize thought.
It's going to normalize certain seditious ideology that people are going to say, well, geez, I just saw a lot of people saying how good it is and therefore I should believe myself.
We're nearing like...
Post-apocalyptic, like post-post-apocalyptic stuff, Robert.
Now, as we wrap up, the Cigar of the Week is Flor de los Antilos, a 10th year anniversary cigar.
And the book is To Seek a Newer World by one Robert Francis Kennedy.
And that relates to our White Pill of the Week.
The one, the only Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. has discussed challenging President Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
And there is no better white pill than the idea of the 2024 campaign might come down to Donald Trump or Robert Kennedy, in which people have asked, who's going to win?
In that case, America would be the winner.
And who would be the big losers?
It's basically the deep state nightmare candidate election.
Robert Kennedy against Donald Trump.
So Robert Kennedy is my white pill of the week.
Robert, I'm blackpilled because I just had a thought that I don't even want to express aloud, but I think people are going to know exactly what I'm thinking of.
Whenever he's talked about running for office, they've targeted him for harassment and smear campaigns and the rest.
But he said his wife is okay with it in New Hampshire, so he's like, eh, maybe it's time to bring back the mantle.
In my view, he'd be the best Democratic candidate for the presidency.
Since his father.
And he has made clear he believes the deep state, the CIA, the intelligence community, is behind both the assassination of his father and his uncle.
And Donald Trump said at CPAC, he's on a revenge tour.
He goes, it's not my retribution, it's your retribution.
And we're going to destroy the deep state.
Imagine if Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy, two of the greatest enemies of the deep state alive, were the nominees of the two major parties in 2024.
I don't like the thoughts that I'm having in my head, Robert.
But yeah, the deep state did kill his father, did kill his uncle, and if he runs for office, I mean, it's okay.
It would be amazing.
He'd be like his father, fearless, and deep conscience, and would make a fantastic candidate.
So I look forward to that.
2024 is starting to look really bright.
Tavernos, Robert.
So we've got a sidebar Wednesday.
Stick around, people.
Tomorrow, I'll have stuff all week.
And there might be some good stuff.
Chris Sky, for those who know, might be on the menu.
We'll have to see about that.
And Saturday, Robert, I'll see you in Vegas.
Sunday, our meet and greet.
There are only 50 tickets available, sold out in two minutes.
We're going to start small, make sure it works, and then scale up.
There will be lots of exclusive content on vivabarneslaw.locals.com, so head over there.
And other than that, Robert, another amazing episode.