Ep. 175: Trump Mug Shot; Biden Sues X; Biden's War on Farmers; Pfizer Bad & MORE! Viva Frei Live
|
Time
Text
Hey everyone, for this Foodie Friday we're here at Charlottetown.
We're trying out Lobster on the Wharf and we're going to check out their amazing fresh seafood.
I'm so excited.
Let the meat lobster.
This entire stream is going to get copy claimed now.
Oh yeah, she's showing us the nice lobster roll.
Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown.
It's a beautiful place.
It's really good.
Oh, lobster rolls.
What else?
Oh, you had oysters too.
Isn't that nice?
Some of you might be saying...
Some of you might be saying, what's the big deal, Viva?
It's just a young woman showing us a foodie Friday.
She's surely an influencer.
Maybe she has her food channel.
Maybe this is like...
What's that show called?
Bizarre Foods.
No!
Who is Reshy Valdez?
Reshy Valdez is Minister of Small Business, Member of Parliament for Mississauga, Streetsville, creative entrepreneur, and leader with a drive to empower our community.
Spoiler alert, she's a liberal.
Once upon a time, when it was Mary Antoinette and the royalty was...
Unclear as to how out of touch they were with the people.
And Mary answered, I don't even know the context.
You know, the whole thing is, they don't have enough food to eat.
And she says, we'll let them eat bread.
This is the minister, what was it?
Minister of Small Business?
Let me make sure.
Minister of Small Business.
Oh, Viva, don't be such a jerk.
All she's doing is promoting a small business.
The liberals, I think, were having their retreat.
Some form of government retreat to Prince Edward Island.
And this minister of small business decides, hey.
I've got money.
I'm at a nice fancy place that most Canadians can't get to, and even if they could, they couldn't afford a $30 lobster roll and oysters.
I'm gonna make, I'm gonna share my good fortune with my fellow Canadians and make this wonderful little foodie video.
Hey everyone, this is Foodie Friday.
We're here at Charlottetown.
We're trying out Lobster on the Wharf.
Who's we?
Check out their amazing fresh tea food.
I'm so excited.
Oh yeah, please show me how nice it is.
Oh yeah.
Oh, beautiful small businesses, Canadians.
Travel?
I mean, I know you can't.
You can't afford it.
You guys can't afford lobster rolls?
But look at it.
You can bask with me.
You can live vicariously through your Member of Parliament.
Oh, stuff your face.
For those of you who are listening on podcast, now we're seeing oysters.
Let them eat lobster rolls.
And by the way, just don't take my word for it, because here we go.
These were the headlines from 2022.
I'm actually giving myself a stomach ache.
One in five Canadians reported going hungry due to rising food prices.
This was from June 6th, a year ago.
What's the other headline that they had there?
Oh yeah, food insecurity in Canada.
One in three children risks going to school without breakfast.
That's also from...
Yeah, we're February 2022.
Reshi Valdez, small business minister.
Oh yeah, the lobster roll?
Market price.
Let's just say it was give or take $30 for a nice, creamy lobster roll.
Suck back a couple of oysters because you're worth it, Reshi.
And let me just share it with my Canadians.
Life is good when you're in government.
I focused a lot of my anger and resentment and rage towards the liberal government.
They're all pretty much just as bad.
But they're not all making videos about it, posting it to Twitter.
Hey, I'm just going to share my good fortune.
You know, there's a thing called white privilege that we talk about.
Well, I'm not white, so it can't be white privilege.
It's called political privilege.
And my goodness, do the liberals have it up the wazoo.
Oh, I'm really grasping at straws, am I, Marc Laforet?
No.
If you enjoy watching your elected officials who have been crushing your country, destroying your way of life...
Impoverishing.
Not just this generation, but the next.
If you like seeing them rub their lobster rolls in your face, well, my goodness, you might be one of those people who don't think that you're entitled to respect.
Really grasping at straws.
No, I am not.
This is more likely.
True.
Not rubbing salt in the wounds.
And you know what the funny thing is?
Let her eat.
Let her drink champagne and let her eat oysters.
If I don't know that she's doing it, she can eat what she wants.
The lack of judgment it takes to say, hey, maybe my one in five fellow hungry Canadians wants to see me eating lobster.
Maybe the one in three school children that skips a meal wants to see me eating lobster while I'm on a government retreat in Prince Edward Island.
Let them eat lobster rolls.
Okay, deep breath, people.
We have a show tonight, as we do pretty much every Sunday.
I was a little under the weather yesterday.
In the morning, I caught an alligator gar with my bare hands.
Let's just watch this because it's fantastic.
This happened yesterday.
Now, here's what happened yesterday.
It actually finally happened.
For those of you who have been following me for more than a year, you know I've been trying to do this for a year.
And it happened yesterday.
It's recording.
Watch what happens.
This is not a gratuitous selfie.
Sometimes to grab the fish, you have to have two things on each hand.
Watch what happens here.
I got a small one.
For those of you who are listening on podcast, Viva has taken off his shirt.
For some reason, he's putting a sock on his hand.
What's he doing?
He's kneeling down into a Florida pond.
He puts his hand in the water.
Oh, he gets a grip on something, shakes his hand, and he pulls out a spotted garbage.
Look, I've been trying to do this for a year.
For a year.
Okay.
It bit me.
It tried to bite me.
It did try to bite me.
Come look at this.
Terrible camera work.
Look at that mouth.
Are we going to keep?
Absolutely not.
Keep it.
Look at this.
Can I touch him?
Yeah, touch him.
Feel his arm.
This is a spotted garfish, people.
Armour place.
I finally caught, like, fiberglass.
They're an invasive shark.
Back up so you can just see how beautiful this is.
It smells like fish.
Yes, it smells like very fishy-smelling fish.
This thing lives in low-oxygen water.
It's got...
I'm not touching its mouth, but get in close to its mouth so you can see.
You can see those sharp teeth.
It's finally happened.
It's been a year...
Back up and get it.
It's been a year in the making.
And I finally...
I'm going to throw it in.
It's off.
Now, watch this.
Watch this.
It knows where the water is.
Oh my goodness.
Look at this thing.
Prehistoric.
It's amazing.
I've been trying to grab one of those.
What did you learn?
Beware!
So I caught that alligator garfish with my bare hands.
And then, sure enough, yesterday evening, I wasn't feeling too well.
Now, my wife calls me up in the middle of the afternoon.
She says, Viva, Dave, I think I'm sick.
I was like, oh, geez.
You know, now that you mention it, I'm not feeling too good either way.
And my goodness, if my wife hadn't been sick simultaneously, I would have thought that I got some swamp bug that was going to kill me.
So that's it.
If I look a little tired, that's why.
But we've got a banger.
The world's going crazy.
The world is going crazy.
There's nothing anybody can say that's going to make sense about this.
You've got Canadian politicians scarfing down lobster rolls.
You've got the U.S. government going after Elon Musk.
You've got the U.S. government, oh, they're talking about bringing back lockdowns.
And you've got Joe Biden talking about another jab that's, I think everyone's, we're going to have a, this time it's going to work.
This time it's going to actually.
Okay, but before we get into any of that, you may have, Trump is now unstoppable.
You've got, you've got Trump CGI, not CGI, what's the word I'm looking for?
GPT AI rap.
That's the Trump song?
It's top 15 on Apple tunes or iTunes or whatever, Apple music.
Though it, never would I have thought we'd be living in a time absolutely so crazy.
Would I like to go back to childhood, running through people's backyards, jumping on fences?
Maybe.
But the world's going crazy.
And like someone said earlier, it's Sanity Sunday, except it's Insanity Sunday.
Now, before we get into anything for the evening, people, you may have noticed, as you were coming in here, it said this video contains a paid promotion, which it does.
And tonight is Field of Greens, people.
Fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA, 15% off your first order.
Field of Greens is desiccated greens.
Most of you don't know.
I don't know why there's a...
Flour pot in the back there.
I don't know if that's supposed to be the fruits and vegetables that you're supposed to eat.
Most people don't know you're supposed to have between five and seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables daily.
I have that all the time.
But most people do not have their servings of raw fruits and vegetables.
They don't eat enough fiber.
They don't get the nutrients, the antioxidants from fruits and vegetables.
And people don't lead healthy lives.
One easy way to make up for that lack of healthy dietary daily intake.
Fieldofgreens.com.
Desiccated greens.
Powdered greens.
Let me see here.
It says USDA organic.
As you can see from this picture here.
Let's just zoom in.
Can we zoom in on this?
Yeah, there we go.
USDA organic.
Real organic superfood.
You take one spoonful twice a day.
One spoonful is a serving of fruits and vegetables.
It's a healthy habit.
It's got the antioxidants.
It's the next best thing to eating the raw fruits and vegetables, which everybody should nonetheless do.
But instead of sucking back one of those disgusting Diet Cokes or those...
Do you know a Red Bull has 27 grams of added sugar?
That's 50% of your daily intake of sugar in one, how many, how many milligrams, milliliters?
Whatever, you don't understand.
Get rid of that crap.
One spoonful in a glass of water twice a day.
It looks like swamp water, but it tastes delicious.
It's got one serving of fruits and vegetables twice a day.
You're already two out of five.
You're about 38% of your way towards your daily intake of raw fruits and vegetables.
Fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA.
For 15% off your first order.
Okay, now.
Thank you very much, brother.
The link is in the description and go do it.
It's a good healthy habit to get into.
Standard disclaimers.
Geez, I almost forgot.
Here we go.
Cheryl Gage.
Viva.
If you'll get a tattoo of Trump's mugshot, I'll pay for it.
I think my father would probably kill me.
Not because of the Trump tattoo.
Just because of any tattoo.
But who knows?
I think if anybody's going to get it, maybe Roger Stone will get one on the front of Trump.
I'm joking because Roger Stone's got the Richard Nixon on the back.
No, if I ever get a tattoo, I think I know what it's going to be, but I'll keep it to myself for now.
Cheryl Gage, thank you for the super chat.
Now, standard disclaimers, all of these beautiful things here that you see these highlighted $5, whatever, or in Euro-Canadian.
YouTube takes 30% of all of this.
So if you want to support the work that I do, the work that Robert Barnes and I do, the best way to do it is vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Seven bucks a month, 70 bucks a year.
Or some people actually, you know, give us more because they so appreciate the work that we do.
That's the best way to do it.
We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble, which I should have made sure that we are in fact doing.
Let me just refresh here.
Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
Are we live on Rumble?
Oh, we are.
Okay, good.
And Rumble ordinarily takes 20% of that, but for the rest of the year, they're taking 0%.
They'll go back to their 20% next year.
So Rumble rants on Rumble.
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
Seven bucks a year.
You can support us there, but I'll read all of these.
Oh, sorry.
Let the salt flow, Viva.
But yeah, the governments the world over are corrupt and criminal.
Wait until I get into the next one.
Lane Mack, how you doing?
Will it only be two weeks to stop the spread?
It's so absurd.
They want to do the same failed policies that they did the last time.
And don't take my word for it.
The Guardian just put out...
The Guardian put out...
Oh, crap.
Now I can hear myself.
Hold on.
Now I hear myself?
Did I stop?
This is so annoying.
Where is it?
Where is the video that I can...
Here it is.
Here it is.
Okay, it was on YouTube.
They want to roll out the same failed policies again.
Here, look at this, guys.
This is it.
This is just amazing.
Okay.
The date.
August 24th, 2023.
That was the day before yesterday.
No, the day before the day before yesterday.
The Guardian puts out an article.
It says lockdowns and masks.
Unequivocally, quote, they're not saying it because this is how fake news rolls.
They never say anything on their own.
They just cite someone else so that they can literally say A and not A depending on the day, depending on the expert, depending on whatever bullshit narrative they want to put forward on that given day.
August 24th, 2023, the day before the day before yesterday.
This is the narrative.
Lockdowns and face masks.
Unequivocally cut spread of COVID, report finds.
Royal Society review looks at non-pharmaceutical interventions when applied in packages of several measures.
That's what they said in August, three days ago, 2023.
What did they say in January 2022?
Britain got it wrong on COVID.
Long lockdown did more harm than good.
Scientists, says scientists.
So again, they're not saying anything.
They're just quoting this scientist now in 2022 when they got to start backpedaling and saying, holy shit, we just locked down for like an extended period of time?
Two weeks to two months to two years?
Massive problems with self-harm of children?
People missing all sorts of doctor's appointments?
Holy crap, we might have just actually seriously damaged a generation?
Let's start walking it back.
But we're not going to say anything because we don't want to make a mistake and we don't want to say that we said anything.
So we're going to quote this scientist now.
But some of you out there who like licking the boots that are suffocating you at the neck will say, they just said long lockdowns did more harm than good, not lockdowns did more harm than good.
Oh, let's go to this other one.
What did they say here?
I forget the date.
This is 2022.
Evidence grows of lockdown harm to the young, but we act as if nothing happened.
Martha Gill.
Let's just go back to, oh, that's right, lockdowns in face masks, unequivocally cut spread of COVID, report finds.
Gaslighters, liars, And criminals.
That's it.
Oh, but gotta be nice.
Gotta be nice to them, Dave.
Gotta be polite.
Say thank you, sir.
May I have another?
Please don't lock me down as much as you locked me down the last time.
The curfews.
Do it again.
Curfews.
Face masks.
You'll have to look up all of the things that I'm about to list off right now.
In Quebec, they had to recall tens of thousands of masks because they contained a potentially toxic graphene particle.
Daycare teachers, one who I knew personally, who I don't think will talk to me anymore because that's how far down the brainwashed mill they've gone, came up to me on the street sobbing because they had been wearing one of these blue and white face masks and it always felt like they had cat hairs in the back of their throats.
And now they find out that they've all been recalled because of a potentially toxic graphene.
That's if they're potentially toxic.
Then you get humans finding plastic particles deep in their lungs for the first time ever.
Nobody knows why.
Then you find out...
That you're not supposed to wear these disgusting masks for eight hours a day.
That even when they're done properly, you're supposed to change them every four hours.
You think kids are changing their disgusting, filthy face masks?
No!
You find one in your back pocket like, "Oh, that's been there for a little while.
I'll put that on my face." Okay.
That's even when they don't...
Even when they're not potentially toxic.
They're potentially damaging.
I talk to dentists who talk about cavities in kids' mouths because of the keeping in the bacteria.
They call it mask mouth because you get acne.
Or they call it maskne as well.
That's the masks.
Then the lockdowns.
You want to get down to the lockdowns?
Are they going to compare to Sweden now?
Or they've stopped talking about Sweden?
Okay, I just saw Robert come into the backdrop, so I'm going to bring him in because I can go.
I'm tired.
I'm cranky.
My stomach hurts.
And nothing that I'm seeing in the news or the world is making me feel any better.
Maybe Robert's good, good will make me feel better.
Okay, I didn't get to all the stuff in the back, but I'll save it for tomorrow.
All right, let's bring this in.
Robert, sir, three, two, how do I share?
Share, add to screen, sir.
How goes the battle?
Good, good.
Robert, it's not getting any better.
You said it would get better two years ago.
You said, like, oh, how crazy can the world go?
I remember talking to my dad in March, April 2020.
He was like, yeah, you know, people are going a little crazy.
They're panicking.
It's not getting any better.
It's only getting worse.
And what we're going to cover tonight, from the Trump mugshot to Elon being sued in the lawfare against Twitter.
Robert, what's over your shoulder?
What book do you have tonight?
Yeah, the Book of the Month Club for vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
I'm reading it live.
Aloud.
Alive, too.
The Chapters of Common Sense by Thomas Paine.
And then we'll be doing a breakdown in the final book club review.
So that's the book.
And then that's Carrie Lake sent me her autobiography that she recently did.
That's a nice kind of a letter in the front of it.
So that's what that one is.
Fantastic.
Free Spirit says, Viva, don't blow a gasket.
I've been a little irritable because Yeah, I'll feel better tomorrow.
Robert, do we want to go over the items on the menu real quick?
Absolutely.
So our bonus topic off the top is the war on farmers that's taking place.
And a little reminder of how the Amos Miller case went and what people can do to continue to help in that matter.
Biden sues Elon SpaceX because he's hiring Americans.
Apparently that's illegal according to the Biden administration.
Pfizer has proven just what corporate sleazy lawyers that they are as they try to illicitly intimidate me, co-counsel and whistleblower Brooke Jackson.
We'll talk about that one.
There's a scheduling conference in Beaumont, Texas on Monday.
I can't be there because I'm limited by doctor's orders from traveling at the moment.
Due to a foot injury, but my co-counsel, Warner Mendenhall and Alexis Anderson will be there.
And whoever, whatever bums Pfizer sends.
The 11th Circuit, a big win on trans treatment laws on the Alabama case.
And we'll unite that with the most popular request for a new case on our board, which was the Maryland federal court decision about...
Parents not even getting notified or having any opt-out rights to having their four-year-olds be read books about trans and lesbians and gay behavior and all the rest.
Welcome to Maryland Public Schools.
We'll talk about the Trump mugshot, the mugshot heard around the world.
Jeffrey Clark's excellent removal petition in that case and where people can continue to support.
He's the best lead defendant in the Georgia indictment cases concerning Trump.
The denial of bail because Democrats see a black man that supports Trump, so they've got to lock him up.
And the interference, the orchestrated conspiratorial interference with the right to counsel by the D.C. federal courts in another Trump case.
Gannett, or however they say their name, the owner of USA Today has been sued for reverse discrimination.
Biden.
His shadow immigration policies, his mass pardons, his mass paroles go on trial this week in federal court in Texas.
The Pergosian murder.
I have a hush-hush on it, so we won't go into too deep a dive, but we'll give you just a little bit of a sneak peek of what that might look like.
Hawaii fire.
The lawsuits have already begun as they commence.
The homeless get extended protection in San Francisco from a federal court.
Santa Monica.
Voting rights win for Latino activists.
The issues of religious-based adoption agencies in Tennessee.
And a couple of bonus cases.
Spirit got caught charging bogus baggage fees.
And what does Christmas look like in Tennessee?
It's actually a case concerning someone named Christmas.
Fantastic.
Now, Robert, we're going to start on the war on the Amish, and it's fascinating.
I'm going to mix up the names here.
It's not Amos, but the other one who's...
The cattle farmer in Virginia.
I'm trying not to get conspiratorial, and I'm trying not to think the government really is out there to crush small business, to have full control over every aspect of your life.
They've gone after another Amish farmer because they're not getting USDA certification for the butchering of their meat.
And apparently this all started with COVID because when COVID hit, they had to travel too far distances to get their USDA stamps or whatever the approval is.
That means that they just have to pay a government official between, what did they say, $80 and $270 an hour to come and certify the slaughter.
What ended up happening is this company An Amish farmer who sells only to the same type of membership base that he has.
He doesn't sell outside of the state except to the extent that people come in to buy it and then leave with it.
Was compliant with whatever USDA requirements they needed to have back in the day before COVID, but it became too costly to be compliant afterwards.
Wasn't selling out of the state, so didn't think that he has to comply with any of these interstate...
Are they violent of the interstate rules of commerce or whatever?
But then, you know, gets all of his meat, all of his stash seized.
Not seized, actually.
At first, they just froze it, tagged it up.
Well, yeah, they physically seized it, but kept it on location, and then went and later seized it, seized it.
They kept it on location.
Told him that they bagged it, tagged it, put it in locker.
I guess it goes bad, because it doesn't stay good forever.
They said, you can't eat this, you can't sell this, you can't even use it to feed your family.
And this Amish farmer's like, Fuck you.
And uses it to feed his family.
Except he's Amish, so he didn't use that word.
He said, bring it!
Well, from what I read about this whole story, I don't know if he said the Amish don't follow rules or someone said the Amish don't follow the rules.
Someone else did, yeah.
He said, forget this.
I'm going to feed it to my family.
And once I'm doing that, I'm going to sell it to whoever in the club wants to buy it.
And then they came in.
Then they seized it.
They're trying to put them out of business.
It's exactly...
And charging them with crimes now.
So, I've given the 30,000-foot overview, Robert.
For those who think that the government is after every aspect of your life, but in the unhealthiest way possible, what can you tell them to tell them that they're wrong, or are they in fact right, and this is just egregious?
And there's also a good article up at the MISIS Institute, where our good mutual friend Thomas Woods often speaks on behalf of.
The Thomas Woods podcast is very good.
It comes from the libertarian, but more of a populist, Murray Rothbard-style libertarianism.
And they are documenting how the Biden administration is clearly waging war on small farmers in America.
And they target the Amish because the Amish don't bring suits.
They don't believe in it.
My mom's old principle about Christians not suing.
And they also don't seek publicity.
They believe public attention or their photograph even being taken, their appearance on a show, is drawing attention to themselves and it's not part of their religious or cultural beliefs.
And so that's what makes them easy targets for the federal government and the state government.
In this case, the state of Virginia is the one harassing this particular cattle farmer.
But I have no doubt there are people within, The FSIS, the USDA, and these various state agencies implementing a Biden administration policy to try to run out of business small farmers.
And they're starting and targeting as the template to go after everybody else, Amish farmers, because of the reasons I mentioned.
And so for those that don't remember, we were here a year ago today, thereabouts.
When Amos Miller, the news stories broke, that Amos Miller, the Amish farmer in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was facing federal prison, contempt charges, bankrupting charges, a monetary judgment to take away his farm, add it to his wife, so take away anything he could ever own, his wife could ever own, family could ever own, all concerning him making meat and products that his customers wanted.
Now, here we are a year later, and those contempt charges have all been dismissed.
He never served a day in jail.
Those contempt fines were dramatically reduced.
He's back in business, and he's able to sell and market meat, chicken, that right now it's from other farms.
That's USDA inspected, but doesn't have some of the problematic aspects that, like the Virginia cattle farmer, many of his customers don't want certain chemicals on their meat.
Some of them, it's not a matter of don't want, it's a matter of can't.
For health and medical reasons, as detailed in the Town Hall article, some of them have to have it the way he makes it, not the way the USDA wants it.
But it shows the broader pattern that's afoot.
And thanks to people rallying to Amos Miller's cause...
We were able to get a much better outcome than what he was on pace for and what this Virginia farmer faces.
But the fact that it keeps accelerating and escalating across the country makes the Amos Miller case, Town Hall referenced the Amos Miller case being the Sentinel case in this context.
And in this respect, if you want to continue to help Amos Miller, there's an easy way to do so.
Free America Law Center that's providing support for it.
I helped found Free America Law Center for Amos Miller's defense and for other future farmers like him.
Then you can actually, right now, you can go to the top of, there's a pinned post at the very top, like the first, second, or third post, at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
That will give you a link.
Or you can go to the top of my Twitter, the pinned tweet.
And you can go to Amos Miller's Organic Farm, and for basically $99, you're going to be supporting it, and he'll send you a delicious, homemade bottle of Blackberry Jam.
It's called Preserve America Justice Jam, appropriately titled and named.
So that's how you can directly support him, directly help him, and continue to stay engaged, because that's going to be the only thing.
That restrains the Biden administration and state governments aligned from crushing small farmers, which isn't just about small farmers.
It's about your and my right to eat what we want, to put in our body what we want.
That's what they're trying to take away from us.
And in the article, they were talking about how some people say it's not just food, it's medicine.
I don't want to have stuff with antibiotics.
I don't want to have stuff with preservatives.
What was it?
Sodium nitrate.
Oh, there's a ton of these chemicals that either the government has even admitted are toxic chemicals or cancerous chemicals that the USDA requires be poured onto food.
So the, I mean, it's, and again, this is, I mean, Amos Miller, as an example, makes food the way his papi made it, grandpappy made it, great-grandpappy made it.
The, you know, it's in great-great-grandpappy and on and on and on.
Goes all the way back, his family goes back to some of the very original Amish that settled in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, centuries ago.
And so it makes no sense that people who want food the way he makes it.
And he's me making food that has never been documented to ever be unsafe anywhere, anyplace, at any time, in any legal proceeding.
They mislabel this food adulterated.
To most ordinary people, adulterated is putting a bunch of chemical crap on it like the USDA wants.
There's been a lot more recalls from big corporate farmers than there's ever been from Amish farmers.
But it's part of a broader war.
Just like the war to take away people's Second Amendment rights, where they're also targeting the Amish as the template to do so.
All of those things are part of a broader pattern.
The Biden administration talking about bringing back mask mandates, bringing back vaccine mandates.
Apparently now they get a new vaccine.
Which I guess is a good transition into the latest insanity from Pfizer in the Brooke Jackson case.
We'll do that on Rumble, actually.
Not because I'm scared of anything, but because it's been a half an hour and we can now tell YouTube to go piss off after having nuked Jason Levine's channel, my friend who's doing a lot of good Canadian journalism.
But hold on, there was one question before we do that, Robert.
How does this regulation get past the Interstate Commerce Clause, where if the Amish farmer or if anybody is only doing business within the state, they're not selling outside of the state, why does the Fed have any jurisdiction in what that business does within the state, within the state law?
Two reasons.
Some of the states adopted the federal laws application.
And the other reason is the Supreme Court has not meaningfully enforced the limitation on interstate commerce.
So they basically consider, this goes back to a wheat farmer case a long time ago, where a wheat farmer just, I mean, if he simply chose not to do something, he was somehow violating federal law.
It's like, hold on a second, how is it not trading something, not selling something, not making something, not planning something, could somehow violate federal interstate commerce law?
Because the Supreme Court during the New Deal era overreacted.
They overreacted initially in trying to suppress New Deal legislation, and then they overreacted in green-lighting New Deal legislation.
And they basically eviscerated the Interstate Commerce Clause and made everything Interstate Commerce.
All right.
And that's one of the chemicals.
One of the chemicals or the products was to make the meat look red.
And so it's...
It's just atrocious.
Okay, we're gonna go to Rumble right now.
Link is here.
I've shared the link to the jam.
I'll keep sharing that periodically as we go.
My wife wants to order the jam, so I think it's a no-brainer.
Everybody, we're ending on Rumble.
No, we're not.
We're ending on YouTube, heading over to Rumble, and then after Rumble, we have our after Rumble party at locals, vivabornslaw.locals.com.
So come over to Rumble right now.
I'm ending on YouTube in three, two, one, now.
All right, Robert, tell the world what the heck is going on with Pfizer and coming after you personally.
Are they crazy?
Oh, yes.
Yes, of course.
So for those that don't know, Brooke Jackson filed a whistleblower claim.
It's called a KETAM or False Claims Act claim years ago in the fall of 2020.
She was one of the people reviewing the Pfizer clinical trials concerning the COVID-19 vaccine.
She witnessed extraordinary deviation from the required safety and efficacy trial protocols that have basically eviscerated the ability of Pfizer to claim that the vaccine is either safe or effective.
When she brought that to the attention of the higher-ups at Pfizer, she was summarily terminated.
And then a lot of other anomalies took place.
I mean, there was mail issues, there was phone issues, there was issues that suggested Pfizer was up to more than that.
The U.S. government promised to take corrective action, sat on the case for about a year, and once the Biden administration was fully in power, they ran for cover, hid under their desks, and decided they wouldn't prosecute the case.
She then retained new counsel, which was me and Warner Mendenhall and my co-counsel, Lexus Anderson.
And the case was unsealed, and so we published to the world what was happening.
And since that has happened, Pfizer's stock has taken a dramatic decline.
Since that has happened, and why?
Because so many Americans stopped taking the vaccine.
And apparently, I think people at Pfizer blame Brooke Jackson and us discussing the case in public for that reason.
They would like us to keep the case a secret, but that was never going to happen.
Throughout the case, they've, in my view, attempted to intimidate me and her by making unjustified attacks and trying to illicitly prejudice and influence the court.
In ways outside what the rules provide for.
So the court initially dismissed the case, and then we sought motion for the court to reconsider, effectively, relief from judgment, and to allow us to amend, and the judge granted it.
The judge said, you know, it looked like there was legitimate issues concerning whether Pfizer, that there were claims that could be made and allegations that could be stated that could support a claim.
And so allowed us amendment.
During when we filed our motion to amend, Pfizer said nothing about having a problem with the amended complaint as to anything they thought was legally or factually without any basis.
Then there's a scheduling conference that was held this past week.
Again, Pfizer, to my knowledge, said nothing on that settlement conference.
They say nothing in writing.
And so between counsel, we submit a joint scheduling statement.
Again, Pfizer doesn't raise any issue.
And then on the Friday afternoon, almost at 5 o 'clock, right before the court closes, Pfizer sends one of their letters to the court.
Now, the local rules don't authorize this at all.
The federal rules don't authorize this at all.
And this is patently unethical, unprofessional conduct by the sleazebags that represent.
And in it, they make personal attacks on the First Amendment expression of me and on Brooke Jackson that appears to be nothing more than an illicit effort to intimidate, or to use some language we'll be talking about later, conspiring to deprive people of their civil rights, misusing and abusing federal judicial power to do so.
The most laughable and absurd part of Pfizer's sleazy claim And again, this was just to try to inflame the judge right before the scheduling conference on Monday.
They violate the rules about meeting and conferring.
They violate the rules of certification of conferencing.
They violate the rules because they didn't file this as a motion.
They violate the rules in how any pleading or document is supposed to be filed.
I'll pause it there just so that people can fully understand just how egregious this is.
Ex parte communications with the judge are a big fat no-no.
This, what they're saying is, well, I'm just going to send a letter to the judge.
I'm going to CC opposing counsel, but I'm basically going to talk directly to the judge outside of the court through no proper procedural channel so that I can taint the file by making all sorts of wild accusations or insinuations against you and Brooke Jackson's Friday afternoon, knowing that you can do jack squat over the weekend before Monday when you have a scheduling conference, which is tomorrow?
Yep.
Yeah, exactly.
What did they say in the letter?
Yeah, I mean, so they attack Brooke Jackson for making any statements she's ever made on her Twitter page.
I am Brooke Jackson.
And they attack me just in general.
They like to attack me in general.
But then they add in, here's what they say, that the amended complaint is without any factual or legal basis whatsoever.
Or certain statements within it are without any basis.
And so they're trying to precondition the judge with this overarching Pfizer narrative that says, judge, if you tolerate anything, you're part of some wacky conspiracy theory.
You don't want to be part of that, judge.
So guess what, Pfizer's lawyers.
Pfizer's lawyers lie and continue to perpetrate a fraud upon the federal court, just like they perpetrated a fraud upon the American people.
And they perpetrated that fraud.
Remember, Pfizer is the biggest criminal drug dealer in the history of man.
That's who they are.
And these corporate whores that legally represent them are a lot...
The character from Breaking Bad makes him look like moral icons by comparison.
Paragons of integrity and ethics by comparison.
They state that there could be no factual basis, that no investigation could ever suggest the following three things, that ivermectin could be effective against COVID-19, that the vaccine could harm anyone or harm the number of people it's harmed, disabilities and cause death in the millions, and suggesting the vaccine is a gene therapy.
They're saying that that is so patently ludicrous, so absurd, so conspiracy theorist, that someone like me should be disbarred for even suggesting it in court.
Now, these lazy, lying frauds that are the lawyers at Pfizer apparently are unaware that the FDA itself has capitulated on the issue of ivermectin's effectiveness for the treatment of COVID-19.
Not only in terms of the safety...
We'll let the record speak for itself.
Why is it excess mortality is going up all around the world wherever Pfizer's vaccine is being introduced to people in the key target populations?
Let's dig into that.
And then last but not least, the dumbest, the lamest, the most preposterous one is to say that it's utterly absurd to suggest this is a gene therapy.
Well, guess who described it as a gene therapy?
Fucking Pfizer described it as a gene therapy, Robert.
The FDA described it as a gene therapy.
Nature magazine, one of the leading scientific publications in the world, wrote a pro-vaccine article about this vaccine, and guess what they called it?
A gene therapy.
So these lawyers are either too stupid to know they're lying, or they're just the same kind of fraudulent criminals their client is.
Their gutter-level client is.
The reality is an honest attorney general in the Department of Justice wouldn't just join this case.
They would put Pfizer out of business for forever and take its lead executives and lock them up in prison for forever.
Because these criminal lawyers with these criminal defendants continue to use the same criminal tactics and techniques they're accustomed to getting away with.
And I'm not going to tolerate it for half a second.
So it's just who Pfizer is.
And I like to say only a stuck pig squeals.
Got that statement from an old friend in Arkansas.
And Pfizer's mighty squealing about what is more apparent to me than ever, that Pfizer was involved in suppressing information about the safety and efficacy of ivermectin and other treatments.
Because unless they did, they never would have got approval for those billions of dollars.
For their gene therapy, unsafe, dangerous, ineffective drug that was not a vaccine by any definition ordinary Americans or anybody in the world understands.
So what happens on Monday now?
I thought it was more just a procedural...
That's what it should be, but who knows?
I mean, these are sleazy lawyers that constantly use these kind of proceedings to ambush the other side.
They act like they're high and mighty when they're the liars.
They're the frauds.
They're the people defending the liars, defending the frauds, defending, in this case, mass murderer Pfizer.
That's who and what they are.
So you never know.
So the I can't be there.
I wish I could be there.
But the...
We'll see.
I'm hopeful the judge doesn't tolerate these kind of letters to the court in violation of local rule and federal procedure, but you never know.
Sometimes judges do something about it, sometimes they don't.
For those who may not know, I had...
12, 13 years of active practice.
I cannot stand this crap.
First of all, the Friday afternoon special is the most irritating thing on earth.
And they always do it.
It's just like you just know that they're going to do it if they are of a certain ilk of lawyers.
Then you have these...
It's not ex parte communications with the judge because they cc'd you on it, but they're basically using...
Channels that are not available channels for obvious reasons.
Why do we have motions?
A letter to a judge?
I want to examine them.
Oh, you can't examine me on that.
It wasn't a motion.
It was a letter.
A Friday afternoon letter to the judge.
I can say whatever the hell I want.
You can't accuse me of perjury.
I don't have to sign an affidavit for that letter.
Oh, Robert, hold on.
Let me bring this up because it's classic.
Let's listen to what Joe Biden has to say about the next round of vaccines, that they might actually work this day.
Mr. President, can you say anything about the uptick of COVID cases and new variants?
Uptick of COVID cases and new variants.
As a matter of fact, I signed off this morning on a proposal we have to present to the Congress a request for additional funding for a new vaccine that is necessary, that works.
Apparently, Pfizer doesn't know that the president isn't on board with him.
Because what does he say?
He says we need a new vaccine.
That actually works.
That actually works.
An implicit admission.
Well, frankly, an explicit admission that Pfizer's vaccine wasn't a vaccine and didn't work.
And that's what the truth is.
And they are so desperate to hide the truth.
That they want no discovery to ever occur.
They want nobody to ever look into this.
They want to gaslight everybody and say, if you believe this, you must be some part of a crazy conspiracy.
The conspiracy is their criminal client, the biggest criminal drug dealer in history that just committed mass murder known as Pfizer.
That's who these scuzz bags, sleaze bag, bottom of the barrel lawyers are.
But you know that the state bars are never going to go after them.
They're too busy harassing John Eastman for having an opinion about constitutional law.
They're trying to disbar him in California.
The same corrupt California state bar, and I mean the state bar itself, that covered up for Thomas Girardi and Michael Avenatti for years, years, is going after John Eastman, and that they won't do anything to these lying Pfizer lawyers.
So it's just the nature of the animal.
It's something you have to prep for and prepare for.
That, as you mentioned, if you've been around, You're accustomed to it.
And these are the so-called ethical, honorable.
These are the lawyers that state bar and other people hold up.
I mean, that's what makes the state bars a joke in every single state.
You hold up these corrupt, bottom-barrel, gutter-level bums as your ethical, honorable lawyers.
I've met very few corporate lawyers in my life that were worth much at all, morally, ethically, or otherwise.
But these are some of the worst scum.
To deal with, but not surprising that it represents who they're defending.
And they're terrified of the truth coming out.
I always used to say, and I'll still say, that you'll always find lawyers have clients that reflect their personalities and vice versa.
And if you knew a scumbag lawyer, they're going to have a scumbag client.
And if you knew a scumbag client, you could predict they're going to have a scumbag lawyer because that's just the way it works.
So we'll follow up with what happens tomorrow, Robert.
Before we get, we skipped, we're going to go into the Elon Musk in a second, but let me just not fall too far behind.
On the rumble rants, real quick, mandatory carry.
Good to see you again.
It's the same message, but I'm going to read it every week.
Had the founders foreseen the future, they would have written a very different Second Amendment.
A well-protected public being necessary to the security of a free state.
The duty of the people to keep and bear arms shall be enforced.
491 says, fish on.
Viva, my son caught a gar.
That was...
Four foot long.
Great days.
Yeah, the spotted guard don't get much bigger than that, but then you get the alligator guard that you have in Texas.
300 pound monsters.
Ithaco cloth.
Well, I'm going to read that one wrong.
I to the C to the E. That's what it is.
Isn't it good news that a news channel would present multiple views?
Yes.
Lord Sterling.
I recently released Common Censored on Amazon.
A heavily redacted version of Common Sense to illustrate the dangers of censorship.
What if people had never read Common Sense?
Boya says, I'm from Irwin, Tennessee.
Should I have my mountain spring water sent to gum it to add the neurotoxin flora or...
I get what you're saying there.
Kay Campbell 48 says, how can we help...
Harrison Floyd.
Oh, we're going to get there in a second, everybody.
Jack Flack.
Your live show with 10,000 views wasn't on the Rumble Live page.
On my feed, keep an eye on that.
I think we are now the featured one, which is good.
But everybody knows where we are Sunday night.
Randy Edward.
So what you are saying is Pfizer and Disney use the same lawyers.
Does legal mindset know this?
Oh, man.
It's an uncanny rule of law.
If you know the lawyer is a scumbag, chances are they're going to have a scumbag client and vice versa.
Speaking of which, Robert, not that the DOJ has scumbag lawyers, but the DOJ happens to be suing Elon Musk for not hiring, it's not just not hiring non-Americans, for not hiring refugees and asylum seekers who themselves, I do not believe, have permanent residence, but you'll correct me on the details.
No, that's correct.
To the prior question about having people with different views on the channel, I had to go watch...
It was one of the things I had to do to do my homework, a Fox News presentation.
They had one guy out there who was...
Was it this story?
One guy out there basically defending the Department of Justice.
I might be getting sorry.
It doesn't matter.
Yes, having multiple ideas and multiple point of views on one channel is good.
Now, with that said, what the...
Okay, so Elon Musk tweets out, if the DOJ is suing me for not hiring asylum seekers and refugees, they should be suing themselves because they have the exact same criteria for hiring, not a question of green card holders, permanent
residents, not refugees, not asylum seekers, because lo and behold, Elon Musk makes these sensitive things called rockets, which can carry payloads, which if you have people who are in there trying to steal technology, engage in terroristic behavior, Not that asylum seekers and refugees are spies or terrorists, but there is a Elon Musk is not hiring refugees and asylum seekers, and they're going after him for this.
Robert, it really feels like what we saw...
Obama's administration going after the Tea Party, you know, siccing the IRS on them.
This is a full weaponization of every aspect of government against ideological adversaries.
Where is the even remotely potential legally justified basis for this suit against Elon?
Well, I mean, they probably will win this.
I mean, I didn't even know this office existed in these contexts.
So this case isn't actually filed in court.
It's filed in the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Office for the Chief Administrative Hearing.
Doesn't that sound like some sort of, like, Brazil, the movie?
You know, I mean, it's like some Orwellian thing.
It's like, what exactly?
It's like, what in the world is this?
And it turns out Congress gave them special authority.
To discipline employers concerning whether employers, but even though most of it was supposed to be on employers violating immigration law, this instead was about employers discriminating against immigrants.
Which is, you know, they snuck that in somehow in the 1986 bill.
Classic, you know, politicians.
Because I don't think, everybody's appointed, the prosecutor's appointed by Biden, the judge is appointed by Biden.
The appeals court of the immigration folks are appointed by Biden.
So it's like, what?
So we'll see if there's some constitutional challenges.
Now, SpaceX would get to challenge that opinion ultimately in the court of appeals, not a district court.
But here's what it is.
Certain protected individuals you cannot discriminate against if you are an employer with a certain number of employees.
And that includes someone who has received asylum or refugee status from the U.S. government.
Now, as you note, Musk's understanding and SpaceX's understanding was that only green card holders and citizens they could hire because of all the laws governing arms control and national security issues.
According to the DOJ, that law had been chained.
Not sure exactly where or when, but that now you are considered a U.S. person under those laws if you're a designated asylum recipient or refugee.
I mean, whoever did that should have been much more careful.
We should not have...
Also, as someone who supports broad asylum rights...
We don't want asylum decisions contaminated by a judge thinking, oh, I better be careful because now I'm giving this person a right to a national security job.
We want them just looking at their qualifications for asylum, not their qualifications to be in national security suddenly because of the risk that could pose.
And yet somehow, if the DOJ is right, now that's a big question because clearly Musk has been advised that DOJ is wrong.
But if the DOJ is right, then somebody in Congress screwed up by sneaking that in to allowing people to get national security clearance effectively for employment purposes just as soon as they get refugee or asylum status.
But right now, if the DOJ is right about that aspect of the law, then DOJ wins.
If they're wrong, Elon wins.
I think it's fantastic.
But then they should be implementing the same policy themselves.
So you're going to have refugees and asylum seekers who are declared.
They had to be recognized as asylum beneficiaries.
You have to win that, not just be an applicant.
You've got to win it.
Now, the thing is, the Biden administration, I mean, this will skip ahead to a different topic, but it's probably related, so worth it.
To give the idea of what the Biden administration has been doing, they've been mass paroling illegals.
And giving them the equivalent of a guaranteed job for two years.
And they say as long as you come back, as long as you go back to your home country two years from now, have at it here in the U.S. And that's what's going to trial America First, the state of Texas.
The Attorney General helped bring that suit to the state of Texas.
They're now trying to, the corrupt rhinos in the Texas State Senate are trying to impeach and convict and keep out of power.
But that case, but America First Legal was also part of that case, so they made sure it marched forward.
But the media's not talking about it, but basically they detail in the bench trial to come there down in Texas in federal court this week that there has been a, here's how it's working.
So it's what a lot of people suspected connected to George Soros and others.
These NGOs are going to foreign countries, recruiting people to come here to the United States.
Then they...
Sponsor them here in the United States.
And under Biden's mass parole policy, as long as you have a sponsor, boom, you got permission to go do whatever you want for a couple of years.
So it's a massive scam to massively bring in immigrants, really, really illegal, they're just not called illegal exactly, to the United States.
And inflate the labor market and serve certain political purposes.
And then you've got states like Illinois and other states wanting to hire them as police officers as the latest nutty thing out there.
So we want to hire them in national security?
Hire them to be police?
Why don't we just turn our whole government over to them while we're at it?
But I'll say this.
Even illegals from Central America probably wouldn't be as bad a banana republic as the Biden administration is.
No, it's...
Enact policy, social pressure that makes it impossible for people to be police in America.
Resignation's en masse.
And then, oh, we need police.
We need cheap labor.
So let's...
It's almost by design, Robert.
Indeed.
All right, now, so we're going to skip back.
We're going to go to, we'll do the trans law, speaking of by design.
Okay, what state was it again?
Alabama.
Alabama.
Did you see where the judge wrote the opinion?
No, who was it?
Judge Lagoa, the judge I recommended instead of Amy Coney Barrett.
So the Alabama had passed a law which seemed relatively...
Reading the text of the legislation, I won't bring it up now, but it said pretty well drafted.
It said you're not going to be allowed...
Yeah, this is better drafted than some of the other state laws, to be honest.
It didn't try to get into certain places.
It just said no puberty blockers or hormones to change people's gender if they're little kids.
And that was the important...
Which I don't always say about the state of Alabama.
I'm from Tennessee, so I always have to make jokes about Alabama.
Well, it was better drafted than some of the other ones.
Last year we beat them, so I actually have bragging rights for the first time in forever.
I got a Green Bay Packer football at the airport on the way out of Milwaukee.
Ah, yeah, that's right.
You're up in Brewtown.
Everybody's sad what you reported about Milwaukee.
I spent many years there.
Sounds like it's a shithole now.
I didn't go out of the downtown core, but even there, people are like, yeah, don't walk too far.
And then I go to read this guy Victor Shi on Twitter.
He says, I just had a ride with an Uber, and he was so happy that Biden allowed him to forgive his debt.
Now he's 20 years paying his debt.
He's free.
First of all, that never happened.
Talk to an actual Uber or taxi driver.
They don't share those stories.
Okay, so the Alabama drafted the legislation.
It was well drafted.
It got an injunction to stay the application of the law because they said the lower court found a constitutional right to the type of medical intervention that trans kids were claiming they had a constitutional right to.
Court of Appeal comes in and says, no, there's no constitutional right in the...
U.S. Constitution that says children get to take these puberty blockers to trans their sexes.
So there's no constitutional right to that effect.
So they implemented the wrong level standard of review.
It wasn't strict scrutiny.
It was rational basis.
Well, you'll flesh out the legalese.
Go on from there because the Canadian can only do so much.
Yeah.
So, I mean, I have a little bit of concerns with aspects of the opinion on the edges, but I thought the opinion stayed within the lines to a degree that it didn't cause some of the problems that the Sixth Circuit did with its too broad language.
So this is all about whether under the 14th Amendment due process clause, you know, the right to life, liberty, and property under due process of law.
There's procedural rights and substantive rights.
And the substantive rights include anything protected in the Constitution, for the most part, and any fundamental right.
And the fundamental right is something that's long been recognized as a right.
So the main quote from the Maine Supreme Court case that includes, you have a fundamental right to the common occupations to make a living, acquire useful knowledge, marry, establish a home, bring up children, So, as part of that, there's been plenary authority given to parents for the upbringing of their children.
This suit said, the state is overriding me as a parent right to do it.
Now, because it was brought by liberals, they weren't willing to assert a broad parental right.
They said, as long as the medical community agrees.
Then, as long as the professional class greenlights it, then I as a parent should have this right.
And their point was that the court did a pretty good job of not eviscerating parental rights like some of the other conservative courts have done in this context.
And instead said, look, this is very specific.
Do you have a right to a gender-changing treatment?
And historically, that has not existed.
And so, consequently, that the parent's right to govern and guide the child doesn't extend that far.
The most concerning language is stuff that, and they limited this language, but it's still there.
This is why conservatives should not be too eager to embrace some of these laws or think through exactly what we're doing.
Quote, the state can override parents where health or safety is concerned.
It's like, well, that's what the vaccine mandators think, too.
So that's where figuring out where that balance is, what power we want to give the state to override parents is something that needs to be thought through.
Now on the flip side, in Maryland, they decided they're going to read, let's just call it what it is, pervert books to four-year-olds.
And they call them pride books, but it's got all kinds of just disgusting stuff in it.
And ask your five-year-old to find the underwear in a drag parade, okay?
Well, what's relevant about that to a five-year-old?
So historically, in Maryland, this is Montgomery County, this is where all the commies that work for the government live.
That and Northern Virginia and D.C. You know, maybe Goldwater was right.
We need to sell it off and send them out.
But historically, you as a parent had a right to notice anything that could impact your religious beliefs or that concerned just sexuality or those kind of topics in general being taught to your kid.
And you had a right to opt out.
Montgomery County decided to take both away from you.
So now you don't even know when your five-year-old is being read pervert stuff related to topics of sexuality and gender identity and the like.
And so they brought suit and the liberal judge said, oh no, you have no religious rights to even get notice of this happening in your school.
No right to opt out.
It's good for your kid to learn these topics.
Judge went on and on because these liberals can't help themselves.
They can't pretend they're really doing constitutional.
We'll get to that when we get to the Biden judges covering for Google against both Robert Kennedy and the Republican National Committee.
But you see a different side of the equation, saying the state can do whatever they want and get away with it.
In a certain context in the Maryland case.
So I think the 11th Circuit case, mostly right.
The big part I think they're definitely right on is they say trans is not a suspect class.
And having a treatment about gender identity doesn't make it a gender discrimination treatment.
And I think they're absolutely right on both of those.
I think they're mostly right on no right to trans medical procedures.
I would like it if they would have limited the law a little bit more than they even did.
They did a much better job than anyone else has done to date.
Not a surprise.
The Cuban judge, Lagoa, who I had recommended to Trump rather than Amy Coney Barrett.
She's issued a very good decision on gun issues, very good decisions on these issues.
She would have been better, in my view, than Barrett.
But that issue is going up to the U.S. Supreme Court, just like the Maryland school issues are.
Can public schools just eviscerate your religious rights?
Do you give up your rights to, even though Justice Alito and others in the past said you don't sacrifice your religious beliefs at the school door, the Amish, once again, were some of the great ones establishing this in Wisconsin v.
Yoder in 1972.
Amos Miller's father was, I believe it was his father, no, his grandfather.
I don't know.
Quick question, just procedurally speaking.
The Alabama Court of Appeals comes in and says, no, the lower court got it wrong.
This is the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
It said the federal district court got it wrong.
Okay, sorry.
And so they're lifting the stay.
So the stay on the injunction.
So now the law is enforced in the state of Alabama.
Okay.
And then the flip side, like you sensitize people to, is if they say it's abuse or if they say what a parent does or does not get to do.
Or they take that right away.
Then they come in and say, well, now the doctors say everyone needs to take that little jibby jab and so parental rights be damned.
I would say, you know, as far as the conceptual rationalizing go, I would say the line at what they could take away by parental rights would have to do with natural development of a human being under normal circumstances and not medical interventions.
But that might be a little complicated drafting.
All right.
Do we get into the second hack judgment of the night?
The Google one?
Yeah, right before we get to Trump, which is upcoming, and I appreciate the memes.
We have a meme in the chat of Trump looking like Ice Cube.
Robert, did you hear the rap?
Did you hear the song?
Yes, yes.
I mean, they got murals.
We'll get to that in just a minute.
But right before we get there, we have more craziness in the courts.
Two Biden appointees covering up for Google in the case that was brought by Robert Kennedy and another case that was brought by the Republican National Committee and other Republican donor groups.
So RFK sues and says, you gotta get Google and YouTube to stop censoring my speech, to stop taking down videos that I'm posting as I'm running for president.
It's violative of the First Amendment.
It's unjustified.
It tries to raise the common carrier argument, et cetera, et cetera.
I might be oversimplifying right now, but he says, basically, get them to stop censoring me.
I'm running for president.
They're taking my videos down.
There's no basis to do it.
They're basically acting like the government gatekeepers of information.
I had the highlight.
The judge came out and said...
First Amendments are very important.
Let me just get the highlight here.
It's so classic.
It says...
The Ninth Circuit has consistently recognized the significant public interest in upholding First Amendment principles.
That's a quote from a prior decision.
However, there is also a strong public interest in protecting the community from an international public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
And then at the end, skipping simply, it says, They say this in their bullshit judgment, striking down RFK's request.
They go through all of the other...
They're not acting at the government's behest.
They're not coerced or induced.
They're a private enterprise.
They can do what they want.
They have Section 230 immunity.
It's like, I could draft that decision if I had to say, Viva, draft a decision as though you are a brain-dead liberal judge, Democrat.
Whoever appointee, that's how I would go about it.
It's section 230.
No, I might be mixing up two decisions here.
First Amendment's important, but we need to protect the world from misinformation like masks don't work or do work, depending on the day.
The jab doesn't cause myocarditis or does, depending on the day.
That's it.
I think I might have mixed up the 230 with the other decision, but Robert...
Yeah, the RNC.
In the RFK case, because his simple argument was Google was acting as a state actor based on all the information and evidence that had come out of the Missouri v.
Biden case.
The Biden administration had specifically targeted him.
So here you have a Biden appointee.
You know, all these Democratic judges that demanded any Trump appointee recuse from any Trump case don't seem to say that when it's a Biden appointee in a Biden case.
So the man challenging Joe Biden gets a Biden judge about the suppression of his, Bobby Kennedy's speech on the internet.
And shock, shock, that judge decides to protect Joe Biden rather than the First Amendment.
And the way she got there, as you noted, is to pretend that Google is not acting as a state actor at all.
Which, given all the evidence, I was curious how she got there.
And she said, no, they're just really in a, the government's just consulting.
Information sharing.
It's like, it is one of the most ludicrous interpretations of the evidence developed in Missouri versus Biden you possibly could.
No, it's like it ignores the evidence that currently exists.
It's just like, okay, I'm living in my silo with my blinders on.
Then the next part, she makes a classic legal error that says, well, there are other platforms available.
So it has long been established that the fact that you have other microphones does not allow the government to censor a particular microphone.
So the excuse of there are other platforms is not an excuse to censor speech, period.
So that's just a basic legal constitutional error by the judge.
But my favorite part, and I say this ironically, satirically, was the judge now established there's a First Amendment exception.
That if it concerns the pandemic, the government can censor speech.
Judge actually says this right at the end of this.
Says it doesn't matter if all the other claims that Mr. Kennedy makes are true.
I hear the judge say that the government can censor speech if it concerns medical information about a pandemic.
Just a shocking decision that has never been issued, to my knowledge, in the history of federal courts.
So I know Bobby Kennedy's going to be appealing it, and it needs to be appealed because that is one of the more dangerous decisions that's come down.
It is absolutely amazing because had there been public discussion, unfettered, uncensored public discussion about the origins of the virus, the efficacy and the stats of the jab, masks, it would have saved lives and not cost lives.
Do you know what this judge's overturn rate on appeal is?
She's a new judge.
She's a Biden appointee.
So very few.
It's the Ninth Circuit, so you never know what you get with the Ninth Circuit.
But it shows the dangers of where the courts have gone.
And the reason why all these cases are in Northern District of California is that their venue selection clause that all these big tech companies have put in created a favorable backyard on the federal law for all their cases.
And it's a problem.
It aligns with their politics as well.
But comparable reaction by another Biden appointee in the Republican National Committee.
And that's where I got, that's where I overlapped the stupidity of these decisions with the Section 230 protection.
RNC sues Google, alleging that Google is abusively, reflexively, censorshiply pushing the RNC's Even if, and this was specifically not just random users, not just a random list, people who had specifically opted in requesting emails from the RNC.
Now, I just saw the lights flicker in the house, and I don't know if something's going out here.
So yeah, so they're basically saying it's indirect censorship, or they're pushing this all the spam, even though...
They don't want them to go there, even though we don't violate the rules of whatever it is that determines whether or not something automatically goes to the spam folder.
The judge comes out and says, no, you haven't proven anything.
They got Section 230 immunity.
I don't know how the 230 immunity works in this case, Robert.
Can you explain that to people?
Yeah, I think a lot of people would have questions about that.
So it's a misapplication of the Iqbal and Twombly doctrines.
The Supreme Court was conservatives, too, who opened this dumb door.
Which was to apply summary judgment standards to motions to dismiss.
They're not supposed to, but they did.
They said you have to plead with sufficient plausibility.
All that did was ask judges to impose their political bias to dismiss cases before you get a chance to prove your case.
On the predicate that, well, here's the circular logic your typical judge uses when they dismiss a case.
They say, you're not alleging plausibly that this evidence exists.
Well, judge, you've denied me the ability to get the evidence yet.
Well, that's even more proof.
That's how these judges operate.
This is why, like, in Quebec, at least, to dismiss a motion, it was such a radically, wildly uncommon thing, because you're going to say, look, you haven't plausibly alleged your case.
I've made the allegation.
And now I want to go ask them questions to substantiate my allegation or to allow them to disprove my allegation.
And they dismiss it at a preliminary stage before discovery, before allowing you to adjuice anything.
What are you supposed to have?
All of the evidence beforehand, as opposed to, I think a wrong has been committed, I've got summary evidence, and I want to die for a little more.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, it's insane.
So that's the first and foremost problem with the judge's order.
But the second, I mean, the second problem is, I was curious how he was going to ignore this.
Because he said, You don't even allege that they acted in bad faith or with any discriminatory motive.
He also gutted the UNRU Act, the California law that has long been interpreted to disallow political discrimination.
He says political discrimination is now just fine in California.
I mean, you want to know why they're doing that?
Because Democrats now control the state.
So the judge knows, oh, now we're just screwing our adversaries.
They wanted UNRU Act to protect political dissent when they were not in the control of the state.
Now that they are, screw the law!
Obliterate it.
Gut the other guy.
This is who these people are.
They're statists at heart.
They think like 1930s communists, not like 1960s Berkeley free speech movement liberals.
But here's what Section 230, which again, for all the people out there that may not know, Communications Decency Act, it was designed primarily to not treat internet service providers as publishers.
So if somebody published something on your platform...
You were not responsible for it.
At the same time, they wanted you to be allowed to prohibit obscenity, stalking, harassment behavior.
So what they said is you can block or remove obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
Now, by every historical statutory canon of construction, that word otherwise objectionable is supposed to refer back to all those other provisions.
The courts have completely eviscerated the statute, abandoned all the canons of construction because they want to protect big tech at all costs, and say otherwise objectionable means whatever big tech says it means.
And that's how suddenly sending things to spam Is now a Section 230 action, which is just preposterous.
But then the next component is, he said, because they also have to prove that they acted in good faith in order to have this defense.
Let me stop you there, because, Robert, I don't...
Section 230 had to do with moderating platforms.
This is a service being provided.
How the hell can you say, I'm going to discriminate politically?
I'm going to compromise the service that I'm providing you.
And it's protected under Section 230.
Because they took internet service provider and just applied it to anybody that had any kind of connection to the internet.
And that's what they did.
So they first took something that was about platforms for third-party content and started applying it to things that were not platforms for third-party content.
And then second, they took internet service provider that was supposed to be a limited definition and made it anything.
And then third, they took what was supposed to be objectionable material and completely gutted what it meant to be objectionable material.
If you look at that, what is Congress defining?
They're defining things outside the protection of the First Amendment.
Obscenity.
Obscenity or stalking or harassing behavior.
Things that have never been covered by the First Amendment.
True threats.
Right?
Accessibly violent, etc.
So it fits within that.
And instead, they just gutted it.
Again, they didn't say or objectionable.
They said or otherwise objectionable, which always refers back to the prior provisions under any statutory canon of construction.
The courts have just obliterated it.
And all the legal academy and the law professors and the think tanks, they're almost all bought and paid for.
They're all big tech whores.
They all take their money or can't wait for their money or they're politically aligned with them.
So you don't find law review articles exposing this.
You don't find law journal articles exposing this.
You don't find think tanks exposing this.
You don't find anybody doing it.
And people like Jim Jordan are on the big tech teat.
So you're not going to find Jim Jordan doing it.
I mean, he does a lot of great stuff.
Not in this field he doesn't.
He's lousy on big tech.
And so you have a lot of big Republicans that are in bed with big tech.
And so that's how we got here.
But I was curious, how is he going to say there was no plausible allegation that this was in bad faith?
Because if it was politically motivated, it's in bad faith.
By definition.
They did not meet the metrics that Google implements to determine if you send out too many, you know, whatever the metrics are, then it goes to spam.
Or if people flag it as spam, they incorporate that.
They got none of this.
They said there was a fraction of a percentage of their emails that...
Google was violating their own standards for objectionability as spam, number one.
And they went further.
They produced an independent third-party study.
Done by someone unconnected to the litigation that pointed out that 68% of Republican candidate donor request emails Google sent to spam at key junctures in the election, but only 8% of Democratic solicitations for campaign contributions.
And remember, everybody at Google, 99% of their donations go to Democrats.
So it's like, how could you claim there's no possible allegation even here, political bias?
But the judge just pretends, oh, that's not enough.
Because again, he has an outcome, and he's just, as you were describing it, he's writing a decision to make sure he gets to an outcome.
He's not getting to an outcome by following the law.
And that's what you see.
And I'm sure the RNC will appeal it, because it should be appealed.
And hopefully this aggregation gets up to the Supreme Court.
And they don't wuss out like they wussed out last year on these big tech cases.
Well, it gets to the Supreme Court, Robert, but meanwhile, it's the election cycle now, so it'll get there by 2025.
Oh yeah, Google will do it.
Continue to engage in mass discrimination against both Robert Kennedy and the Republican National Committee.
Before we get into the big topic of the night, Robert, the Trump mugshot, let me just read a few chats here.
This is Pinochet's helicopter tour.
It says, if the government continues to subvert the will of the people, we should start publicly declaring corruption of blood upon the individuals.
I don't know what that means.
Something federal and state governments are prohibited from.
Dapper Dave says, if Elon was not red-pilled before, he is now.
Holy crap, apples.
Kitty724 says, today Roberts fight against corrupting pharma.
No new emergency vaccine for moi.
Sanya TK.
Barnes thought on Putin's first successful denazification aboard.
We're going to get there aboard Purgosian's plane.
That's a topic for tonight.
That Rumpel.
Hey Viva and guests.
I'm terrified that Russia is going to drop an atomic bomb on America.
And if we let Ukraine continue, Putin will.
And we're dead.
Why doesn't Washington understand that?
I'm nervous if they do that.
We're going to have a tsunami that's going to wash over Florida.
I thought about that.
We got GoFundMe from Banners of Praise, and I don't know what that is, but...
Thank you for the chat.
The Rumble Rant.
XSFDIT.
Anytime someone says, I support this right, but means they absolutely don't support the right 100%.
Big Cat Nola.
Look into interviewing Eric West of the YouTube channel Hawaii Real Estate.
Yeah, actually, I've been watching his stuff, actually.
It's good.
Hawaii Real Estate turned citizen journalist covering the fires.
He was asking for legal advice and help amplifying their story and needs.
I shared that in our locals community.
Bill Dozer, so is the legal system just a lost cause at this point?
What recourse do we have as normal plebs?
Also, check out my Rumble channel, and I don't know what it's called, but Bill Dozer 74. Okay, Robert.
Speaking of the system being totally, totally shit.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Let's bring this up.
Let's bring this one up.
Here we go, people.
If you haven't heard it, you gotta hear it.
here and it's it's it's AI generated so there's no copyright well shut up Patriot J Benny Johnson big fun Gino Alex Jones free my dogs you lock up the radical that's gone crazy I don't bail I don't bail I won't see inside a cell shut up It goes on.
It's fantastic.
I'm going to share the link to everybody.
Robert, the mugshot...
It seems that the only people saying that it's not backfiring are the liars.
You got Jen Psaki, the media son, all of the standard liars saying it's terrible and now they're trying to make it a racial issue and to pretend that now to appeal to the black community and say that now he's gotten more street cred, it's racist, the mugshot's great, he's a criminal, everybody's realizing this, he's going to jail.
Do you know what he was thinking when he took the picture, Robert?
Did he practice that face?
He must have.
That was my takeaway.
It was a war-footing kind of...
Two things.
It's a war-footing kind of physical posture.
Oh, God.
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
That was loud.
I didn't know that.
Yeah, they're making murals of it down in Atlanta.
But it was one of the most intense, iconic looks ever.
And it's not a common look.
That he has ever given.
So I think he did.
And he had never surrender.
He came back to Twitter for one tweet, which was that tweet, never surrender.
Started advertising on it right away.
It does look a lot like the bald eagle image, the badass bald eagle image that someone's putting up as a meme on our board.
I wonder if that's what inspired him, because that's the most analogous look.
Robert, for someone who's never had a mugshot taken before, do they give you a 3-2-1-go?
Do they let you look at it beforehand and say, do you want to take it again?
Do they tell you what to do?
Usually they say, look here, and then take the photo.
But it varies.
It varies by department.
It varies by location.
And clearly Democrats thought it would do him a lot of damage.
Instead, he celebrated it, welcomed it, used it, raised $7 million on it in 24 hours or so.
It's gone global.
It's gone viral.
It'll probably be the most famous mugshot maybe in the history of mugshots.
You can get shot glasses called mugshot with his image on it.
You can get Donald Trump Jr.
I'll be on his show tomorrow.
It has free Trump out there as a way to raise funds for the people that are being subject to this.
We put up the Jeffrey Clark link where people can go to Give, Send, Go and support Jeff Clark's work on it.
So it politically backfired.
And then there are a bunch of rap.
I mean, driving through the poor urban areas, African-American areas in Atlanta, a bunch of people lined up to cheer him.
You had rap stars and other people comparing themselves to him later.
And some on the right, Jen Ellis, who just keeps stepping in it.
You're trying to raise money for your defense, and then you go out and attack Trump.
I mean, it's like, when do you learn not to be a complete idiot?
You even get James O 'Keefe saying nice stuff about you, and then you blow it up the next day.
She really is just politically dense.
She rode the short bus to school for sure when it comes to politics.
But the point that I had made, Richard Barris had made for a while, is not so much that, oh, because Trump's accused of a crime, now black people and minorities and millennials relate to him.
That's not the point.
The point is that...
If you are a working class person from a racial minority or millennial community, how many rich, white, 75-year-old real estate billionaire tycoons from New York do you know?
Not very many.
How many people do you know that have been victimized by the American legal system?
A lot more.
Trump went from being in one category to the other.
That's what makes him more relatable.
The second part is you're seeing even from Brett Weinstein.
It's like, I don't like Trump, but this war on him makes me second-guess some things.
A lot of people are going to see the war on Trump as he is now the underdog, as there must be something legit in him fighting the system, or the system wouldn't be so obsessed with crushing him.
And so that's the point is to the working class communities that had previously not seen Trump as relatable now see him as relatable.
That's why Richard Barris' surveys show him winning twice as many black voters as any Republican since Richard Nixon.
And, you know, Richard Nixon was a civil rights guy going back to the 50s, you know, before Republicans and Democrats had sharply drawn different lines on that, before the 64 presidential campaign.
Which is what really defined Republicans as anti-civil rights in the public consciousness within the African-American community.
And he's getting twice as many black voters as DeSantis or any other generic Republican.
Twice as many as he got in 2016 or 2020.
And so that's not a surprise.
A lot of it's economics, but it's only enhanced by people like...
I mean, this has gone viral everywhere.
I mean, the populist community celebrated this image.
Because Trump brilliantly remade it into an image of resistance, just like Martin Luther King did with his mugshot, just like Nelson Mandela did with his mugshot.
So others, you know, he looks like one of the founding fathers if they had had a mugshot.
You know, the people were showing the comparison to George Washington in certain images, Thomas Jefferson in certain images and paintings, etc.
So the mugshot definitely backfired on Fannie Willis.
It definitely is a determined look in his face.
And I was just for everybody out there who might have thought I was being serious as to whether or not they let you look at it and take another one.
That was a joke.
But I just said, if they give you like a three, two, one go so that he gets ready for the picture.
Can you maybe help quell another rumor, Robert?
Because it happened.
It's with I think Jeff Clark has the same problem as Trump.
People are talking about the numbers in the height and weight.
People are saying Trump's weight on his booking photo was 215 pounds.
And people don't believe that.
They thought for sure he was secretly 350 pounds.
Again, never been to jail.
How does it work?
They weigh you, they measure you, correct?
It's not like you give them the info?
It varies on the jail.
But yes, typically they do that and they don't rely upon your self-representation because they're using that for identification purposes in case you flee.
So they need accuracy in that.
So typically, that's where that is.
And that doesn't surprise me.
Again, when I met Trump, Biggie comes across as a powerful guy, owns a room.
In 6-3, 2-15, that sounds about right.
They've always exaggerated.
They've tried to make him, oh, he's fat because they think he's sensitive to that image.
So that's why the media and the left love to try to present that.
And it's like...
If you're on any camera, the camera will add 30-40 pounds to you.
Your average camera.
Especially if you want it to add that many pounds.
Like the media does.
I've seen the man in person.
It's clear he's in fine shape.
That's been evident for a while.
What's amazing is that people look at you and me, Robert, and we're about the same size on screen, and then people don't realize you're a foot taller than me.
I'm 5 '5 and a half on a good day.
I think I still look like a midget next to the quartering, though.
I thought he was 6 '8".
He looks like an offensive tackle.
I hear someone say, viva, viva, and I look.
First of all, it looks like the quartering.
I met Harmeet Dillon in person, and I couldn't put the face in person to the face online.
No, no.
Jeremy is...
Towers over me.
Towers over me.
Even when he was crouching down when I asked him not to, still towered over me.
Alright, so the mugshot is iconic.
Popularity seems to be gaining.
I mean, now, the craziness that happened down there, I mean, the best fight against it we'll get to in a second is Jeffrey Clark's motion to remove.
But the craziness is the black defendant.
What happened to him?
Robert, so his name, I know his last name is Floyd.
I just remember that because one Floyd, who's an actual criminal who happens to meet an unfortunate end, becomes canonized because he's, you know, you have to have forgiveness and everything.
The other Floyd, who's a black man, who's now being locked away.
He couldn't secure a bond.
And I'll steel man the argument, Robert.
Apparently...
Earlier this year, he shoved an FBI agent who came to serve him with a subpoena, I think.
And I don't know what the rationale is for locking him up and not giving him bond.
He's self-represented because he doesn't want to go into debt to indebt his family to defend against this.
I don't know exactly why he could not negotiate a bond.
They thought he was a flight risk.
More of a flight risk than others, so they're going to lock him up.
What else was there for the justification?
That was it.
It was a ridiculous ruling by a judge who's accustomed to abusing her power.
A white woman.
I mean, I don't play these games all the time.
It's a problem in Fulton County, and it's a problem in a lot of state courts across the country, but it's a state court that's clearly...
Because, I mean, the Eighth Amendment is just getting eviscerated.
And they usually use the Epstein and the Ghislaine Maxwells and the Sam Bankman Freed cases to get people on board because nobody cares about those defendants.
And so they cheer the deprivation of the Eighth Amendment, not realizing it's going to come for them or someone they care about or a case they care about next, like it did for the January 6th cases.
Eighth Amendment is a right against excessive bail.
And it was absolutely absurd of that state court judge to say that somebody who...
Voluntarily came from Virginia.
Before the president.
Before Trump himself, he voluntarily showed up.
Voluntarily comes from another state.
He had not been served as summons.
He had not been served as subpoena.
He was not subject to an arrest.
He had not been extradited.
He, aware of the case, voluntarily came all the way down from another state to appear.
So why is he going to flee?
If he was going to flee, he wouldn't have shown up in the first place.
Robert, it's beyond...
So it's a preposterous ruling by a corrupt hack of a judge because Governor Kemp can't do his job.
Let me just, here, this is Black Voices for Trump, ex-director Harrison Floyd, denied bond in court.
And the judge, we've got Judge Emily K. Richardson, superior court, and I made the tongue-in-cheek joke.
A white judge, he's the only black defendant that I know of, denied bond.
There was two black defendants, but yes, there was only one black male defendant, and he's the only one that doesn't get bailed.
These are the same people crying about purported institutionalized racism, and the same ones screaming about criminal justice reform.
A white judge locking...
So he's still in jail now?
Yeah.
He is.
And I hope maybe he'll get fixed this week.
I know people were raising funds for his defense or for the bail.
What should have been is, you know, $5,000.
There shouldn't have been any bail.
It should have been signature release in all these cases.
These are people that voluntarily appeared, didn't even fight extradition, weren't even arrested, weren't even summonsed or subpoenaed.
Voluntarily appeared.
It's ludicrous that any of them had any bail attended to them.
It's a sign of how excessive bail is.
But where is AOC?
This is, I hate bail and we need to stop bail.
We need to stop cash bail.
See, if people like that wanted credibility for their positions, wanted people to re-examine from the political right or an independent politically whether or not, hey, maybe there are bail problems and the left's not all wrong about that, then what they would do if they had a political IQ over 20 is they would join on these cases.
But of course, AOC is silent because that's Glenn Greenwald's point.
The number one cheerleaders for all the prosecutorial abuse in these cases, for the denial of bail, for the weaponization of the legal system, to put people in prison forever for their First Amendment freedoms, is the left.
It's the authoritarian left has completely taken over and abolished the free speech left.
What's left of it out there is the Bobby Kennedys of the world and that's it.
And it's sad and pitiful.
But it shows where the left is these days.
Well, I'm going to make sure not to swear because I'm going to clip this part and just call AOC an outright hypocrite liar.
Yeah, she's a fraud.
She's a fraud.
She's always been a fraud.
She's always going to be a fraud.
She raised some money for the Texas thing just to make fun of the guy who, what was his name?
Ted Cruz.
She raised some money there only to make a point politically and mock an adversary.
But when it comes to actual criminal justice reform, actual justice.
Now, I'm looking for Harrison Floyd's Give, Send, Go.
I'll see if I can find it.
But it would be funny if it weren't so sad.
It's just a joke.
Now, the person who's the best case to support, you can go to Give, Send, Go, Jeffrey Clark.
Jeff Clark, I think it's at JeffClarkUS on Twitter.
He is the former acting assistant attorney general, assistant attorney general in general, and was considered for acting U.S. attorney, or acting attorney general itself for a period of time, who has been indicted in the Georgia cases solely because he wrote an email to other Justice Department people.
It's the most absurd part of any part of the—in an utterly absurd, asinine indictment, the most ludicrous part is the indictment of Jeffrey Clark.
Now, he has sophisticated counsel, and he has brought a motion to remove to federal court that is pending in federal court.
The motion to stay was denied.
It's an Obama judge, so I don't have a lot of confidence that this judge will do his job, because these Obama judges can't even look out for themselves.
They don't understand.
That greenlighting this means they're next down the road.
They're just oblivious to the fact they're torching the system.
This is what happens when you have judges appointed by a president who didn't grow up in America and doesn't understand America and never did understand America.
That's who Barack Obama is.
That's why his birth certificate issue resonated.
Nothing new with color or race or any of that other stuff.
Because he is foreign.
Because his ideas are motivated by where he grew up outside of the United States.
And we got a lot of judges.
As the New York Post was detailing, the issue I first rose, good to see the other publications picking up on it, they dug in and they confirmed what I said, which is the D.C. judge comes from a bunch of Marxist, communist, hardcore radicals.
I mean, that's the lunatics that we have deciding the future of America now.
So we'll see what this judge does, but Jeffrey Clark is the lawyer to support.
Very good motion to remove.
And he's bringing a motion to dismiss on all kinds of grounds.
He's raising all of the constitutional issues.
So it will be very robust in its presentation.
So at least, and he'll pursue every appeal that needs to be pursued.
So that guarantees this case gets high-end representation by people.
And Clark's not even trying to raise a ton of money.
He's trying to raise $100,000.
So far, he's up to about $50,000.
There's no reason why he shouldn't get to $100,000.
Andrew McCabe raised $650,000 in 24 hours.
If people on the right are serious about how they really want good legal representation, they've got to put their money where their mouth is.
And just to say that I shared both links, and yes, Harrison Floyd was trying to raise $200,000, got to $251,000, assuming it's the correct give, send, go, which I think it is.
Jeff Clark, I shared it now twice.
You have the link.
He's trying to get to $100,000.
He's at $49,000 or $50,000.
So what is this?
That's not all the Trump cases, because we got two other Trump aspects this week.
It came out that a ex-employee had been coerced to testify against Trump and another employee in the classified documents case because the D.C. judges were conspiring to interfere with that defendant's right to counsel.
We talked about it last week.
I think you need to flesh this out again, just for those who might have missed it, but it's also a good reminder.
The prosecution sought to have the defendant's counsel disqualified.
Oh, this is separate.
So that's an ongoing issue.
What happened previously is they previously succeeded in doing it in secret.
So what happened is the chief judge in D.C. brought in one of these employees represented by this lawyer who was being paid for probably by Trump's team.
And the judge said, you need to talk to my friend over here, the lefty federal public defender.
And basically threatened to strip him of his lawyer, of any legal advice.
So he goes over to the commie lefty public defender, who of course tells him, you better flip now and blame everything on Trump and this other employee.
And gets different counsel.
This is called the Star Chamber.
The most offensive provision of the Star Chamber was not that you were denied your right to counsel, it's that they chose your counsel for you.
And that is what the D.C. courts are doing in their ongoing conspiracy to deprive Americans of their civil right to vote.
That whole indictment is confession through projection because it's what the federal judges themselves are complicit in doing.
This is more outrageous violations of constitutional rights that I have ever seen in any case, and the judges are neck deep and swimming in it.
What is even the legal basis to try to disqualify a defendant's counsel of choice?
Technically, it's only supposed to occur when a defendant raises it.
So I've objected to this.
The government's not in a position.
They don't have standing to raise it.
Courts are not supposed to raise this outside of extraordinary circumstances.
I've never heard of it being done in a grand jury context before.
They were so committed to coercing testimony in a certain direction that the judges themselves are interfering and handpicking lawyers for defendants.
Like, if this judge was sincere, go find a...
I mean, this judge knew somebody.
I'm a member of the federal D.C. court system.
Go find someone you know is aligned with Trump politically that's a defense lawyer, right?
If your real concern is conflict of interest.
That wasn't this judge's concern.
The same judges...
Several of them came in to watch Trump get arraigned, which has never been heard of.
The same judges that violated all of his other attorney-client privilege.
The same judges that allowed a D.C. grand jury to even be here in a Florida case.
The same judges that threatened Elon Musk and issued huge fines if he didn't turn over Trump's private DMs.
So these are corrupt judges that if anybody in Congress was doing their job, they would have brought impeachment provisions already.
These are judges conspiring to deprive people of their civil rights and civil liberties.
And by the way, those civil rights laws were written in the first place.
The Civil Rights Act of 1871 and all the rest that they're now citing to go after Trump.
They were designed because state court judges were so corrupt and so weak.
Now it's just extended to some federal court judges.
These judges have no business being on the federal bench.
They've gone a lot further than Samuel Chase did when he got impeached back in the late 1700s, early 1800s.
So this is egregious behavior.
And of course, the Norm Ornsteins of the world are cheering it on.
That corrupt hack, when he's not busy whoring for big corporations so they can employ slave labor around the world, was attacking Professor Turley and wanting George Washington to fire him because Turley pointed out these indictments threaten the First Amendment liberties of every American like they do.
This is how nuts the liberal bench are just pure statist at heart that they think like...
1930s Soviets.
They have the same approach to justice, and they are an imminent danger to the American Republic, but probably no bigger than Looney Ludig, that friend and ally of Lawrence's tribe, whose ideas are now getting so broadly circulated, secretaries of state in New Hampshire, the governor of California, some loony nutjob lawyer in Florida, are trying to implement.
All right, Robert, what's the next topic that we move on to?
Oh, that's it.
That is our next topic.
So this is the gibberish.
Now, if you are a member of VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com, then you've got a sneak peek preview and are already well-informed and above average anyway as to this nutty argument.
And don't take my word for it.
Professor Dershowitz had the exact same view.
He called it a ridiculous, preposterous, insane argument.
But Ludig, that Federalist Society favorite, who to his credit, Mike Davis came out and said he's completely lost his mind.
The guy we've had Mr. Davis on previously in our sidebar is friends with Justice Gorsuch and others.
And it does a lot of very good work and continues to, including on the big tech subject and elsewhere.
But Ludwig was a guy the Federalist Society wanted to put on the U.S. Supreme Court.
And again, this is a guy who said that the President of the United States could just unilaterally decree that you're an enemy combatant, even if you're in the United States, a citizen of the United States, and you're not in a war zone of any kind, and take away all of your constitutional rights and liberties, all first through the Eighth Amendment, lock you up, detain you, torture you, deprive you of every single First Amendment.
This same judge, and he wants, I mean, the bottom line is this is a judge who wants to do that to 75 million Americans.
He wants to do it to all of MAGA because he uses the same language about clear and present danger he used to justify that enemy combatant decision, Jose Padilla.
And he and Tribe circulated that notey notion that the Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment, according to him, requires...
Everybody who has any role in the ballot whatsoever, even if it's some local clerk, to strike Donald Trump's name from the ballot and not allow Americans to vote for him in the name of democracy.
The corrupt hacks that are part of the Sununu political machine in New Hampshire are now thinking about doing it in New Hampshire.
These are Republicans, by the way, including one who got elected running on a pro-Trump ticket and promised Trump to support him.
That's the phonies, fakes, and frauds that riddle the Republican institutional establishment.
Newsom, of course, wants to pass a law to do it because that's Newsom.
He's a nut.
But others are considering it as well.
A lawyer in Florida filed suit.
How he has standing is...
If we're going to say President Trump can't have standing to challenge the election that stole it from him, how is it some whack job lawyer has standing to kick Trump off the ballot before he's even on the ballot?
We'll see what judges say about that.
We'll get to how judges tend to rule on standing a little bit later.
But this argument is absurd.
Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment says senators, House members, electors for the president, and other officers cannot hold office.
So a certain category of people, a certain category of offices that certain people can't hold.
If they had previously sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution, and then after that engaged in insurrection or support or gave aid and comfort thereof.
All right?
So, first of all, this provision does not even apply to the President of the United States, period.
This tells you what a fraud Judge Ludig always was.
Why I hate the Federalist Society types.
This is a fake, oh, Mr. Constitutionalist, and I'm an originalist.
Liar, fraud, fake, phony.
Because it doesn't even apply to the president.
It only applies to electors for the president.
That's number one.
Number two, it doesn't apply to the ballot.
It applies to holding office.
That's about when you get inaugurated, whether you get sworn in or not.
Not whether or not you're on a ballot for people to choose or not.
Problem category number three.
This is a civil war clause.
As Dershowitz pointed out, it's ludicrous to apply it outside of the Civil War.
Why?
Because it contradicts other provisions of the Constitution that says these are the only qualifications for the presidency, and only by impeachment can you remove them from the presidency.
If they planned on overriding that provision, maybe they would have included it in there, or maybe they thought this only applies to the Civil War, this doesn't apply to the presidency.
So it doesn't apply to the ballot access provision at all.
It doesn't apply to the president at all.
It doesn't apply outside of the unique Civil War context.
They've also already issued, it says the only enforcement mechanism is Congress.
Congress has passed no law to enforce this.
In fact, the only thing Congress has passed is pardoning everybody connected to it.
So it has no application there.
This was litigated in the Madison Cawthorn context.
It's been litigated on federal officials in the Madison Cawthorn context, the Marjorie Taylor Greene context, the Paul Gosar context, and all three cases, all three replaced on the ballot.
The only contrary case is a low-level state New Mexico case that the New Mexico Supreme Court refused to rule on substantively for procedural reasons.
And that lefty, whack-job judge cited an 1890s case from a crazy, corrupt Cook County judge, Illinois judge, who was trying to ban labor organizers from being on the ballot because labor organizers were insurrectionists.
And this lefty idiot doesn't even know who he's citing because he's that dumb and that outcome-oriented.
It is a ludicrous claim.
It is an absurd argument.
And it's dangerous.
Because, by the way, people have already tried this in other contexts.
They tried to say Barack Obama didn't fit the qualifications because he wasn't a natural-born citizen because they alleged he was born outside the United States.
They alleged the same thing about John McCain because he was born in Panama.
And the federal courts, state courts, at every single level said that is not for the state to do.
The state cannot take that action into their own hands.
As Dershowitz is pointing out, he goes, By this logic, every Republican anywhere could take Joe Biden off the ballot.
They could do it at the local level, because according to Ludwig and Tribe, any official has an obligation to do it.
Okay.
So everybody that thinks that Biden is a criminal and not qualified to be president for whatever reason can now do it, even in states that are up for grabs, just do it at your local city, do it at your local town, do it at your local county.
This is insane!
But these people haven't even thought through because they assume these rules will never be applied to them.
And that's a very unsafe assumption to have.
But hopefully the courts at some point will step in if this gets utterly insane and put an end to it.
Or we have the end of America.
If you take off the leading candidate for the presidency and won't let Americans vote for him, you no longer have a constitutional government.
You no longer have a constitutional democracy.
America has failed at that point.
Let me ask you another question as to how America could conceivably fail.
You say the amendment only operates within the context of the Civil War.
Some people are saying that they're doing this specifically to provoke a violent response or something January 6th on steroids.
Can one declare America being in a state of civil war to then invoke this?
Dershowitz's point is there's so little clarification of that provision.
That it's obvious that it's limited to the historical context.
It's limited to the people that had already taken an oath to the Constitution and then said, I hereby abandon my oath and join the Confederacy.
Without that historical context, that clause doesn't even make sense.
And that's Dershowitz's point.
He says you can't apply this outside of that context.
Now, of course, substantively, by the way, Trump has not been found guilty of any insurrection or anything else anyway.
So he's not even charged with insurrection.
So they're just saying, we're just going to call him an insurrectionist because he's been indicted on something else?
And of course, Eugene B. Debs, who was actually charged with seditious behavior, which could constitute insurrection, actually convicted of it in the federal system, was still on the ballot everywhere in 1920.
So this is a legally ludicrous and dangerous argument that threatens constitutional liberty.
What Ludig accuses Trump supporters of is what he is, an imminent and clear and present danger to the American constitutional government.
Robert, I remember back in the day, you said, you know, when we talked about it, well, if they remove his name from the ballot, it'll only be in stupid blue states that would never go Republican either.
And now the Overton window is shifting in real time where you got RINO, apparently some RINO government officials who are entertaining the notion.
There's no bottom to this.
Yeah, exactly.
And they don't understand how insane it is.
That they really think they can get away with it is the bottom line.
They are disconnected.
And people that are disconnected are more dangerous than those who are not.
And so, I mean, we'll see an example of that in a case of lesser direct political consequence, but maybe broader employment context, which is...
Here you have one of the biggest news publishers in the world that announced, by the way, we're going to reverse discriminate against everybody.
Robert, it's not reverse discrimination.
It's proactive discrimination so they can meet equity.
I don't even know if it's proportionate representation.
This is Gannett, who owns USA Today and a number of other big outlets, basically saying, internally, externally, quietly, loudly, we're going to have a workforce that is...
Reflective of the demographics of America.
So we're going to proactively make sure that we hire certain races, certain ethnicities, so we can get to 13% black, 17%.
What is Latino now in the States?
17%?
The gain that was going to vary by community.
So whatever the community was in the paper they were at, they had to racially reflect that demographic in that community.
What's so insulting about it is that...
I still bet they screwed Asians, though.
I bet they didn't.
Like, in some community where it was like 25% Asian, they weren't going to hire 25% Asian.
Now, I forget what's going on.
So, who is suing again in this one?
So, editors, journalists, writers, people who have worked there for 30, 40 years.
This is the one that's looking for class action certification.
So, they're alleging reverse discrimination, overt, stated policy.
What is it?
Straight white men need not apply.
Quotas.
Quotas.
And then bonuses to anybody who enforced the quotas.
So, I mean, and a whole bunch of people got laid off.
A whole bunch of people didn't get jobs that could have otherwise got jobs.
And so that's a violation under 43 USC 1981.
It's a classic employment description.
And they have their own words.
I mean, they said they were going to do it, and they did it.
And what I said at the time of the affirmative action decision, that's one of the decisions quoted in this case, said this doesn't end at colleges and admissions.
This applies to everything.
Vendor contracts, government contracts, employment, any kind of preferential benefit at all based on race is now clearly unconstitutional and illegal.
And it's good to see a big media influencer organization like Gannett get called out for it and exposed by it.
We'll see where it goes.
Robert, the...
Speaking of surprising outcomes, we'll discuss briefly, to the earlier Super Chat question, the great benefit we have is that Putin is a master of self-restraint.
We sure can't rely on Uncle Joe Biden.
That's why I don't think we're at risk of imminent nuclear conflict, is we've got to bank on Russia, because we can't bank on this administration.
But Purgosian, the former head of Wagner, Who was reactivating Wagner in Central Africa, so there was some controversy there globally, who purportedly tried to do a march on Moscow for a coup of the military leadership a few months ago.
He was reported officially dead by the Russian government when his plane crashed and everybody aboard died.
It appears that a bomb was placed on board the plane.
And that the bomb took him out.
There were published reports from the Belarusian president that Lukashenko, that he and Putin had both warned Purgosian of very specific threats against his life in a take special protocols.
And Lukashenko gave the impression that Purgosian just blew it off as not a big risk.
So lots of different suspects.
Well, hold on, hold on.
Do we even know that he's definitely dead?
Back in the day, Robert, you said...
Only now.
Well, now in the sense that DNA, the Russian government has declared him dead.
Yes, but now...
The Russian government has said they've done a DNA check and that the DNA comparison, it was from his body that was on the...
And that other Wagner military execs have said it.
Now, it can't completely rule it out because his body was blown to smithereens.
But back in the day, you said if Purgosian survives this coup...
Because we were talking about whether or not the coup was a false flag, whether or not it was legit.
And at the time, you said, if he survives this, you can bet that it was fake.
Now that he's dead, now I'm thinking like a Jean Le Carré novel.
If they were friends, what better way to let your friend live than by faking his death, killing a bunch of your other enemies that you didn't really care about in the first place, and then saying he's dead now, he's like lapping it up, I don't know, with hookers in Moscow.
There's at least a half dozen.
I mean, previously he was ruled dead several years ago in Africa, and then several weeks later came out and said, hello, I'm still here.
So I lay out there's about a half dozen at least possible scenarios and suspects that a lot of people haven't thought of in a hush hush at viva barns law dot locals dot com.
That's where you can get it.
You can go to the content and look up playlist and video and you can see there's like 76 hush-hushes covering a wide range of topics.
What I'll briefly say on it is just that I think the least likely suspect is Putin himself.
The idea, the person that Nikki Haley and others blamed on the Republican stage.
Simply because of the manner.
It's like...
I'm a less cynical view of Putin than most people in the West.
But even those that have a cynical view believe Putin is smart, sophisticated, careful, and a good tactician.
Someone like that, whether you think Putin is not the evil person some people do or you do think he is, he's not going to blow up a plane outside of Moscow with a whole bunch of people on it as his way to get to Bergosia.
Put it simply, he's got far easier and more efficient mechanisms.
To give an example, let's say he wanted to get rid of Pergosian.
Let him go to Africa, where he's been back and forth.
Have his plane blown up and blame the West.
Or blame somebody else that's politically convenient.
I mean, there's a hundred ways to kill the guy different than the way that did it that better serve Putin.
And Putin's definitely not doing it in the middle of the BRICS conference, where Putin is trying to redesign the whole economic system with trading exchanges.
And financial monetization outside the control of the West.
He's not going to blow up Purgosian.
You're in the middle of all that.
So I think the person everybody's telling you is the most likely suspect is actually the least likely suspect.
It's not to rule him out.
It's just to say he's the least likely.
But I go into all the other ones, including a certain one who really blamed Purgosian for many things here in the United States.
You might want to take a look at.
Remember that?
You can look at the hush-hush, enemy of a Barnes law, dot locals, dot com.
Robert, I'm going to watch it.
But did you happen to get into this?
Did you know that Pergosian was Jewish?
I did not know that.
I'm telling you this.
And the Jewish outlets, they don't want to say it's Jewish, so they say Jewish ancestry.
The guy was Jewish.
Totally.
There's a transition to jump ahead to a topic.
Religious adoption in Tennessee.
Oh, you're gonna have to field this one for me.
This is a Jewish family that was denied the right to adopt a family out of Florida, I think.
Not a family, a kid out of Florida because the agency had Christian values or Christian faith and they made any potential adoptive parents a statement of adherence to the faith and they didn't do it and so they were denied the right to adopt.
Now take it from there because that's about all I can do.
So it's a unique case in Tennessee, though the broader issues will be important.
And unique because in Tennessee you have standing to bring claims you don't elsewhere.
So what happened is the lower court dismissed on standing grounds because what they said is, hey, look, you're able to ultimately, I mean, they're suing the state.
The state didn't do it.
A private agency did it.
And ultimately when you went to the state, you're able to adopt the person you wanted to adopt.
So no harm.
And the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed.
Also, a bunch of people had sued in their capacity as taxpayers.
Normally, you can't sue just because you're a taxpayer.
Tennessee is one of the rare states where sometimes you can't.
So the first thing the court did, and I think this is correct, is that if there's a law that disfavors you, that impacts you at any level, or discriminates against you, or that motivates a third party to do so, Or that the third party in any way helps them profit from doing so.
You have standing to sue.
It's a commonly misunderstood standing.
I think standing, of course, I've said many times is complete garbage.
I was so aggressive with it.
Uncivil law.
Kind of got upset with my rant.
But that's another story for another day.
I liked his righteous rant.
But I think he took it down because it was a little excessive, I guess.
So I don't believe in standing limitations, period.
But the Tennessee Court of Appeals at least recognized that within the confines of those standing doctrines, this family was, there was a stigma attached because they said if you don't have these beliefs, you shouldn't have the same access to services as everybody else.
And they were negatively impacted.
They were denied the ability to adopt the person they wanted to adopt.
Clearly, even if you consider them a third party, they were motivated by and profited from their relationship with the state because of it.
But the other thing is, taxpayers have standing in Tennessee when funds are being used illegally, and you gave the state an opportunity to fix it, and they didn't.
Tennessee's great in this regard.
You can really go after corrupt politicians.
It's an underutilized provision.
And they established that they had standing as taxpayers to sue as well.
So I think it's a good decision in that regard.
What I'm less confident in is the broader, is how to deal with this situation of a lot of the adoption agencies are private religious agencies, and they're taking money from the state and the feds.
How to incorporate them when, I mean, a lot of them are in the adoption business to promote certain religious beliefs.
This includes Orthodox Jewish adoption agencies, Islamic agencies.
I think the problem here was there wasn't available access to anybody else except them for this family.
That's where Tennessee screwed up.
But I'm not overly comfortable with the idea of banning adoption agencies merely upon receipt of funds because what will happen is there will be people that will go out of the adoption business.
And a lot of them are a lot better than the foster parent system in the States.
So I want to promote that system.
And a lot of them do it for their religious beliefs.
And so I think there's got to be some median compromise reached better than where we're currently at.
All right.
Excellent.
How many do we have left before we go to Locals Exclusive?
Yeah, I think we'll probably cover one more here, and then we'll go over to vivobarneslaw.locals.com, where if you tip at least five bucks, we'll be answering your tip tonight.
And by the way, good news.
Every time I refresh Jeff Clark's Give, Send, Go.
It's going up.
So it's just over $50,000 now.
It was at $49,000 a moment ago.
Yeah, it was under $40,000 when we first started promoting it, so that's good to hear.
We'll cover the Hawaii fire case, and then we'll say the homelessness case, the voting rights case, the spirit bag fees case, and the incredibly named Christmas case from Tennessee and the tipped questions for the board.
Okay, now I'm gonna give everyone the link to locals here.
And Robert, before you get into the Hawaii case, although lawsuits are one thing, people need to go to jail for what happened there.
Let me just do this here real quick.
Okay, fine.
Silent in Georgia.
I wonder how entertaining or informative an interview with Vinay Prasad MDPH would be for discussion on the Jibby Jab.
Plus, watch Blue Beetle.
Susan Sarandon's villain looks like Pelosi on purpose.
Left cross devil's advocate.
How do you know the people were cheering him and not cheering him being indicted?
That's Fulton County.
Because they're waving at him and wanting to wave back, too.
I think so, too.
I don't think that's much of the interpretation there.
I got my coffee mug, says Dapper Dave.
Van Halo.
I heard Ruby Freeman was in the process of spilling the beans about Fulton County before she changed her tune when the lawyers got involved.
Is that true, Robert?
Do you know anything about that?
I do not.
I will screen grab that, however, and look into it.
Jack Flack.
Torching the system is the goal, Robert.
Oya says the American left is very good at identifying social problems, seemingly incapable of resolving them, and almost exclusively responsible for causing them.
That has the three tri...
You know, that's the perfect drafting system that you just did.
Dapper Dave says, preach.
Let's go, Brandon.
Yorugua, 1969.
Silent in Georgia.
Viva, do you know who Marion Barry is?
Yeah, the crack-smoking mayor.
Can Barnes explain how this could have any relation to relate to in this election?
Marion Barry was the one who got actually framed into smoking crack.
Entrapped, yep.
Entrapped, sorry, not framed.
Entrapped.
What relation might this have to the current election?
Well, I mean, just the same corrupt D.C. court system.
I remember growing up.
The idea that there could have been a secondary level to the Marion Barry story when I was a kid hearing that.
Oh, I know.
Ruby Freeman, they allege that people tried to get her to admit that she did some wrong things during the election.
That's the only reference I know to Ruby Freeman in the Georgia case.
That's an allegation.
I don't know what the backstory is.
Randy Edwards says, reverse discrimination implies you're discriminated against somebody and are now being retaliated against.
It's social justice.
Well, it's really just race discrimination.
It's just called reverse discrimination because it's against the majority population rather than minority population.
Hawaii, Robert.
What are the latest on the lawsuits?
I mean, we don't have much more news right now other than we still don't have a confirmation on the number of people dead, the number of children dead.
Robert, someone actually raised an interesting point.
A thousand people missing, give or take.
I mean, that's what I think it was.
Assume that even one-tenth of them are children, which would be a reasonable expectation.
Someone said, well, why aren't their parents lining the streets, asking, screaming, crying for where their kids are?
And it raised a very scary prospect to me that I didn't understand.
Are there parents who are asking for the whereabouts of their children?
Are there like missing?
Well, I mean, I think, I mean, at least in some of these cases, the parents are dead.
And what it is, they don't know if the kids are still alive or not.
And they haven't purported the kids as being dead.
So that's...
And there's always concern.
I mean, in Haiti, after the earthquakes, there was massive efforts to...
Kidnap kids for human trafficking rings.
The not yet doom-pilled part of me wants to say it's America, that wouldn't happen as easily in America.
But then, Robert, I actually did Google children sex trafficking in Hawaii, and there was a recent bust within the year, and a number of the culprits were actually from Lahaina.
Sadly, you can't rule it out.
Criminals look for opportunity.
And kids in the middle of tragedy with their parents killed present opportunity for criminals.
So it's just the sad reality of it.
But at least some people are going to start to face consequences because the lawsuits continue to pile up against the utility, the big public utility company that most likely facilitated this.
That's Hawaii Electric, major stakeholders, BlackRock and Vanguard.
Robert, it's a no-brainer.
Yeah, they kept the lines energized, even though they were on notice beforehand that keeping them energized would increase the risk of fire spreading, even though they were on notice for years in advance that they needed to have a policy in place so that they shut down the power lines whenever there was a high risk of fire or high wind alert risk.
And so they're being sued for strict liability, negligence, gross negligence.
That's the old, you know, remember that first year of law school, duty, breach, cause, injury analysis.
Did the utility company have a duty to not burn everybody down?
Yes.
Did they breach that duty?
Yes.
They didn't turn it off when they should have.
Did it cause injury?
Yes, because the allegations are most of the fire would not have had the impact it did.
But for the failures of the utility company.
And did it cause injury?
Yeah, about $5 billion worth just from a property perspective, not including the lives lost.
They're also being sued under public nuisance theory and trespass theory on the grounds that they effectively, that they caused the fire and the fire invaded people's land.
And thus was a public nuisance.
So the, but they're going to, those suits are only going to accumulate.
There's some sophisticated counsel involved.
They point out why Lahaina might have been a target of real estate poachers and others.
That it was the first capital of the Hawaiian kingdom that had all this history with it.
It has beautiful beaches.
It had great snorkeling.
It was something that a developer would love to get their hands on.
And it had the holdouts.
Like, I forget what movie it was which described in New York City why you had skyscrapers in these little corner buildings that only went up three stories because you had these old...
John Cougar Mellencamp, Little Pink Houses for you and me.
Yeah, so he's saying there's a reason there were holdouts and they wanted that real estate.
And now some people could, you know...
And if people want to take a look at, you know, find out what the Tulsa race riots were really all about, look up the Hush Hush.
Because it might not be what you think it was.
I'm going to pull this up, Robert.
I'm not going to go into the article because it's just nine arrested in child sex undercover operation.
And if we just go to Lahaina, and a number of them were from Lahaina.
It's just like, I really hate to think as cynically as I've now grown accustomed to.
Well, yeah, you can't rule it out.
I mean, it's the nature of criminalities.
They look for opportunity.
But we'll be talking about rights of the homeless, voting rights, spirit, getting caught.
Charging illicit bag fees, the Christmas case, and answering any $5 tip or more over at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Tomorrow, I'll be live with George Gammon on Rebel Capitalist Live.
I'll also be live with Donald Trump Jr. tomorrow.
So they'll be up and rolling both of those.
And remember, if you want to support food freedom in America, you can look at the pinned tweet at barnes underscore law.
Or go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
It's, I think, the third from the top pinned post.
Gives you a link where you can get beautiful, homemade, specially designed Blackberry jam straight from Amos Miller by supporting a fundraiser for him and Free America Law Center.
What time are you live, respectively, tomorrow?
So I'm not sure when Trump Jr. goes live.
I know that I'm live with George Gammon at 3 o 'clock Eastern, I believe.
Okay, perfect.
And, okay, let's go here.
I've sent the link one more time out here, and it looks like we've got a new monthly member on Rumble, kcampbell48.
Okay, so what's going to happen now?
I'm going to end the stream on Rumble.
Everyone come over to Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
All of this will go up on YouTube in its entirety.
Audio version on podcast, Podbean, it's Viva, Barnes, Law for the People.
And then snips and clips are going to come, but snip and clip and share around.
We're going to end right now on...
Rumble.
So come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com in 5, 4, 3, that's it.
Two seconds ahead of schedule.
Okay, Robert, let me read a couple of the rants and then, not the rants, the locals tips here.