Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 12, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:04:31

Ep. 186: Trump Ballot Ruling; N.Y. Good Samaritan Charged; L.A. Crime AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Check in with Dr. Mandy Cohen from CDC.
	Gotta stop it.
	Sorry, I was going to let this play.
	Check in with Dr. Mandy Cohen, for those of you who are listening, on podcast.
	Dr. Mandy Cohen, for those of you who are listening, on podcast.
	Oh my.
	Hi everyone, Dr. Mandy Cohen from CDC.
	And we are only two weeks away from Thanksgiving.
	And I want to remind you to take steps right now to protect you and your family from COVID, flu, and RSV before the holidays.
	I know many folks are thinking, well, I've had COVID or I've already been vaccinated.
	But this new COVID vaccine is updated to match the changes in the virus and restore protection that does decrease over time.
	It's similar to the flu shot you get every year.
	The updated COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for everyone six months and older.
	And it's free for everyone, either through your insurance or through a CDC vaccine program.
	You heard right.
	Six months and older.
	They're available at pharmacies and health centers around the country.
	These vaccines are safe.
	They've been through extensive safety review through both CDC and FDA independent committees, academic groups, and more.
	If you have concerns, please talk to your doctor or nurse practitioner.
	So let's all make sure to have a happy and healthy Thanksgiving.
	Now's the time to get your shots to better protect you from serious illness from these viruses.
	Make your plan to get your COVID and flu shot today.
	Be well.
	Be well.
	I'm going to play that.
	One more time.
	I gotta tell you something.
	Stop, stop, stop.
	It's enraging.
	It's enraging.
	And I observe things that I say maybe I should not be observing, but I know that if I'm observing them, chances are other people as well.
	We're going to play through this step by step.
	And just for the YouTube overlords, I'm not giving any medical advice.
	It's an amazing thing.
	I don't deem doctors' professional opinions to be misinformation.
	In the absence of a medical degree, YouTube, the non-licensed medical practitioners practicing medicine.
	I'm just going to pay attention to the verbiage of this CDC broadcast.
	Check in with Dr. Cohen.
	Hi, everyone.
	Dr. Mandy Cohen from CDC.
	And we are only two weeks away from Thanksgiving.
	And I want to remind you to take steps right now to protect you and your family from COVID, flu, and RSV before the holidays.
	Hypothetically, even assuming everything worked as planned, two weeks out, would that be enough time to protect you for Thanksgiving?
	How does it protect you for Thanksgiving, ma 'am, doctor, if you can still contract, which is now indisputable fact?
	How does it protect you?
	By minimizing the risk of severe COVID?
	I know many folks are thinking, well, I've had COVID or I've already been vaccinated.
	But this new COVID vaccine is updated to match the changes in the virus and restore protection that does decrease over time.
	Which variation?
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Mutation.
	does this updated COVID shot apply to?
	Which one is it?
	Is it the current strain or is it the two strains?
	I don't know.
	It's similar to the flu shot you get every year.
	The updated COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for everyone six months and older.
	Monsters.
	How can they recommend?
	How can anybody do this?
	You heard of Hochul?
	Out of New York, say this?
	I know it sounds young.
	Oh, you're damn right, Hochul, it sounds young.
	And it's free for everyone.
	Oh, free.
	It's free.
	You know what they say, if the product is free, you're the product.
	Either through your insurance or through a CDC vaccine program.
	Look out, she looks so nice and sweet.
	She wouldn't possibly be, like, you know, up...
	I don't want to impute negative intentions.
	But she looks so sweet.
	She's a great spokesperson.
	She looks naive, a little bumbly, a little cutesy.
	You wouldn't think that this person would be giving you potentially questionable professional medical advice, selling out that Pfizer pharma shot there because Pfizer's bottom line is not looking so good this year.
	It's funny what happens after the panic quells off and then people start actually seeing some data.
	All of a sudden, the product is not so good anymore.
	Pfizer starts not making the billions that it made in 2021.
	They're available at pharmacies and health centers around the country.
	These vaccines are safe.
	Oh, oh, oh, that's interesting.
	Once upon a time, it was safe and effective.
	These vaccines are safe.
	These vaccines are safe.
	I'm missing a word there.
	I'm missing a word that I thought I remember hearing for the last two years.
	Oh, it went from safe and effective to safe with an asterisk.
	Been through extensive safety review through both CDC and FDA independent committees.
	And they just wanted 75 years, you know, Pfizer, to supply that data.
	Academic groups and more.
	If you have concerns, please talk to your doctor or nurse.
	I'm done with this.
	And you know what drives me absolutely crazy?
	And it drives me crazy that I have to notice this.
	The chai necklace focused prominently in between her cleavage on this video.
	Prominently.
	You can't miss it.
	You can't miss it.
	It's like rubbing it in your face.
	As if to say, well, we can't criticize her now because any criticism of Dr. Mandy Cohen is going to be chalked up to anti-Semitism now.
	Any criticism of Albert Bourla is going to be chalked up to anti-Semitism.
	What better way to shield yourself from criticism?
	Flaunt your identity politics for the world to see.
	You know, it's like the people who, as a Christian, and then proceed to, you know, do certain things.
	Flaunting it in your face so that they can shield themselves from the obvious criticism.
	And my goodness.
	For the product that Mandy is promoting on the people right now.
	This does damage.
	This does damage that is irreparable and that is indescribable.
	I'm sorry I have to notice it, but my goodness, if I notice it, chances are other people notice it as well.
	Just sitting right there.
	So nice.
	While we're selling you a product, it's free though, pushing a product on six months old and up, despite all indications that something is rotten in Denmark.
	Excess deaths.
	It's amazing that excess deaths are greater after the shman shmandric than during.
	It's amazing.
	Keep pushing this crap.
	So let's all make sure to have a happy and healthy Thanksgiving.
	Now's the time to get your shots to better protect you from serious illness from these viruses.
	Of course, of course.
	Make your plan to get your COVID and flu shots today.
	She's doing the Bill Clinton.
	She's doing the Bill Clinton thing with her thumb.
	A little pointing out here.
	Where is it?
	Where is it there?
	I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
	This makes me angry and it makes me sick.
	Oh yeah, and by the way, if you get injured, tough shit.
	Can't sue anybody.
	They've been immunized.
	The product is so safe and so effective, they would only bring it to market if they were immunized from all liability.
	Serenity now.
	Lord, give me the strength and the wisdom.
	Give me the courage to change the things I can.
	The...
	Wisdom to...
	Gosh darn it, I forget what it is.
	And the wisdom to tell the difference between that which I can change and that which I can't.
	Horrendous.
	Horrendous.
	And everybody knows, including her, what she's doing by focusing that chai, front and center, right between her cleavage, prominently.
	Everybody's going to see it.
	And then they're going to say, oh my goodness, the backlash that I'm getting, it's only because I'm Jewish.
	No, you could have taken that off for your video to push that stuff on people.
	You could have taken it off.
	You're not giving a religious speech.
	You're not giving a sermon.
	It has no business there any more than a cross prominent.
	And if there were a cross on there and someone were doing something that you think is sinful, my goodness, you would juxtapose the purported faith with what I would argue is the sinful conduct.
	Oh, okay.
	Now, hold on.
	Before I get into the Super Chats, let me just make sure that we are live everywhere.
	We're live on Rumble.
	Are we live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com?
	We're live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Okay, and I feel guilty.
	I feel guilty making that observation.
	And I'll get accused of everything.
	I was telling someone, you get accused of being a Zionist, an anti-Semite, a left-wing snowflake, a far-right extremist.
	I get accused of all of it in any given day.
	It's wonderful.
	And it's not because I'm sitting on a fence, people.
	It's like, I'm not walking in the middle of the highway getting hit by traffic from both sides.
	I think I'm just speaking truth.
	Not my truth.
	The truth.
	Get accused of everything under the sun.
	Let me get some super chats, rumble ads.
	Oh, the standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice, no election fortification advice, no legal advice, but I will call out the bullshit when I see it.
	I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I swore twice tonight.
	I swore twice and I haven't even had any of the Uncle Val's botanical gin, which I'm going to have later on.
	Oh no!
	Where's my mug?
	The only reason I have that here is because I wanted to show my mug, the Viva Fry merch.
	Okay.
	Cheryl Gagey.
	First Anthony Weiner, then Geraldo Rivera, now Judge Edgerton.
	Well, as we're going to see tonight, you don't even have to post the nude selfies in order for someone to post nude selfies because you can use AI now to generate fake nudies of people.
	Just waiting for Viva nudes to be on the internet.
	Big Pharma.
	Thou doth protest too much, says Jeremiah underscore Dick Fitzwill.
	sniff
	Yes, I don't know.
	But by the way, I just keep pushing it.
	It's like that metaphor from the movie on the Rwandan genocide of the children's soldiers.
	The children's soldiers kill the first victim.
	And then they continue to kill more and more.
	And it's not because it means less and less to them to kill somebody.
	It's because they wanted to.
	They want to dull the horrors of what they've done.
	And they think by killing more, it's going to somehow dilute the horror of what they've done.
	This is where we're at with the Jibby Jab, is my personal belief.
	Oh, USMC.
	So that's United States Marine Corps.
	Burroughs.
	No election fornication advice.
	No legal advice.
	No medical advice.
	Superchat 30%.
	Rumble 20%.
	Better for creator.
	Keep up the good work, gents.
	Sir, thank you very much.
	And to the extent it was Veterans Day yesterday, thank every veteran out there for their service.
	Even if I will wildly disagree with their current politics.
	There was that one where I got into a fight with...
	Duckworth?
	I know her name as Duckworth.
	I'm not trying to be mean.
	It was the Duckworth who...
	Iraq-wounded veteran pushing the war in Ukraine.
	And I say, oh, pushing the war in Ukraine.
	Send your kids.
	Don't be a coward.
	Send your kids to the war.
	And then people are like, she's a veteran.
	Doesn't change the perspective on the current disagreement on politics.
	But yes.
	And one might want to learn for having served in wars that were built on lies.
	One would think one would learn about that.
	That said...
	No, but.
	Thank every veteran.
	Thank you for your service.
	And I hope everyone had a meaningful Veterans Day.
	I don't think it's supposed to be happy.
	It's supposed to be meaningful.
	Shouldn't flu shots be mandatory for public good?
	I hope.
	Not a band account.
	I hope that's sort of a joke.
	But Pasha Moyer, this doctor seems like such a liar.
	Now I'm not even sure if we are actually about two weeks away from Thanksgiving, like she said.
	Tony Savage, what's the difference between a chickpea and a garbanzo bean?
	I've never had a garbanzo bean on my face.
	Okay, that's good.
	Thank you.
	Does that mean the CDC is stating SV40 is safe?
	I don't know what that means.
	And one more.
	I'll answer all locals' questions $2.99 to $4.99 plus legal medical advice, Tony Savage.
	All right.
	Barnes is coming sooner than later.
	But before he gets here, look, we're going to talk about that.
	We're going to talk about a number of stuff.
	Barnes is going to go through the list.
	What I wanted to talk about was one before.
	It was going to segue into it, but to the extent we have a few minutes now and I've got a ton of stuff on the back burner.
	I've got my bookmarks for tomorrow's show.
	Now, you know, let's just go with one more that's going to irritate everybody.
	I hear a dog scratching at the door.
	I think people have gotten fed up with Greta Thunberg's garbage.
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this.
	People are fed up.
	What does it say?
	I'm fed up with your SHIT?
	I'll stop sorry now.
	This is Greta Thunberg at...
	I don't know what it is.
	It says...
	Oh, I don't know what that means.
	It's not a language I speak.
	Listen to this.
	We have not been listening.
	The people in power have not been listening.
	I have come here for a climate demonstration, not a political view.
	I mean...
	This guy looks like he's had enough, but thankfully not the way that that guy, the American in Panama, had had enough.
	This guy's...
	I came here for a climate stuff.
	Can you not infuse your ignorant politics in it?
	And then listen to this.
	That's not even the kicker.
	Calm down.
	Calm down.
	Calm down, old man.
	The 18-year-old girl who knows nothing from nothing is talking.
	Now, what was I saying?
	Calm down!
	Calm down!
	Oh, now I come back to saying something about that I know nothing about.
	Listen to this, listen to this.
	No climate justice on occupied land.
	No climate justice on occupied land.
	We have not been listening.
	No climate justice on occupied land.
	It's a level of stupid that is beyond words.
	It's a level of disgusting opportunism.
	People talk about grift and I don't use the word grifter very often.
	I believe I've called Greta Thunberg a grifter.
	No climate crisis on occupied land can you think of a more callous, shameless grift than to co-opt the suffering of innocent Palestinians with your climate crisis agenda.
	A lot of people...
	Set aside whatever you think about the current flare-up of violence in the Middle East.
	A lot of people say, where were all of these people during the Syrian massacres?
	Where were all these people during the Libyan massacre?
	Where were all these people when actual slavery is currently going on in Libya after another successful U.S. intervention in foreign policy?
	Where were all these people then?
	The answer is...
	99% of them were not saying a bloody thing.
	There were no protests in London.
	There were no protests in Montreal.
	There were no protests in New York.
	They were not saying a bloody thing because they don't know a damn thing.
	And you know what the reality is?
	They don't know a damn thing about the conflict in the Middle East either.
	It might be a little bit easier to understand because you're seeing more footage of it.
	And they think they can separate this into a clear dichotomy.
	They were silent on all of the other crises and international...
	Disasters, slaughters, because they didn't care.
	They had no idea it was going on, is the degree to which they don't care.
	And they had no opinion of it.
	Why do people care or purport to care or jumping on the bandwagon right now during this conflict?
	Because they co-opt the suffering of innocent Palestinians for their own politics.
	Whether that politics is anti-Israel, whether or not that politics is BLM, whether or not that politics is climate crisis.
	Piggyback off the suffering of innocent people just because it's the...
	It's the cool one to jump on the bandwagon.
	People know jack squat, the last cool one to jump on and pretend you were an expert in Eastern European political geopolitics.
	Ukraine, Russia.
	No one even heard about it.
	No one knew what happened in 2014.
	No one has a damn idea what's going on there.
	But it became the social media craze.
	Everyone became an expert.
	Now, it's Israel-Palestine.
	The third uprising in my life.
	There were the two intifadas in like 90-something, 2002.
	These cycles of violence come.
	Same way plays out every single time.
	People only care and people pretend to care so they can leech off of the suffering of innocent Palestinians for the no climate crisis on occupied land.
	Disgusting!
	No other word for it.
	Oh, but at least some people are starting to get a little fed up with her crap.
	A girl who knows nothing about anything.
	I don't even know that she graduated from high school yet because she's been on strike for the last three years, four years, five years.
	Who the hell knows?
	When was How Dare You?
	Been on strike, knows nothing, and yet has the most radical opinions on the most complex scientific matters and political matters.
	Okay, before we get into the next story.
	Here's a good low-calorie drink I invented that goes nicely with floral and boreal gins.
	One-third gin, one-third pure cranberry juice, one-third zero-sugar monster energy drink.
	That would be kick-ass.
	DTQC.
	Okay.
	Okay, now, before we get into it, we'll see where Barnes is.
	I did send him a link.
	He's got the link.
	Okay.
	One of the subjects we're going to talk about tonight is the New York...
	What do they call him?
	He's a vigilante or he's a good Samaritan.
	Just depends on which side of the political spectrum you're on on this.
	The New York guy who pulled a gun fired a couple of warning shots to scare off a person who was mugging, a homeless person who was mugging a woman in the metro.
	Remember, intervene like Daniel Penny and if the guy dies, you get charged with murder.
	Don't intervene and who was it that just got stabbed to death?
	I mean, it's just, you know, it's arrested if you do.
	Dead if you don't.
	Out of California, there was one that I saw on...
	I saw it on Dan Bongino, and he was saying this is why everybody needs to know how to use a firearm, know how to protect yourself, and it was this guy who pulled his concealed carry to fight off home intruders in L.A. And here, we'll play it.
	This is the best I could find, so here, let's just do this here.
	Here we go, this is it.
	We'll see if this guy gets charged.
	I mean, but it's the video that I want to show you, because when Bongino played, he says, look at this, and I watched it, and I said, it almost looks choreographed.
	Not saying it is, I'm just saying, like, I'm so cynical right now.
	Well, we'll get there in a second.
	What is this?
	The homeowner pulls out his gun to defend himself, firing shots at the two intruders, quickly entering a shootout.
	I guess they decided to try to come at me and come in the house, but I have a five-month-old baby and a wife, nanny in the house, and that wasn't going to happen.
	There was nothing in my house that was worth dying for, but I was willing to die for my family.
	The shootout happened Saturday night around 7.30.
	The homeowner walks to the front door, grabbing for his keys.
	CCTV, perfect framing.
	One intruder runs up to the front door.
	The mid-city man throws his tee, pulls out his gun, and starts shooting.
	I didn't know why I felt someone run up behind me, Anyways, so I said on the one hand it looks choreographed, but that's what practice would be.
	Anyone who is trained, it is choreographed because you've practiced it over and over and over again.
	But I've gotten so bloody cynical in my young age, I came across an article where I'm starting to think, if this turns out, if this is going to turn out, who the hell knows what's going to turn out to be?
	A, not a hoax, but potentially a hoax, or B, is this guy going to end up getting charged by the corrupt city officials who don't prosecute crime?
	But I saw this article, and is it ABC?
	Okay, this is the article on the subject.
	A 43-year-old man has been...
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	That's the wrong one.
	That's the other one.
	Get that out of here.
	Viva, get your notes together.
	Man charged.
	No, that's not it.
	Woman rescued.
	Decision on 14th Amendment.
	Oh, here we go.
	Armed homeowner.
	Miss Guzzi.
	Yes, I had to go to Fox, so in order to use Fox, I went to archive.
	Armed homeowner who defended home in shootout unloads on liberal politicians.
	Not going to care.
	I read this article, and then I started getting a little more suspicious.
	Like, my goodness, if this turns out to be a choreographed, rehearsed, staged type thing, Maybe done for a good reason to raise awareness of rising crime in California.
	I'm cynical, but then I read this article.
	Listen to this.
	Okay.
	Concealed carry.
	We're going to go through it really quickly.
	Every single person I know has gotten stuck up, this guy says.
	LA entrepreneur Vince Ricci told Fox News.
	It's not normal.
	Ricci said he was returning to his gated Los Angeles home Saturday evening after hitting the gym when the armed men jumped his fence.
	Out of nowhere, boom, I had a gun to my back.
	And there was another guy running at me at the same time.
	I couldn't really make out what he was saying.
	Okay, fine.
	The attempted home invasion unfolded just before 7.30 p.m. when Ricci's wife were in the home with their five-month-old daughter.
	Security fact captured the thing.
	Los Angeles entrepreneurs said he was leisurely walking to his front door while listening to an audiobook that captivated his attention when he noticed men approaching him.
	The video shows Ricci holding a cup of hot tea, digging out his keys from his pocket when a man wearing a hoodie, aiming a gun, ran up to the homeowner.
	Ricci, who noted his tea was too hot to drink from at the time, is seen walloping the man in the face with a beverage before pulling his own firearm.
	It was burning my hand, and I couldn't wait to go into the house and put it down.
	I effing slammed it into his face, the tea.
	Ricci, he's a concealed carry, grabbed his gun.
	This is where I started.
	I'm not John Wick, but I can handle myself well.
	As I went to grab the gun, he turned, and he's holding my sleeve, I think so I wouldn't hit him.
	And when I get the gun, I shook him off.
	He backed up and went to turn around.
	I charged at him.
	Okay.
	This is where.
	This is where.
	The other suspect, however, was pulling out his own firearm and squared off for a gunfight.
	At that point, I knew I was getting shot by the other guy.
	Bongino referred to it as a fatal funnel.
	When you're in a narrow corridor, he said bullets ride walls.
	They get stuck.
	You know, he said you're basically stuck in a corridor and nowhere to go.
	Okay, but this is it.
	This is it.
	Listen to this.
	I just want to do this again.
	Shot, yada, yada.
	And this kid was just turning around, pointed, okay, let's skip through this.
	A different view.
	The one kid shot at me.
	Here we are.
	The other kid shot twice, and then after that, they hopped over the fence.
	Ricci said his home has had previously been targeted by criminals.
	Burglars broke in.
	Okay.
	He said a group of criminals have been targeting homes in the neighborhood, driving around in a charger with no license plate.
	Fine.
	The owner said that if it was not for his gun, they could have easily been killed.
	It saved our lives.
	He said he speculated that without the gun they would have been in bigger trouble.
	He said living in a liberal city some might discredit to crucify the gun owners.
	I know I didn't do anything wrong because I had two chances I could have shot them both in the back.
	This is where I started getting suspicious.
	I know I didn't do anything wrong because I had two chances I could have shot them both in the back.
	I chose not to but in the video it looks like oh they're running away.
	They weren't running they were firing back at me.
	Okay, so he's getting fired back at and then chooses not to shoot these people who are firing back at him.
	Fine.
	I've just gotten too cynical in my old age.
	It was the last part here.
	This is where I was like, okay.
	Gascon is screwing the cops so much he's not going to take up the case either way.
	Even if they do find these kids, Gascon's not going to care that they were shooting at some white guy.
	Ricci is originally from the Bronx and he said the repeated crimes he has had to endure in L.A. has forced him to reconsider staying in the city, even the state.
	I came here for a better life.
	Here we go.
	The last line.
	This is not normal.
	It isn't worth it.
	I'd rather just go back to living in an apartment building in the Bronx.
	This would never happen there.
	Dude, I think we might have different impressions of the Bronx.
	I'm getting very cynical.
	Video is incredible and shows you what being prepared, trained, and also it shows you that you should have a situational awareness at all times.
	Flipside, man.
	If it turns out that the DA Gascon investigates him and that this was something of a staged thing for a viral video, who the hell knows?
	Oh my goodness, that would be...
	That would be one hell of a twist.
	Okay, Barnes is in the backdrop.
	Sir, are you ready to go?
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	All right, now, you might not be in the good mic, actually.
	Say that again?
	Good, good.
	Oh, okay, you are.
	Okay.
	Okay, Robert.
	Holy cows.
	What do we have on the menu for tonight?
	Oh, sorry.
	What's over your shoulder?
	Yes, you have a cold.
	Yes, yes, indeed.
	The book is called Reptile.
	There's a movie on Netflix that's not bad with a similar name, but the book is written by some people who help trial lawyers present to juries, and their point is that the reptile part of the brain is often what really controls jury verdicts.
	And that it's important to understand that in order to be able to communicate effectively in how you narrate a story, as was presented very effectively this week in the Taking Care of Maya verdict, that I only found out about from talking to Megan Fox.
	And we'll be talking about her case that got a good resolution as well against the Wauwatosa School Board.
	And then we have the Google trial, which is continuing to progress.
	That big antitrust case that Matt Stoller and others are really doing a good job breaking it down on his substack called Big.
	The Good Samaritan case out of New York.
	The Trump ballot case out of Minnesota.
	The De Niro assistant verdict in New York.
	Interesting little spin on that.
	Steve Bannon's appeal before the D.C. Circuit.
	Extradition concerning a U.S. soldier in Ukraine.
	The Young Thug Trial and the admissibility of rap lyrics, in that case.
	AI, two different contexts.
	One, AI Software.
	Is AI basically stealing software code?
	And AI in schools, as a kid figured out how to use it effectively as a teenager.
	He doesn't have to use his imagination anymore.
	He can use AI to figure out what girls look like.
	Some parents not too happy about that.
	And then the Michigan football lawsuit.
	All right, now I figure we have to at least, we'll do the Trump stuff, at least the latest updates on YouTube, and then we'll go over to Rumble, even if that takes one of our subjects out of order.
	Oh, sure.
	Okay.
	Robert, did you see, I don't know if you saw Friday, I had Marco Polo, Garrett Ziegler on from Marco Polo, talking about the anger on nudies, which I guess are not really relevant.
	Stefanik.
	Filed a formal complaint against Judge Engeron in New York.
	I'll pull up the document tomorrow, but it looks like at least she's doing it as a citizen and not as a congresswoman.
	The case in Engeron, it's following its course.
	It's a load of crap.
	They're going to have the defense presented case next week.
	Do you have any observations on what we've witnessed last week in New York?
	I mean, nothing has developed that changed from my original take that this was a purely political case that would not be brought and has no precedent.
	They have someone who caused no harm to anybody that they're trying to bankrupt based on their interpretation is different than his interpretation of the value of his assets.
	I mean, at the worst case scenario...
	They're claiming Donald Trump got one over and got a good deal from the biggest insurance companies and Wall Street banks in the world.
	How is that even a crime or a bad act is ridiculous.
	And quite frankly, that claim is preposterous.
	They're very good.
	Those Wall Street banks and big insurance companies are very good at defending their own interests.
	And none of them have supported this.
	I mean, they have no victim at all.
	It's purely a political witch hunt with a political prosecutor who got elected saying she would go after Trump.
	And a judge whose bias was further exposed.
	Turns out his wife is sharing anti-Trump memes.
	And it turns out the judge is a bit of a weirdo.
	And he's obsessed with, in terms of posting, you know, half-naked photos of himself to his classmates.
	After he's done posting his good articles about how mean he's been to Eric Trump, he posts bonus torso pics.
	You saw that, right?
	It was Laura Loomer, I think, who broke the story about the wife's It's not even an alternative Twitter.
	It's her Twitter account.
	Apparently denied having a Twitter account, perhaps because it was X at the time.
	It's like shitting on Halina Haba.
	Halina Haba, who's outside of the courtroom, criticizing her as a lawyer.
	The son.
	Apparently, anger on son is in the courtroom and might have been getting some nepotism.
	I don't know exactly the details of that, but when I do, we'll go over it.
	It's crazy.
	Is Stefanik the first person to file a complaint against this judge?
	I guess so.
	I guess so.
	And the credit to her, the congresswoman from upstate New York, that this is an embarrassment.
	There needs to be more action along those lines.
	There needs to be more action from New York state representatives along those lines.
	This whole thing is an utter embarrassment to the state of New York, utter embarrassment to the rule of law, utter embarrassment to the judicial branch as an institution.
	And the only question is whether somebody somewhere, someplace at some time steps in to put a halt to it.
	And we'll find out.
	All right.
	Now, Colorado, there's no verdict yet, but there were two judgments that came.
	I think it's Michigan and New Hampshire, if I'm not mistaken.
	Well, New Hampshire was just the Secretary of State decision.
	Minnesota was the only court that I'm aware of to issue a decision.
	On the removing Trump from the ballot.
	Yeah.
	Okay, and so they dismissed the suit, so they're not going to remove Trump from the ballot, at least the primary ballot.
	Open question still for the general?
	Correct, yeah.
	I mean, what the Minnesota court recognized is what has always been recognized as the case, which is that a primary ballot, party ballot, is determined by the party, not determined by the state.
	And so unless Colorado is going to interpret the law differently, its own law differently.
	The same logic would apply in any of these cases or contexts.
	I think it's very, put it this way, they're going to have to do something they've never done before, which is remove someone from the ballot that's a popular candidate.
	No court has ever done that in American history.
	So you might get a rogue decision here or there.
	The question is whether the appeals and Supreme Courts will approve it.
	Because it's just going way past all barriers.
	So you can get a liberal judge in D.C. or in New York or New York City or in Denver, Colorado or in Minneapolis to issue crazy rulings because they're in overwhelmingly Democratic jurisdictions.
	They know there'll be no blowback.
	But getting an appellate court, Supreme Court, federal court to go along with that, again, they're going to have to do something that they've never done before.
	It'll be the 50th time this year, Robert.
	I know.
	I mean, that's the concern, is that the court system is so long gone that it will be complicit openly and overtly.
	I mean, it's one thing to not intervene, like the 2020 election.
	That's very different than affirmatively intervening and taking someone off the ballot.
	And my guess is that ultimately courts won't go along with that.
	So the rationale is they can't take him off the primary ballot because that's a party decision, but open question for the general.
	That decision wasn't before them.
	But it's highly unlikely.
	There's no legal basis to do it, as the history reflects and represents.
	And there'll be two ballot access issues.
	There'll be Trump's ballot access issues, as Democrats try to prohibit him from getting access to the ballot, prohibit voters from picking him.
	And I'm sure that it's coming with Robert Kennedy.
	I'm sure there's going to be multiple efforts to keep Robert Kennedy off the ballot as an independent candidate.
	And they're going to use a lot of crazy laws that are on the books along those lines.
	Now, the problem is, constitutionally, to give an example, the only two times a state official tried to keep a relatively popular candidate off the ballot was 1968, both cases, state of Ohio.
	They tried to keep George Corley Wallace off the ballot in 1968, and then they tried to keep John Anderson off the ballot in 1980.
	Both cases went up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Both cases, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the state to put the candidate back on the ballot.
	And it's because of the recognition.
	Ballot access is supposed to be about voter choice.
	And the whole premise behind ballot access limitations are complete garbage.
	If you read the history, historically, we didn't have secret ballots.
	We had public ballots for the first century of America's history.
	The secret ballot, the Australian secret ballot as it was then known, didn't come about until the end of the 19th century.
	And it was pitched as a way to help voters have anonymity in the process.
	And in fact, what it was always done, it was used as a tool to monopolize the ballot.
	The state didn't used to publish the ballot.
	Through most of American history at our beginning, the state never published a ballot.
	Private parties published ballots.
	Gave it to you to take to the ballot.
	Well, what did that do?
	That empowered political machines, particularly political apparatus for illiterate voters and others, that someone they relied upon could give them a ballot and they could go in there with it.
	And the real goal of the secret ballot was not what they said it was, to protect voter anonymity.
	The real goal of the secret ballot was for the state to take over publishing of the ballot.
	Prohibit private publishing of the ballot to break the back of political machines and various populist rebellions in the end of the 1890s and early 1900s.
	And they said they would never use it to exclude people from the ballot, but by golly, they started doing exactly that by 1912.
	Now, the courts have recognized it's never been legal and constitutional, and that's why the courts that get away with it, they find some lame pretext that doesn't go up to the appellate food chain, and mostly you don't get meaningful adjudication.
	On these cases.
	Justice Scalia, when he was alive, and others, and liberal judges agreed in some notes that came out decades later from their private sessions in the Supreme Court that the so-called telephone book excuse was complete garbage.
	And it says, man, if we don't exclude frivolous candidates from the ballot...
	It'll be as long as a phone book.
	Yeah, it'll be as long as a phone book.
	And that will, by golly, that will confuse the poor voter.
	And I've always said telephone vote doesn't confuse nobody.
	It's the most wonderful form of organization that exists on the planet.
	So long as it's in alphabetical order, it doesn't confuse anybody.
	It makes it easy.
	The only place, the most free ballot we've ever had in American modern history is the California gubernatorial race, recall race that Arnold Schwarzenegger won.
	I think they were like 82 or 90. It didn't confuse anybody.
	The American people are not confused by having too many choices.
	And it's obvious hogwash, and that's why judges invent bogus doctrines.
	Like, well, you can't sue now because it's not ripe.
	Here's how I always put it.
	I learned from all the bogus standing excuses in election cases.
	If you sue in spring, it's not ripe.
	If you sue in summer, by golly, it's moot.
	And if you sue in fall, it's latches and you should be sanctioned.
	There's no good season to sue, it turns out.
	It's always too early or too late.
	There's no magical window in between.
	And they do that because they know they're full of it.
	They're just helping the two-party system exclude their opponents.
	When I represented Ralph Nader in 2004, it was the Democratic Party and the Republican Party conspiring to keep them off the ballot, which might seem odd to people, but it's because they recognized that breaking up the two-party system was more dangerous to each party than the other party was.
	George Bush and the Bushites were more worried about a Ralph Nader third-party movement than they were John Kerry winning.
	They would be willing to accept John Kerry winning to make sure Ralph Nader didn't build a third-party independent movement in the country.
	It was Republican judges and Republican secretaries of state that went to great efforts to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot, conspiring with Democratic corporate lawyers who had been working for three years to keep him off the ballot.
	So you're going to see that constitutionally, every honest judge knows it's bogus.
	So you get...
	Judges who convince themselves that it's our self-justification rationalization.
	So they say, because we now print the ballot as the state, and because we print the ballot early for the convenience of soldiers overseas and other people, then we need this real early deadline, and we have to have all these signatures.
	Why exactly do you need all these signatures?
	Why do you need 100,000-plus signatures in some states to get on the ballot?
	By the way, many of these rules didn't exist in 1992.
	Ross Perot easily got on the ballot.
	That's when all of a sudden a bunch of states said, oh, we need to make sure how people get on the ballot here in America.
	It's not like they have, even in Canada, you have like nine parties.
	You have the Green Party, the Marxist, NDP, conservative, liberal, at least, I mean, I can name five or six.
	How many have there been, Robert?
	A lot of the states keep third parties from having ballot access.
	So Arizona is notorious for this.
	I've sued them repeatedly on behalf of the Green Party.
	They go to great lengths to try to keep the Green Party off the ballot.
	With the same thing, they make it very costly.
	So they make it so you have, they limit who can circulate petitions, who can sign petitions, when you can circulate petitions, when you can sign petitions.
	And then, unlike our 2020 election, they're very strict about those signature matches.
	On average, over half of the signatures you gather will be struck down.
	Now, most of those everybody knows are legit, but it's just the person forgot how they signed or they changed.
	You know, it's a marginal difference.
	That's why I would...
	I'm telling everybody, if they applied the same standards to get access to the ballot, to the 2020 ballots, there was no way they could say Biden won that election.
	None.
	And they all knew it.
	That's why they were pitching red herrings on Dominion and everything else, was to keep people away from looking at the glaring evidence that rebutted their claims of the best election ever.
	But yet all of this is, and so how you, like forever...
	There's still some states that do this, by the way.
	They prohibit people who are not residents from circulating petitions.
	That's been illegal for forever, unconstitutional for forever.
	But you have to sue over and over again to get courts to stop it.
	And courts go to great lengths to try to avoid ruling on the topic.
	With their mootness, latches, rightness excuses and pretext to hide and dodge and run for cover.
	It's just the normal, natural course of it.
	So in Colorado, it's to get them off the primary ballot.
	And the issue there is that should not be within a court's jurisdiction in the first instance.
	It's really not in the court's jurisdiction in any instance.
	The court should be in a place to put people on the ballot.
	It should never be in the place to take people off of it.
	The Colorado, it's both, though, right?
	It's primary and general.
	No, just primary, because he's not on the general election ballot yet.
	So there, they admit there's no lawsuit to bring.
	How do you bring a challenge of a general election ballot that isn't formed yet?
	That won't be formed until the primaries are over.
	So at this point, the only ballot he's on is the primary ballot.
	That was Minnesota court's point.
	They're like, there's no basis to adjudicate something that we have no idea if it'll even happen.
	At least that is, there's no cause of action.
	I wouldn't use the standing doctrine they use or the ripeness excuse they use.
	There's no cause of action to complain about somebody being on a ballot they're not on yet.
	There's just no cause of action.
	I love people in the chat.
	I know it's sarcastic, but they're saying, "What's a phone book?" People don't realize, once upon a time, if you knew someone's name, you could find their address, telephone number, postal code.
	You just go in and then you could find...
	Big, big yellow phone book.
	Yeah, but we had the white pages for residential and yellow pages for commercial.
	And everyone complains about privacy now.
	Someone could find out where you lived just by knowing your last name.
	And if it wasn't in the book, you could call the operator.
	You dial zero.
	In your phone number.
	No, no.
	Nuts!
	Nuts!
	Okay, so no more for Trump.
	There was Judge Cannon.
	The Florida stuff.
	We'll come back to that.
	It's clear that the Florida case is not going forward anytime soon.
	And they didn't want it to once they had the D.C. judge.
	And who else?
	Oh yeah, well, Chutkin's going to push that trial going forward as fast as she can.
	I guess Trump is seeking for the first time...
	I don't know if a federal court proceeding has ever been televised, but Trump is seeking and the media wants it to be televised.
	Interesting that Jack Smith doesn't.
	What is Jack Smith so scared of?
	He's got a judge in his pocket, jury pool in his pocket, and yet he's terrified of the world watching that trial.
	There is no good excuse.
	I mean, it's only suspicious, and it's only evidence of the corruption.
	I mean, they want to leak certain stuff while Trump is being gagged, and they don't want transparency for the trial itself.
	Oh my goodness, that would be epic.
	I'll make my wish that they actually...
	Someone asked whether I can pronounce the Russian names in the phone book.
	I can't pronounce English names.
	The pronunciation is not my strong point.
	Okay, we're going to do link.
	To Rumble.
	We've got 2,300 people watching here.
	How many do we have on Rumble?
	We're at...
	Hold on.
	We're at 12,000.
	We're going to be at 16,000 soon.
	So let's see this number come down once.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com for the after party.
	Robert, I won't go too late because you're under the weather.
	But we will get to the chats.
	And one last question before we head on over.
	I heard...
	Well, I was listening to your Bourbon with Barnes as I was driving back from the third RNC debate.
	If you have a 30-second summary of what you thought of it, or in as much as the recap of it?
	The only guy that understands the Republican electorate is the guy who is the Indian guy.
	That sums up where the Republican Party is as a party.
	That the only person who is talking to the actual voters is the guy that's the least connected to America and American politics.
	And that he can read an electorate and he can respond accordingly.
	Whereas the rest of them up there are talking to donors, talking to publishers, talking to people who could hire them in the future, give them money in the future, not talking to voters.
	Because voters don't want the George W. Bush party.
	And they seem either clueless about that or don't care.
	Because they're really running for their pocketbook.
	They're not running for the American people.
	That is, you know, people accuse Vivek of running for the VP, and I don't even think that, I'm not sure that he would accept it, even if that was the case, but it's clear.
	Christie is running for his CNN career.
	Haley's running for whatever the hell.
	DeSantis didn't have the worst night, but just, I mean, you compare him to the energy of Vivek.
	And yeah, first generation tech, youngest guy in the field, understands the points and has the...
	I do understand why Dave Rubin likes DeSantis.
	He likes a guy in heels.
	Oh, Barnes.
	Cue the whole...
	Trump was imitating DeSantis walking.
	Despite all the insanity of everything he's going through...
	He stays in good spirits.
	He remains unfazed.
	He's doing his imitation of walking on your heels, which is funny.
	I'm trying to think.
	No, it was Trump at the UFC last night.
	The guy, it's incredible.
	The weight of the world on his shoulders and the weight of the government against you.
	And gets a cheer from everyone except for Bill Burr's wife.
	All right.
	What we're going to do is we're going to end it on YouTube.
	Coming over to Rumble.
	Oh, hold on a second.
	Actually, if you want to go over straight to Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We had our sixth Locals conversation with a supporter, and it was fantastic on Friday.
	If anybody wants to go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, you can watch it there.
	Now we're ending on YouTube because they no longer deserve our presence.
	The entire stream will be up tomorrow, and podcast version, yada, yada, yada.
	Rumble 3, 2, 1, now.
	Vivek equals Soros.
	Come on.
	I mean, I understand.
	No!
	Okay, I don't agree.
	I don't agree.
	I mean, I don't really, like, trust Vivek, but he's a smart, just because, you know, he doesn't have enough of a background to know for sure who and what he would be in actual power.
	But at least he understands his audience.
	I mean, he's a good marketer.
	Clearly a good marketer.
	And he understands his audience.
	Nobody else up there seems to.
	I mean, DeSantis has been terrible.
	Just terrible.
	I mean, I thought it was an idiotic decision to run, but I didn't expect him to be this poor a candidate.
	That it's just bad.
	I mean, Nikki Haley's doing neocon Nikki's doing neocon Nikki.
	So, no surprise there.
	Tim Scott is still boring and bland.
	Christie's still on his Trump hatred tour.
	Tim Scott has gotten more boring as it goes on.
	I mean, he seems like a genuinely nice person.
	And genuinely boring.
	Like watching tea get cold, except if it's in that video.
	Finding out that DeSantis has little heels inside the heels, that's the kind of thing that's going to stick with him.
	You know what I mean?
	Trump's going to tattoo him with it, and he's not going to be able to.
	People miss that part of Vivek's line because of the reaction to his first part of it.
	But he said, you know, we got two people up.
	It's two Dick Cheneys up here with three-inch heels.
	It was a crack at both of them.
	That was more applicable.
	DeSantis hasn't gone against the war.
	He hasn't gone with the war.
	He's tried to middle his way through.
	Everybody else up there has been, other than Vivek, has been the big war whores.
	I mean, especially Nikki Haley.
	But Christie and Tim Scott as well.
	But I think their ratings were terrible.
	I mean, poor luck for Rumble that they get the exclusive to the Republican debates the very year that...
	They are the least interesting Republican debates because of Trump's lack of presence in them.
	If Trump had been in them, they would have been massively viewed.
	But without Trump, they're not going to be.
	But I don't know.
	I mean, I get what the others are doing.
	They're lining their pockets for the future.
	DeSantis is just committing political suicide.
	So I don't understand why he stays in.
	And he would not have been able to run again for governor regardless.
	So he could have, in theory, finished out his term, been the most beloved Republican.
	He had an offer on the table to be Trump's VP and run early as a combined ticket, and he turned it down.
	So one of the dumbest political decisions in history.
	And instead, not only turned it down, he burned and torched every bridge he could have.
	There's no way Trump's not going to take anybody other than maybe Vivek.
	But I don't see him taking Vivek either, to be honest with you.
	Trump's going to look at him and be like, man, nobody can spell that dude's name anyway.
	So I know that sounds terrible, but it's just political reality.
	Vivek had the...
	He decided to market the scum remark, so he put out a cup that says rebel scum.
	I know a guy that knows marketing.
	How is it you could study Trump for like six years, all these other Republicans, and not know marketing at all?
	They're campaigning like it's 2004.
	Well, Vivek might be a good marketer, and if they decided to run Rebel Scum on two lines because of what it would have looked like had they run it on one line.
	Rebel Scum, Rebel Scum.
	Anyways, I think it's still a bad thing.
	I think they should have done it, but at least they put it on two separate lines so there would not have been any reading.
	Sorry, that's what I saw.
	I was like, maybe you could have gone with a different...
	I wonder where you were going with that.
	I'll confess I did not put that together.
	When I read it, I was like, oh, well, when I read the name Clint, I always have the same thought process.
	Like certain words, if you put the letters too close together, it can be very bad.
	All right, Ron, on that note, let's get into the rest.
	We had a big settlement, big win, which will also transition into the biggest verdict.
	Of the week.
	But Megan Fox, we'll talk about the case she was covering, the Taking Care of Maya case, that I didn't know about until she told me about.
	But she sued the Wabitosa School Board, and thanks to Nick Mercado, we helped fundraise to cover the cost of the filing fees and all that jazz, service fees, etc.
	And what happened is the school board cut her off, and the school board was demanding a bunch of things.
	And saying they had a power to basically limit the public forum from criticism, which they don't have the constitutional power to do.
	And a lot of school boards and local governments think they do, and they get away with it a lot.
	And Megan Fox wanted to bring suit, so we brought suit against the Wauwatosa School Board.
	Wauwatosa settled.
	They agreed they were in the wrong, and they not only paid the attorney's fees and paid some, I think Megan called it some Applebee's money, to Megan.
	for the inconvenience of having to file suit but also change their policies going forward and they'll change their policies in a way that will impact school boards across the country because other insurers follow these kind of cases and borrow the changes that were made here and they issued her an apology which is almost completely unheard of.
	You almost never hear these politicians admit.
	They got anything wrong.
	And so they issued a public written apology to Megan Fox.
	So congratulations to her.
	Congratulations to the First Amendment.
	It will have a bigger, broader impact going forward.
	And it was a fun little case to do.
	They settled immediately after the filing.
	It didn't get further into the proceedings than that?
	Yeah, not too long afterwards.
	I mean, we filed about a year ago.
	But the settlement, they were willing to settle early on.
	And then it was getting the best terms.
	I had a question that stemmed from that, but I think I forget it now, so forget about it.
	Casey was covering.
	I didn't know anything about it.
	Oh, this is...
	What was it called again?
	Hold on.
	It was...
	Taking Care of Maya.
	Taking Care of Maya.
	So I'm going to go watch the...
	I don't know if I want to watch it because it's the most depressing, even just reading the synopsis of it, but this is a case of a girl who has...
	comes down with random sort of...
	A rare disease.
	A rare disease.
	Goes to a hospital where the hospital deems there to be the risk of a potential of parental abuse.
	In fact, they basically suggest the kid is faking it.
	And that it's Munchenson syndrome.
	And that the parent is manipulating the kid into thinking they're sick when they're not.
	Okay.
	And then it gets much worse from there.
	Yeah, well, then they basically prevent the parents from visiting her.
	They lock her up.
	They start, I don't know, giving...
	They lock up the little girl for months on end.
	Yeah, she was 15. What was she at the time?
	She's 23 now.
	I think she was 16 at the time.
	Give or take 15, 16. A teenage girl, a young teenage girl is my recollection.
	Locked up for three months.
	In fairness, I think...
	Cut off from her parents.
	And one of the things that it's like what Jordan Peterson describes, it's a certain kind of pain syndrome that's touching your skin.
	Just causes shocks of pain.
	They were constantly doing this to her all the way through.
	They were basically torturing her for three months.
	Yeah, I'm trying to find the name of the disease.
	I'll get the name of the disease in a bit.
	Torturing her for three months.
	Her condition got worse.
	She ended up being wheelchair-bound in the hospital.
	When her parents were finally allowed to see her, they were so devastated.
	And after months of being accused of child abuse, the mother took her own life.
	Two days after seeing her daughter for the first time in three months, seeing the condition that she was in, they sued.
	I thought, Robert, in this case that there was something of a court order suggesting that there was parental abuse or there was some order on which the hospital was relying in an attempt to try to absolve them of responsibility.
	Now, there are a couple of problems.
	The big problem when Megan Fox was breaking it down, and if you want more detailed coverage, go to Megan Fox's channel.
	She did extensive, expansive coverage of this.
	This is all about child welfare authorities and the complicity of hospitals and medical profession with the child welfare authorities.
	Because it was a child welfare doctor that did the diagnosis.
	Here was the problem.
	The hospital wanted money for reimbursement.
	So while the child welfare doctor was telling the courts that she doesn't have this particular condition, it's made up by the mother to have control over the child, they were telling the insurance company, The child does have this condition.
	Please pay us the bills.
	So, I mean, once Megan Fox told me that, I was like, oh, they're going to be DOA in front of a jury.
	You say one thing to line your pockets and another thing to falsely accuse a mother of extreme child abuse and torture a child for three months?
	This is Johns Hopkins, by the way.
	This is one of the biggest, most important hospital facilities in the world.
	What is their explanation?
	That we actually believe she was being abused, but we saw a good opportunity to get some coin?
	Basically.
	I mean, once I heard that, it was like, there's going to be no compelling excuse to the jury for that combination.
	You can't do both.
	If you're going to go out on a limb and accuse a parent of abuse, you can't turn around and line your pockets by saying that there is no such abuse by the very nature of your invoice.
	But it's classic hospital contradiction.
	They'll do whatever it takes to get paid, and at the same time, assert and misuse their power.
	And this is why I tell people in the trans and other contexts, be very wary of giving the government power over a child compared to parents.
	It tends to get abused.
	My experience with child welfare people is almost universally negative.
	And that's from representing abused kids.
	Usually what it is, it's people that are abusers become child welfare workers.
	They love their authority.
	So what you had here was someone who was looking for that.
	Looking for an excuse.
	Looking for...
	They're searching it out.
	And they love the authority.
	They're accusing the parent of what they're doing.
	Like Munchenson Syndrome?
	That's what the child welfare official did here.
	By making up that the person didn't have a disease so that the child welfare official could have all the power.
	They love wielding this power of taking kids away from people.
	They just love it.
	I mean, they cling to it.
	That's why Mike...
	And Megan Fox, who covers this extensively and expansively in a wide range of contexts, has concurred.
	I was like, my conclusion was we were better.
	We are better off as a society with no child welfare services.
	Because child welfare is such a negative presence in so many people's lives that it is far more likely they're going to be a negative presence than a positive presence.
	Where they're actually needed in extreme abuse and neglect circumstances, they often are not present or they reinforce the injury.
	While they constantly intervene in contexts they have no business in.
	It's child welfare officials pushing the envelope, forcing people to accept you can't have a foster kid unless you agree with trans ideology.
	All this nonsense.
	It's coming from the state.
	We shouldn't give the state this power.
	That yes, there'll be parents who mishandle their kids.
	But I trust parents more than I trust the state.
	I'll take the risk that parents screw up more than I'll take the risk that the state...
	I think it's like an iteration of Parkinson's Law.
	For anybody who doesn't know, Parkinson's Law of mundanity is sitting around a boardroom, people can talk about the most complex matter, and they'll spend five minutes on it, but they'll spend an hour talking about where to put the water cooler, because it's easier for everyone to have an opinion on that.
	Parkinson's law also that the time it takes to complete a task will expand to fit the time you have to complete the task.
	So if you have one hour, you'll do it in one hour.
	If you have all day, you'll do it all day.
	That's definitely true.
	In this case, it's like the hospitals and the authorities, they'll pick on the people who are easy to pick on, and they will ignore the ones who they know are the criminals or the ones that will fight back or the ones that will be hard to pick on, just like they'll go after the Jan Sixers because they're easy targets, but they won't go after bordered...
	Illegal immigrants defecting into society because it's easy to pick on the people who are going to be the law-abiding ones or at least the ones who are not breaking the law.
	So I'll think of an iteration there.
	Good credit to the plaintiff's lawyers because this was a case on paper that would be difficult because you're dealing with state government actors, you're dealing with judicial orders, so you're dealing with medical malpractice is very broad.
	And they came up with creative theories of emotional distress and other torts that they were able to establish, beat motions to dismiss.
	And a jury that heard all the evidence was so shocked by it, they issued a $261 million verdict.
	$210 million compensatory, $51 million punitive.
	And I shared Megan's link.
	I accidentally shared the YouTube version, but I shared her Rumble channel.
	So Megan Fox.
	And they're going to appeal it.
	I mean, they'll appeal.
	How does it work if it's a jury verdict of damages?
	Are there caps on...
	I mean, it depends by state.
	Often there's...
	I don't think there's any applicable caps in this context.
	A lot of medical malpractice contexts there are, but I don't think it applies to the particular tort they brought here.
	And so, I mean, there'll be appeals, and we'll see what the appeals courts do.
	But it seems to me the case is pretty soundly broad.
	Again, to me, the smoking gun was you couldn't bill the insurance company saying she's got the disease and tell the courts and the mother she doesn't have the disease.
	To a degree, they basically kidnapped and assaulted the kid for three months.
	It was the worst.
	Imagine doing that to a conscientious, vulnerable mother.
	It's your fault your kid is in this position and you're abusing her.
	And you gaslight her for three months while you're busy billing the insurance company saying actually the exact opposite.
	And torturing the kid by account she was touched improperly without consent and then the mother visits her for the first time after three months.
	Most people don't know.
	I'm not a hospital fan for a reason.
	Hospitals shouldn't have the power to be able to seize kids in the first place.
	I'm just not in favor of that situation.
	It also discourages and dissuades people from getting treatment when they need it.
	So, you know, there's other versions of Good Samaritan laws that allow you to call 911 or other things or go to a hospital and report, like, say, a drug overdose without any legal consequence.
	Those things should be present.
	And this all goes back to there shouldn't be mandatory reporting laws either.
	And I understand what the theory was, but I've seen it backfire over and over again.
	So these mandatory reporting laws are that if you have a reasonable basis to believe the person you're treating is a victim of abuse, that you have to report it.
	Or you could lose your license.
	Well, what does that do?
	It leads to kids and people that might think they would be labeled that to not seek out any treatment.
	That's all it does.
	It doesn't dramatically increase the probability that an abuser is stopped.
	It often increases the consequences of that abuse by not getting or receiving necessary treatment.
	Also, for people that have, you know, that are through treatment can, you know, do better, that, you know, people who just lost their temper or, you know, other people came up with a different culture because there's abuse that's for power.
	There's abuse that's kind of culturally, it's, you know, physical.
	Oh, certain kinds of spanking, for example, is completely common in certain parts of American culture.
	It's considered abuse today.
	So if you want to, you can, you know, those are people that, you know, easily could go through treatment and succeed.
	Problem is, they can't go to the treatment.
	They go to the shrinker counselor and they disclose this, boom, it's automatically reported.
	So the problem is this whole child welfare, it's an excuse like everything else for the state to seize power.
	So it's what it always is.
	Whether it's helping poor people, vulnerable people, helping freedom around the world, there's always some noble pretext to give the government your power.
	And it always backfires, and it happened badly, horrendously here.
	And at least here, there's some monetary consequence they'll suffer for what they did that might deter future people from doing.
	I'm going to get to the rumble rants before they get...
	Too unmanageable.
	V6neon says, to quote Douglas McMurray on Twitter, it seems we've gone to the stage where all British patriots are called far-right thugs and all Hamas supporters peaceful protesters.
	V6neon says, Viva, just call them airbags as she was full of hot air and after that car crash.
	Now hold on, what was that about?
	Okay, I'll think about that one afterwards.
	If you're still waiting for AI-generated Viva news, that can be arranged, says Finn Boyce.
	Be careful what you wish for.
	Kenzie67, Viva, please ask Barnsey to not opine on Israel-Palestine.
	His bloodthirsty defense of the ethnic...
	I'm going to read it, Barnsey.
	Don't have to...
	We don't...
	I'm going to read it because it's a rumble rant.
	And I don't agree with the description, but I'll just...
	I'm going to do it.
	I get notifications.
	I just haven't truthed.
	T1990.
	Barnes, when it comes to the truth...
	I think you've talked about that.
	What happened up there?
	Out of here with that nonsense wannabe jerk.
	That was from ZT Williams who has another one.
	Political Truly WWE Wrestling.
	Case in point, DeSantis and The Heels.
	Rockahora.
	I remember Rockahora.
	How you doing?
	Don't forget they stripped the 10-year-old girl, locked her in a room, and took pictures of her, none of which went into her medical record.
	Holy crap.
	And Alex Davey Duke.
	John Hopkins is where gender ideology was started with Dr. Money.
	Was that his name?
	And the freak that destroyed David Reimer.
	Okay, a reamer.
	Okay, so now, Robert, I know I don't know the latest on the next one, which is the Google trial.
	So, yeah, what's the Google antitrust?
	What's the update on that?
	So Matt Stoller's big substack is following it in detail.
	This is the one pending in the District of Columbia brought by the Justice Department over whether or not Google is a monopoly and whether they have abused that monopoly power.
	Yes and yes.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I think we're in the fourth month of the trial.
	So the Google defense is to...
	Well, the key allegations are that they have a monopoly in the internet search market.
	They have a monopoly in the search advertising market.
	Both of those.
	And there's been plenty of evidence introduced for that.
	And that one of the ways they abused their monopoly power was by setting themselves up as defaults in deals with Apple and Samsung and others.
	So that they're the default app and the default search mechanism for anybody with...
	A web browser or a phone browser or anything else.
	And then abusing that power in other ways to deny other people the opportunity to scale.
	They recognize scale is critical to being able to be profitable.
	And so they go to great lengths to deny people scale.
	Much like YouTube goes to great lengths to deny, with Google, who owns YouTube, a rumble scale.
	You search in Google, try to find a rumble video.
	Even if the Rumble video is the most popular and the most viewed, it doesn't show up in the Google search.
	That's why Rumble has a suit against Google as we speak in California for similar and comparable violations as being reported as customary and commonplace here in the federal court proceedings.
	So Google's defense is to pretend they don't really have a monopoly, to pretend scale doesn't really matter, to pretend all these things they spend...
	Billions of dollars on every year don't really have any consequence.
	The other problem Google has is, unlike Alex Jones who was falsely accused of this, Google actually did destroy evidence.
	The government lawyer had a good line early in the case saying that everybody knows about internet history.
	Well, Google decided to delete their history so that they could make up their own in this trial proceeding.
	So that is by itself very damning, all the evidence that Google has destroyed and deleted any track or trace of that would prove their knowledge and culpability as to what everybody knows they were doing, which was building monopoly, misusing and abusing that monopoly for their own profit to the detriment not only of the public consumer, but to the information consumer, to the open, fair, transparent election.
	individual because this Google's power goes way past economics.
	I wasn't conscious during the Netscape or the Microsoft, which one was it?
	The Bill Gates antitrust suit back in the time.
	I do know that there was an issue about tying.
	How is that not just cut and dry black and white in this Google case?
	It's not just that they demand that their apps be pre-uploaded, but be undeletable.
	Oh, and they only have 85% of the market share?
	Everyone knows DuckDuckGo and what's the other one?
	Brave?
	What do they have?
	0% of the market share.
	Nothing meaningful.
	So they have a monopoly of fact.
	Whether or not they want to call it that.
	And it's not just that they contract their apps to be preloaded, but undeletable.
	How do they get around that in terms of antitrust?
	They try to pretend that the market's a different market.
	So they say the market is the advertising market globally.
	Not the search advertising market.
	But all advertising of all kinds.
	Billboard, television, radio ads.
	So if you do that, if that's how you define the market, now they no longer have a monopoly presence.
	So their goal is to redefine the market in ways counterintuitive.
	The same with the search market.
	If you say, well, let's look at the library market.
	Let's include every kind of method and mechanism of search one might conduct.
	Other than the internet.
	Then you can, you know, redefine it so you're no longer a monopoly.
	Bullcrap.
	You can include libraries, microfiche, they still have a monopoly.
	Agreed.
	But that's how they're trying to evade it.
	Then the second argument they're trying to claim is that it doesn't hurt the consumer, all these things they're doing.
	That it helps the consumer, that it benefits the consumer, that it profits the consumer to have information limited and their prices increased and their services restricted and competition not present.
	Now, the only X factor is it's an Obama judge.
	So, on paper, some of them were better on antitrust than Republican judges, but Obama was notoriously in bed with big tech and a huge fan of big tech.
	So, it's an open question which way this judge is going to go.
	More than enough evidence has developed for him to break up Google and to do more damage to Google than they did to Microsoft with Bill Gates.
	I mean, like, for example, probably one of the required remedies is that Google sell off YouTube and no longer control YouTube.
	That would be massive in the video space if YouTube was back to just being a regular competitor and not Google-controlled.
	Look, am I being just naive or too cynical in that that would be illusory?
	Like, it's not because the FBI wasn't part of Twitter that it...
	Was influencing Twitter.
	So okay, fine.
	You'll have two separate companies.
	Whether or not you have overlapping shareholders, they'll have two distinct legal entities that will be colluding with one another as though they were part and parcel of the same overarching enterprise.
	I mean, maybe.
	I mean, when you break it up in this way, they do have completely independent ownership and their degree of collusion is limited because that would violate the same antitrust laws.
	So usually those restrictions are put in place.
	So it worked at least with Microsoft.
	Microsoft was in a place to monopolize the browser market, and they ended up a tiny share of the browser market.
	Okay, that's good enough.
	How long is the trial scheduled for, do you know?
	I think another month or two.
	Jeez, that's a long time.
	My dad was involved in a trial.
	It literally went on for years.
	You can look up Castor Holdings in Canada.
	It went on for years, where they had one expert testify.
	I want to say for something like 18 months.
	The expert was...
	It was Castor Holdings.
	It was Castor Holdings, yeah.
	Anyhow, that's all public.
	I'm not saying anything private.
	But it was the idiotic long trial.
	But this is pretty bad as well.
	Six-month, seven-month trial.
	Okay, now, hold on.
	This one I know about, Robert.
	We're moving on to the Good Samaritan case.
	The Good Samaritan or Vigilante Reckless Discharging of a Firearm Criminal.
	This is in New York again.
	Same area, same city, same metro system where you had Daniel Penny holding down Michael Jackson's younger twin brother, innocent, beautiful man, never violent, never nothing.
	Guy ends up dying, and then Daniel Penny, I think is his name, ends up charged with Second-degree manslaughter.
	I forget what it was.
	This is a woman going through the turnstile, getting mugged by a homeless person who says, give me money or I'm going to steal your purse.
	An innocent bystander who happens to be concealed carrying, maybe not lawfully so, fires off a couple of rounds.
	We haven't seen the video, so I don't know if he fired in the direction of crowded people or down into the metro station rail, whatever.
	Scares the guy off, saves the woman from the unknown, and has now been arrested and charged with, I don't know what he was on, $10,000 bail, whatever.
	I mean, I know where you're going to go with this, but they're making it so that you have to sit there and take the beating like, what's his face, Klaus said during Rittenhouse's trial.
	Yeah, and in New York, particularly problematic.
	A lot of people don't know, because it's counterintuitive, that warning shots are generally considered the exercise of deadly force.
	I've never really agreed with that.
	Maybe Bronca has a more nuanced take than I do on it.
	It's counterintuitive to me that a warning shot is deadly force.
	The very nature of a warning shot is that you have the capacity of deadly force, but you're not exercising it in the warning shot.
	But the law generally holds a warning shot is deadly force.
	I guess, theoretically, if you misfire it, I mean, I get it.
	So that's his problem.
	His problem is that in New York, a warning shot is deadly force, and you can only, in New York, use deadly force if you're being threatened or someone else is being threatened with it.
	And it'll be hard to say that the homeless man setting up that bogus operation to steal people's money, and in this case, trying to steal her purse, Presented an imminent risk of deadly force to that individual.
	So it's, you know, unfortunately, legally, he doesn't have any apparent defenses.
	Practically, he does.
	Politically, he does.
	Just not legally.
	So he'd have to get the right jury pool, the right public opinion reaction to have the case not progress or proceed further.
	But a lot of people don't know that.
	That basically, in almost all contexts, outside of states with very broad self-defense rights...
	Now, my view is the Second Amendment actually is a self-defense right.
	Not just a right to bear arms, but a self-defense right.
	And I think that all self-defense should be interpreted constitutionally.
	And that it should be broader than some of these states have allowed.
	That self-defense is not a privilege, but a right that the states can't so easily incur upon by claiming they created it in the first place.
	But that's not something that courts have yet accepted to be the case.
	There's grounds for it, and I've been arguing it in more cases, but it'll probably take more time to get more courts to re-examine their theories about self-defense.
	But in the interim, the practical problem is that you're very limited in what self-defense you really have in a lot of these states.
	There was a tweet that I had to independently verify where it said the woman was traumatized by the man using the firearm and wished he hadn't done it.
	And it was not that far off.
	This is from TheMessenger.com, so I don't know what this outlet is.
	But they're reporting that the woman rescued by armed hero on subway wishes he hadn't used a gun to save her from a would-be attacker.
	No.
	No, he should use his words.
	And when he gets stabbed in the neck and bleeds to death in a New York subway, well, at least she got her purse.
	I can understand the idea of, you know, you fire a warning shot where?
	Through the ceiling, people could be walking upstairs.
	Through a wall, you don't know what you're hitting.
	Ricochet hit an innocent bystander.
	And I could see, under certain circumstances, saying that the particular method of a warning shot was deadly force.
	My problem is, they consider any warning shot deadly force.
	So, if you're out in a field, and somebody's 10 feet away, and you shoot up in the air over there, deadly force.
	That doesn't make sense to me.
	That bullet's got to come down and it can come down on somebody.
	I understand the rationale.
	If you've got open field, right?
	Boom, you shoot over there.
	I mean, I think it should be fact contingent.
	Well, absolutely.
	One thing we were taught in my firearm safety course, if you don't know where the bullet's landing, you can't take the shots.
	There's a good logic behind that.
	It's just counterintuitive to a lot of people.
	I mean...
	Someone using a warning shot is trying to de-escalate force, and yet we accuse them of escalating force.
	No, I know.
	It's not like firing into a field just for shits and giggles.
	This woman might get assaulted.
	Who knows?
	And this is the immediate lesser of the risks.
	When he pulled the gun, clearly that wasn't enough for it.
	It was only the warning shot that backed the guy off.
	Everybody in the chat and rumble saying, don't white knight.
	I mean, this is why I'm not a coward.
	There's going to have to be some serious reason to intervene, but give him the freaking purse, okay?
	Give him the purse, because otherwise you're old.
	I mean, that's the consequence.
	That's why you see people in New York subway turning a blind eye.
	That's like the 1970s.
	And it got so bad, you got Bernie Goetz shooting people up and getting acquitted because the public was so tired of it all.
	In New York, it's just getting worse and worse and worse.
	Where was the video of the 15-year-old kid getting beaten by a group of kids?
	There was another one.
	You see these people, a guy's beating his girlfriend on the street and people raising their hands are just walking away.
	It's like China.
	China does that.
	But it's now becoming...
	Because you're told if you intervene, bad things will happen to you.
	You're going to jail.
	You're going to jail, period.
	All right, well, we covered the Trump ballot case.
	What is it?
	We've already talked about the Trump, but the Trump curse.
	It's almost uncanny.
	People who are filled with hate for Trump end up getting screwed at some point in time.
	It happened to Alec Baldwin.
	It happened to some football player.
	I forget who.
	Now on the list, Robert De Niro, although I guess it was his production company and not him personally, but just got sentenced to pay a million and a half bucks to an ex-employee who they fired after she started complaining about work conditions.
	You'll correct me if I get something wrong here.
	She was complaining that...
	Robert De Niro is a misogynist, verbally abusive, psychologically abusive asshole.
	And who would have thunk that someone who is vitriolic and angry would also be tough to work with?
	I mean, who would have thunk?
	And so, what happened?
	What was the order of things?
	She quits, claims retaliation, the production company sues her, says that she was stealing money off of...
	And stealing, like, that she was misusing her...
	Corporate credit card, and stealing, like, airline miles.
	Air miles.
	I mean, you're going to steal something better from Robert De Niro.
	Turns out, Robert De Niro is a verbally abusive jackaninny, and she had the receipts to prove it.
	He called her a B-I-T-C-H, all sorts of names.
	She got awarded a million and a half bucks.
	It's from the production company and not from De Niro himself?
	Yeah, but that's kind of, you know, I think they have plenty of money.
	Because they probably control the funding of the way things work.
	Depending on whether it's his leasing company or something else.
	There's always a chance they don't have resources, but usually they do.
	She said that he treated her like his office wife.
	And that's a lot of...
	You have all sides here.
	You have the Trump curse.
	You have another Hollywood celebrity who's used to doing whatever he wants.
	You have that part of the narrative.
	You also have a narrative of a sort of entitled millennial.
	Who thinks she deserves much better treatment or pay.
	That somehow, for example, it's gender discrimination to use curse words to describe someone.
	Like her being described as a spoiled brat somehow was gender discrimination.
	But it's a classic millennial, right?
	This job is so hard and you are so obnoxious.
	I deserve a million dollars for having to work with you.
	It's that kind of routine.
	So you have both narratives being told in the same courtroom.
	And it's New York.
	So, Bobby likes New York.
	Well, congrats, Bobby.
	Now you're writing a seven-figure check to that spoiled brat.
	Well, in fairness, this is Robinson's attorney, Brett A. Hannafan, said his client wouldn't have been mistreated if not for her gender.
	Fine.
	I say, it's just like the gender thing is easier to sell, but no, nobody should...
	If she was a guy and was also a jerk...
	It would have been the same kind of deal.
	You know, the fact that she was a woman had really nothing to do with it.
	No, that's the thing.
	I'm reading from the article, Courthouse News Service.
	He showed the jury messages in which De Niro referred to Robinson as a bitch, nasty, and as a fucking spoiled brat.
	I mean, unless De Niro's referring to her as that to somebody else and she somehow found it.
	That's different than if he called her a spoiled fucking brat.
	It's not gender.
	That's just, that's verbally abusive.
	And if you're an employer, you can't do that.
	Period.
	Well, not New York, you can't.
	A lot of other places you can get away with it.
	I mean, it's the combination.
	Hollywood stars misuse and abuse their assistants all the time.
	Millennial assistants have a sort of delusional, or millennial employees have this delusional perspective of what they're entitled to.
	It managed to meet itself out in court.
	And De Niro gets the benefit of his, you know, the benefit he may not want of being a Me Too Democratic champion.
	Well, let's see what that looks like when you're in front of the courtroom.
	It's you writing seven-figure checks.
	That's what it looks like.
	When I heard she was his office wife, I was expecting something other than someone to verbally abuse and give menial tasks.
	I was thinking maybe they had an affair, but I'm just a young schnook.
	No, there's none of that.
	He likes Amazonian women who go whoops, whoops, whoops.
	Robert?
	He likes to be on the receiving end.
	I remember the moment I learned the word coprophagia with Mark Grobert.
	He says, the word of the day, Viva, is coprophagia.
	I was like, what's that?
	Look up coprophagia.
	I'm not even going to say it.
	Oh, okay, so that's De Niro.
	De Niro's been on that list for many, many...
	But I didn't realize he...
	I guess he's divorced again.
	I thought his third wife was just taking him dry.
	Well, Robert, did you...
	I don't know if you saw it, because it's not really worth much on...
	It's worth what it's worth, but I woke up to somebody sending me a DM about an Instagram post of a video of me on Alex Jones talking about how solitary confinement is torture.
	It was Phil Demers, the walrus whisperer, who sent it to me, and it seems that I'm on Alec Baldwin's Instagram page, and he now follows me, but he posted this.
	Hold on, how do I do this?
	Where's the audio?
	Here we go.
	Oh, here.
	Here we go.
	Banned video.
	Banned video.
	Alec Baldwin is sharing your videos.
	I don't think he knows how he's going to get cancelled for this.
	Not only did he share my video, I haven't said the nicest things about Alec Baldwin.
	Fair but mean.
	Or I should say, harsh but fair.
	Now he's sharing Alex Jones?
	I don't know that he knows it, but good for him for sharing a truth thing to go after the Miami Sea Quarium because they deserve to be bankrupt.
	Alright, Robert, what's the next one here?
	Hold on, it was De Niro.
	Bannon Appeal.
	Okay, so what's the news?
	Bannon was convicted of contempt of Congress for failing to abide by the...
	Oh, the...
	January 20th Committee.
	The subpoenas.
	Was he sentenced?
	Did he get sentenced?
	I forget.
	I think, no, he has a motion for new trial pending.
	But his appeal was heard before the D.C. Circuit.
	And I guess the main issue they were looking at, I mean, to me the main issue in the case is whether the January 20th committee had constitutional authority to issue subpoenas.
	I think that's the stronger argument.
	But did he not get denied the ability to raise that argument?
	Yeah, and so part of the issue is that...
	From what I read, they were mostly focused at the appeals argument on the reliance defense.
	And generally speaking, the courts have not allowed a reliance defense on the contempt charges.
	So reliance defense is you rely upon a professional to do what you do.
	So generally speaking, reliance is not a defense.
	It's uniquely a defense in certain fraud cases and in tax cases.
	So if a tax advisor tells you that something was legal to do, you can't be convicted as long as a jury concludes you actually relied upon that advice and you, in good faith, relied on that advice.
	Sam Bankman-Free tried to argue that.
	The problem was, as part of a reliance defense, you have to provide all relevant information.
	To the lawyer.
	And if you don't, then you don't get to rely upon the advice given if the lawyer didn't have all the necessary information.
	Here, in the contempt context, the courts have repeatedly ruled that you don't have a reliance defense, that you simply have to appear.
	Now, maybe you can assert privilege to a specific question, and then they can adjudicate it thereafter.
	But you can't simply refuse to show up entirely and assert a reliance defense.
	So I think that's going to be a long haul for them in the appeals court.
	I'm not sure how much they're addressing what I thought was the more consequential question, which was whether or not this January 6th committee even had constitutional authority to issue subpoenas in the first place, given the impermissible way in which they were formed.
	And in violation of Congress's own internal rules to be a legitimate congressional extension of Congress in the first place.
	So if somebody said, I hereby represent Congress and subpoena you, you wouldn't be obligated to respond to that subpoena.
	It has to be a legitimate congressional subpoena.
	And that question was one that apparently wasn't discussed much at the appeals court.
	So I don't know if something changed or just where they focused, but that to me is his better argument on appeal.
	Then he has all the arguments for a new trial that are still pending before the trial court about all the misconduct that took place during the trial.
	I'm looking for the word defense, but it says...
	Can't present evidence that he relied on those internal Justice Department opinions.
	That's fine.
	I thought he was estoppeled from raising that defense.
	He was.
	He was prevented from presenting any actual defense at all.
	Yeah, well, they Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, before they're trying to Alex Jones, Donald Trump.
	So they rejected his argument that he was entrapped by estoppel defense.
	Okay, great.
	It's nice to reject those.
	I think that was a defense that he should have been allowed.
	In addition, the judge ruled that Bannon cannot present a public authority defense because Trump was no longer an official.
	And I disagree with that aspect, too.
	And that's separate from a general reliance defense.
	It's just funny to read this article.
	The judge also rejected Bannon's defense that prosecutors would need to show that he knew his conduct was unlawful, saying that prosecutors only need to prove that Bannon acted deliberately.
	Forget mens rea.
	And that's the problem, yeah.
	They've gutted intent in so many of these cases.
	Intent becomes, did you wake up in the morning?
	It's a crock.
	Let's see what else they defend.
	What's the point if there are no defenses?
	Oh, I remember covering this in real time.
	In a win for Bannon, Nichols said the defense could present evidence of the subpoena.
	To present evidence about prior subpoenas regarding this.
	He also ruled that Bannon would be allowed Bannon's defense team to cross...
	Oh, he could cross-examine certain witnesses.
	Hallelujah!
	Testify!
	Okay, so scratch that.
	And then he wasn't allowed to subpoena a range of witnesses.
	Because he tried to subpoena Nancy Pelosi and others and the judge denied it.
	Kangaroo courts.
	And they said the judge denied it.
	The judge was a Trump appointee, if I'm not mistaken?
	I believe so.
	That's how frivolous his claims were.
	It may be wrong on that, but whatever.
	That's how they legitimize it.
	So what's the next step in Bannon's appeal now?
	They're going to sit on it?
	Yeah, they'll issue a ruling at some point.
	And the district court will issue a ruling on his motion for new trial, and that will separately go up on appeal.
	And all of it will ultimately, you know, some part of it may get to the Supreme Court.
	We'll see.
	Because he raised a lot of the different, you know, what happens when you have doubts about the legitimacy of a congressional committee?
	I mean, it's very unique.
	I mean, that typically is, that's very rare that this ever occurs.
	And the courts should do a better job putting that together than just deferring to any committee that purports to represent Congress.
	And it says here, just this is pulling up from the Department of Justice, October 21, 2022.
	Bannon was sentenced today to four months incarceration in order to pay a fine of $6,500 on two counts of contempt of Congress, stemming from his failure to...
	Apply with the subpoenas, yada yada.
	So four months.
	A piddly four months, because now we've seen what they're doing with the two months to Owen Schroyer.
	Two months, Robert, he's still in solitary right now, as far as anybody knows.
	Outrageous.
	It's outrageous.
	It would be one thing if it was solitary with solitary.
	The problem is the Bureau of Prisons lady lied to Congressman Gates.
	She said that nobody was being punished because of their speech.
	Bullshit.
	And there's another case apparently where the same thing is happening.
	Somebody talked to the media so they're punishing him.
	So she lied to Congress or her own staff are not following through on what she promised.
	And so hopefully Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene are going to try to get down to that prison in Louisiana to see exactly what's going on.
	And other people are trying to do what they can.
	For Owen's benefit.
	But the bigger problem is that if it was just solitary, that'd be one thing.
	They choose to make solitary torture by leaving lights on, not providing competent food, not providing competent bedding, things like that.
	You don't have to do it.
	Just because somebody's in isolation doesn't mean you have to deny them basic food, that you have to keep the lights on all the time.
	These are things you don't have to do.
	And they do it anyway.
	And they know it's torture.
	And it's because they get away with it.
	They get away with it because a lot of conservatives on the court and in Congress have written laws to say, if you're a prisoner, you don't have any rights, which is against what the Eighth Amendment says.
	And it relates to why, to our next case, a U.S. soldier argued the U.S. justice system is so broken that no European government can extradite.
	So I feel like I should know the names in this particular case.
	It's Lange versus the United States.
	It's a serviceman who's in...
	Where was he?
	He was fighting in Ukraine.
	Wait a minute, hold on a moment.
	He was fighting the Russians in Ukraine.
	Apparently got involved in gun smuggling or arms dealing.
	Apparently might have killed the person that they were going to sell the guns to.
	Apparently might have stolen the money from the individual that they killed.
	And then got arrested and the U.S. made a request for extradition based on a broader set.
	So they weren't going to extradite him like Sam Bankman freed and add charges later only to have those dropped.
	They added them before extraditing him.
	He says, don't extradite me because I'm going to spend the rest of my life in jail if I go back and get convicted, which would violate my, I don't know, fundamental human rights, Article 3 of whatever, the U.N. Charter.
	Is it the U.N. Charter?
	It was a European convention.
	Sorry.
	And then bottom line, they said, look, nothing in here is going to be violative of any extradition treaties, rules, and whatever, and we're going to extradite you.
	I might have screwed up a number of the facts in there.
	I had never heard of this story.
	I wanted to look more into the individual, but fill in the details that I might have left with that.
	I mean, what's, I think, interesting legally...
	Is a principle that I was trying to pursue decades ago, which is that there's a lot of international law, a lot of countries that have signed on to a range of conventions and treaties that I felt should be interpreted to limit the authority of any government to extradite a person to another government when that other government cannot be trusted to follow certain core international standards.
	Of legal practice, of individual rights and liberties, of methods of adjudicating justice, etc.
	And the European courts have started to extend and expand in that arena by saying that their Article 3 that prohibits torture and inhumane conditions prohibits the death penalty, prohibits a life imprisonment without any possibility of reducing it.
	And so they've said that they won't extradite if that's going to be the likely sentence.
	There's a real risk of it.
	Now, the way they opt out of doing that, enforcing that, because this was an issue in Julian Assange's extradition as well, is they just rely on the lies of the U.S. government.
	The U.S. government said, well, we'll never do that.
	Of course, it's unenforceable.
	When the U.S. government gets people back here, they repeatedly and routinely flagrantly violate whatever promises they made to get the person here in the first place.
	And there's many instances of it, and I've encouraged people to put those instances together to document and demonstrate the unreliability and notorious dishonesty of the United States State Department and Justice Department in international proceedings.
	So the legal issue was that they relied upon the same excuse to say that even though on paper, He's subject to the death penalty.
	And even though on paper he's subject to life imprisonment without parole, he didn't prove that the U.S. government will necessarily do either.
	And so consequently we'll just take the U.S. government's word at it and we'll approve the extradition.
	Doesn't that matter as to whether or not he's convicted and then sentenced?
	There are two steps ahead of making that determination?
	Yeah, what it is is you have to show there's a real risk of it.
	And clearly there's a real risk of it.
	It's on the books.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And they just pretended otherwise.
	They said the U.S. government said, oh, there have been plenty of times where that doesn't happen.
	Okay, that doesn't make it real, reduce it to real risk.
	It's a court not wanting to say that, what it is is, for example, they would use these kind of proceedings to justify not extraditing people to Russia, not extraditing people to Iran, not extraditing people to governments they don't like, to China.
	And the problem is, if you want to apply the same standards, you can't extradite to the United States either.
	When your grounds are the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole is when there's mitigating circumstances in the case of life imprisonment without parole and mitigating circumstances not necessarily considered.
	If you say, hey, that makes you an inhumane country.
	And they want a grandstand on this.
	They want a grandstand and say, China, Russia, Iran, you people are horrible.
	Well, the problem is the U.S. has the same principles.
	And so that's where they get caught.
	Revealing their hypocrisy.
	In the rules-based international order, there are no rules except the golden rule that he who has the gold rules.
	And that's the flaw.
	That's the hypocrisy that it exposes.
	Now, these cases could be better litigated.
	He could have articulated in detail all the instances where the U.S. government has notoriously ignored treaties, ignored extradition restraints, ignored due process provisions, used some of these high-profile examples that even people convicted of misdemeanors, for example, solitary confinement under the terms Owen Shroyer is currently in, violate the international custom against torture and inhumane treatment.
	Right?
	You cite all of those examples.
	Make the government pay a price for its abuse of people's liberties and rights.
	And now, I would say, there is clearly a deep state backstory here.
	This guy was connected to going into Venezuela to overthrow that government.
	He's a former U.S. soldier without a lot of detail.
	Suddenly shows up in Ukraine in 2015.
	On and off between then and 2019.
	And then he's back there in 2021 after being in Moldova.
	And in between, he was going to go down to Venezuela.
	And he's connected.
	So there's a deep state backstory we don't know here for this guy to even be on anybody's radar screen.
	This is what I was trying to look up, but it didn't have enough time.
	You don't find it.
	It's not out there.
	There's a hidden story that's not being reported.
	But why was he not charged in Ukraine?
	Why are the Ukrainian authorities not going after him?
	As I'm saying, it's a U.S. He is on the wrong side of some internal deep state battle.
	I love this.
	I don't want to get too far into it because I don't know where it could possibly go.
	I'm looking at this like these names have to be a little bit...
	They have to have a longer history than I'm aware of because I have only heard of it for the first time today.
	Okay, well, we'll see where that goes.
	Robert, what's the next one we got here?
	Oh, the young thug.
	Speaking of thugs in trials.
	I don't even understand what the legal question is here as to whether or not rap lyrics can serve as evidence in a trial of Rico or whatever.
	Imagine, you're accused of racketeering and criminal gang behavior, and they're going to use your rap lyrics against you.
	I don't know who the rapper is.
	It's YSL.
	Well, his name is Young Thug, so that probably doesn't help him much.
	I don't understand why this would even be an issue.
	It seems that it would be more a question of probative value and argumentation than admissibility.
	The rap lyrics are out there.
	I don't know what the hell the rap lyrics are.
	I've never heard of this guy.
	I'm not going to listen to his music.
	It's not like Machine Gun Kelly that made an awesome Eminem diss track that I've listened to.
	So he raps about alleged Rico activity, and they want to allow, as evidence, the rap lyrics of Intent, and they say, I mean,
	it's really about the degree.
	Partially it's rap culture being put on trial.
	And it's the sort of cultural broader issue.
	The legal issue is really Rule 403 under the Federal Rules of Evidence Analysis and its analogous provisions under the state evidentiary codes, which is when is evidence that's probative, that makes a fact in dispute in the trial more likely to be true or not.
	That's the relevant standard, materiality standard.
	To what degree is there unfair risk of prejudice, confusion, cumulative evidence, etc.?
	What's the likelihood the jury draws an inference from this rap lyrics that is more prejudicial than probative?
	In other words, they say, I don't like rap lyrics, or I don't like rap music, or something.
	So it's figuring that out.
	When does your art become evidence against you?
	Number one, is the art itself kind of being put on trial?
	This is a rap subculture that pretends it's legit for the purposes of getting musical credibility and marketability.
	And it's being legit means you're really from the street.
	And what's interesting is even though rap music arose primarily by being funded...
	By actual drug organizations and gangs in a range of cities.
	Its recent incarnation has been middle class black kids who don't have any actual connection to gangs pretending that they do in order to gain marketability of their art.
	So you have this weird connection of art and an actual lifestyle, a criminal lifestyle in this instance.
	And the question is when and how can it be used to indict you?
	And used to imprison you.
	And where's the limit?
	When is something art?
	When is it not art?
	And I think the problem here is the unique subculture is what made the relevance of the lyrics more material and more probative than it would be in, say, the act.
	Like if you had somebody who shot their wife and they have some song somewhere, a country music song about shooting your wife.
	You would say, hold on a second, that's really not necessarily relevant.
	I wouldn't.
	I would say it's like O.J. Simpson writing if I had done it.
	He's still innocent, by the way.
	But yeah, so I think it's an interesting case.
	I think they're still in jury selection in that trial.
	I think they're like in month eight or something of jury selection.
	All kinds of weird things have happened in that case.
	So we'll see what happens.
	But to a degree, it's putting an entire subculture on trial because that subculture chose to be legit to get their marketability in the first place.
	Robert, this is what's amazing about the internet, multitasking, or as some would say, just being distracted.
	Let me just make sure I can bring this up here.
	Here we go.
	The question is, do we have any updates on Owen Schroer 1776?
	What's the latest Jack Poso, who's following it?
	And I tagged Owen Schroer.
	We're live with Barnes.
	Poso says, Last I told Still in Solitary, Owen Schroyer, the account being managed by people outside.
	He is scheduled to talk to his attorney this coming Tuesday.
	We're hoping his phone privilege So, that's it.
	Of course, because he's Jeffrey Dahmer.
	He's Charles Manson.
	Solitary.
	And it makes sense.
	And really, this method of solitary shouldn't exist.
	There's no reason why it needs to exist.
	And what I mean by it is the lack of basic places to sleep, the constant lack of quality food.
	You can have isolation without the method of solitary that we do, and we do it deliberately to torture people.
	By the way, to give you an example, years ago, the federal prison system did studies to determine whether or not...
	People visiting their children, minor children, what effect that had.
	It turned out it had a negative effect.
	But psychologically, it disturbed the inmate when they interacted with their minor child because it reminded them of the horror of them being inside and separated from them.
	And it led to them behaving worse rather than better.
	So you know what the Bureau of Prisons did?
	They took posters reminding them of your missing child all over every federal facility.
	Right.
	I mean, this is the people who run these facilities are Shaw Dang Redemption people.
	They like to torture people for the sake of torture.
	That's the reality of it.
	And the people on the right have been in denial about it for a long time.
	And they're now just witnessing it in real time.
	It's unbelievable.
	I'm just reading Space Johnson says, for a short stint, wouldn't he rather be isolated?
	No, not in solitary.
	Nope, not at all.
	Because again, you can't sleep.
	And you get no food of any kind.
	And there's nothing to do.
	It's literally just torture for 30 days.
	And now that you mention it, I'm going to bring it up right now.
	Imagine being put in a closet with light and no food.
	With light and no food.
	With light constantly on you so you can't get to sleep.
	No socialization.
	No way to recognize where you're at.
	If you don't think it's bad, try it at home.
	I couldn't go to camp for a month with friends and wonderfulness and the open nature because I missed home so much.
	Okay, I'm going to bring this up because I want to actually see where it's at now.
	Chris Lysak, this is one of the Coutts Four, by the way, started the campaign for his legal defense.
	I'm talking about torture, solitary confinement, political prisoners.
	Canada has their own, and nobody should forget about the Coutts Four.
	And at the risk of not naming the four, I'll just talk about the one who's got his own now independent...
	Give, send, go for legal fees.
	When we started this, and I hadn't brought it up yet, it was at $142,000.
	What are we at now?
	It's still under $142,000, but it has $500 more.
	They're trying to get to $150,000.
	I suspect the law firm is going to take the mandate at $142,000 of a retainer.
	But if anybody can go and if you can't give, at least share.
	And I'll give the link so everybody can share.
	That's Chris Lysak, one of the coots for Pre-trial detainment in remand for damn near two years now.
	And some of them have been in solitary.
	They go in and out depending on their COVID status and whatever.
	Punishment, whatever.
	I spoke with Chris the day of the third RNC debate for our prison allotted 20 minutes.
	And it's heartbreaking.
	Period.
	So I'll give everybody the link if everybody can, you know, share, donate.
	But share if you can't donate.
	That's it.
	Okay, Robert, my blood pressure is not going down.
	I asked Marion to get a blood pressure thing so I could make sure I'm not walking around with constant hypertension.
	I'm not, but what's next on the list to not give me the hypertension?
	We've got a couple of AI cases and Michigan football is what's left to wrap up.
	The Michigan football, I'm there with my wife and I say, I'm out.
	I don't, anything about football I'm not interested in.
	The AI, okay, we'll start with talking about raising blood pressure.
	A 16-year-old girl on Snapchat in high school sees a bunch of nudes of her on Snapchat, or at least gets made aware of it by the school.
	I don't know how it exactly works.
	I don't know who's getting sued.
	You'll fill me in.
	But bottom line, they're now using AI-generated images to fill in the blanks on what is otherwise.
	And from what I understand in whatever state this is, I forget.
	Still criminal activity.
	In Canada, you cannot have cartoon depictions of underage intercourse.
	That qualifies as CP, child pornography.
	It sounds like it's the same situation here.
	You can't share these AI-generated images around.
	And there's going to be a whole new slew of legal questions as to what's going on.
	But a girl in high school finds out on Snapchat some dude has posted AI-generated nudes of her.
	At first, she was sad.
	She gets angry.
	She says, I'm going to take steps against this.
	And I forget the legal status.
	I just remember being outraged by the actual factual basis.
	What's going on with it?
	Yes.
	So, I mean, the issue is, other than the underage component, which you're right, may present some legal remedy.
	The parents were shocked to find out that this even happened at the school.
	And the school hadn't disclosed all details.
	And the other component was that there was no apparent remedy.
	Beyond what you mentioned, whether or not it fits under the certain definition of child pornography laws or obscenity laws, because it's deepfakes.
	And this is AI in general.
	What to do about deepfakes?
	When do deepfakes cross over into invasion of privacy?
	When do deepfakes cross over into issues of right to publicity of your name and image, your name, image, and likeness?
	We've discussed this in the Owen Shroyer Twitter case.
	Where, you know, we've sued the individual pretending to be Owen Troyer, who obtained a verification as if he were Owen Troyer.
	And in so doing, the reasons why it's an actionable suit is Owen has a right to control the publicity of his own name, image, and likeness.
	In addition, he has a property interest in his own account and in other things that can come about related to people who think it's him.
	By the way, just to show this in real time, I know the person follows me.
	I was following them because I thought it was the real Owen Schroyer.
	This is the account.
	I showed it before, actually.
	I'm so exhausted by this joke.
	Now I have to fight for it.
	Incredible.
	The free speech Patriot Infowars are suing myself, X and Elon, over this joke.
	This is the first time he's admitted it is a joke, and it's still not even clear, right?
	He could just put, parody account.
	This is what Musk himself said.
	It said, you know, put parity account if you want to be identified as a parity account and you'll be protected.
	But don't pretend to be somebody else's account because that's theft.
	That's theft of name, identity, and likeness.
	That's theft of privacy.
	That's theft of property.
	So the question is that when AI is combined with someone in this manner, when is it an actionable item?
	And against whom, though?
	And against whom, exactly.
	So here you've got a teenage boy that got a little creative.
	Now, I think you're right.
	The underage aspect may pose real problems for him in ways he may not have thought about when he thought he was just having a fun little prank.
	But for those that are not underage, what can be done?
	It's not clear yet.
	The law is not developed around AI enough to figure out what is a deep fake.
	For example, if it's clear parody, it's going to be protected.
	Because that was the Hustler case where they made it look like Larry Flynn was sleeping with his mother.
	I mean, Larry Flynn made it look like Reverend Falwell was sleeping with his mother.
	Falwell was not happy about that, of course, and brought suit.
	The Supreme Court said, no, that's completely protected parody.
	You get to do that.
	As long as it is parody.
	Like, the mistake of the guy stealing Owen's account is he didn't make clear it was parody.
	We wouldn't be suing, but for the fact that he keeps pretending he's Owen Troyer.
	And even now, he only indirectly references the fact that he is not actually Owen Troyer.
	For example, is it invasion of privacy if it's not actually your body that's being shared?
	We say AI, and it's like, oh, these wonderfully indistinguishable AI-generated images.
	You could slap my face on Peter North, anybody's going to know, a porno actor.
	You could slap my face and just make it look integral.
	Except for one major difference.
	One person on Earth would know that it would be totally wildly inaccurate.
	But what's the difference between AI and just a good Photoshop?
	Right, exactly.
	And to my knowledge, unless it's seen as real...
	And it can be considered defamation.
	There's no currently available...
	It's like revenge porn in this show.
	There wasn't clear laws to when it applied, how it applied, if it applied.
	So what's coming is probably deepfake legislation that will need to protect parity in the process.
	Because parity is First Amendment protected.
	So as long as they protect the First Amendment aspect of it, they're probably going to need to because of examples like this.
	Where, you know, teenage girls, you know, the, because apparently people thought it was actually them, not an AI version of them.
	I can imagine it's very, very easy to take a young person's body, slap on a head, blur the edges, and then it's true, like defamation.
	It's factually incorrect.
	People are sharing it as correct.
	And that would be where your damages are from.
	But from the child pornography aspect, and I do, I mean, I have a very honest and frank Relationship with my kids.
	People have to know, you can't even open these images.
	You can't even engage in sharing them because it could be borderline, if not outright, criminal activity to do it, especially on jurisdiction.
	So what is she doing, though?
	Is she suing the school or is she suing the parents and the kids?
	Well, the parents were really upset of the different kids, but what they were frustrated about is they said in talking to people, there was no apparent legal remedy.
	And so you'll probably start to see legislation propounded.
	Yeah, well, especially their young criminal complaints against the kids' parents, the school, and then see where that goes.
	The question is what happens when they start using this in campaigns?
	And what happens when you start using this in evidence, in trials?
	Somebody gets tricked by AI.
	And forget Ron DeSantis in heels.
	You're going to have Ron DeSantis naked in heels.
	All I have to say is it's bad.
	Yeah, okay, well, terrible.
	Okay, what's the other AI?
	The other big AI case is the software case.
	That's the one I'm not up to speed with, Robert.
	What's that one about?
	So the issue is you have a lot of open-source software that's stored places like GitHub and elsewhere, but there's open-source licenses that require attribution and other things if you use it.
	AI, of course, isn't really capable of that.
	So you have these AI software coding programs that were just going in and grabbing this without attribution, without recognizing the license.
	So now there's a bunch of suits that have been filed by those open source license holders that are like, AI has just routinely stolen our material without proper attribution and honoring the respect of the limits of the license.
	And this is very simple.
	Remember, these lawsuits are taking place in the literary context, artistic context.
	Other context because they've done this repeatedly, right?
	They've scraped all this material from the internet.
	And in the process, they grabbed material that had potential copyright, trademark, or licensure protection.
	And here they brought suit under a bunch of theories.
	It's an interesting suit because it gets into...
	People are suing that haven't been injured yet or can't prove it.
	It's like, well, what can they do?
	Can they sue for privacy interest?
	Can they sue for potential property interest?
	Can they sue for future impairment?
	And basically what the court recognized is that you can seek conjunctive relief if you have a reasonable fear of imminent risk to your property.
	That's what injunctive relief has always been there.
	You don't have to prove your code has already been stolen for you to sue in advance.
	Also, the question of anonymity came up because many of the plaintiffs are like, we want to stay anonymous because we've already received threats and our lawyers have already received threats related to this case from the trolling world.
	And the court properly recognized your right to sue with a pseudonym.
	Which was nice, because a lot of courts don't recognize that and often eviscerate it.
	The court also recognized that unauthorized use of your material is a separate action that's not preempted by copyright, because that was the other issue.
	When does copyright preempt this whole area of AI-derived legal risk?
	And the court recognized that copyright isn't meant to be all-encompassing beyond the issues specific to copyright.
	So, very interesting case to follow.
	It consolidated a lot of these cases because it's going to be another place where AI is just eviscerating not only the economic landscape, but aspects of our legal rights and remedies and what to do about it.
	Up next is a lot of the Screen Actor Guild contract dispute and strike was partially about limiting the scope of AI involvement and replacing them as screenwriters.
	Also, it was about the AI's capability.
	Of a different version of deepfakes.
	So a lot of times, actors would give their right for a limited purpose for their use in a film.
	Well, now with deepfake, they can de-age them and stick them in any project anywhere.
	And they were nervous about, okay, we want to limit what that right is.
	We want that to be a separate contract or we want the separate royalty payments that would come from that.
	And the film companies were saying, now you actually assigned your whole likeness for that purpose and now we can use it for whatever we want.
	And now we don't need you physically there.
	We can have an AI version of you play the role.
	And so all of AI's radical change on the economics and culture is starting to have a legal impact in going to court.
	It sounds like it might be the beginning of some form of universal basic income where like, okay, if you get it, you can do whatever you want with it, but pay me 1% of royalties and then we don't have a problem.
	So de-age me and whatever.
	I might be beginning to sound a little bit too much like Joe Rogan.
	That's cool.
	Okay, that's very cool.
	The last one, the football, Robert.
	Okay, hold on.
	We're going to give the link to Viva Barnes Law.
	It's not that I don't care about football, but I don't care about football.
	And when I start seeing that it's football, and I know you love it.
	Okay, what's going on with this one?
	So this is a coach of the University of Michigan's football program.
	Jim Harbaugh was suspended by the Big Ten from being able to coach on the sidelines right before their big game this weekend against Penn State.
	Then they got a big game to finish the season against Ohio State.
	The national championship may be on the line, ultimately, and access to the playoffs that shape the national championship.
	The issue is that Michigan is accused of violating a conference rule about sign stealing.
	So they interfere, they pick up on the sign stealing.
	They scouted out the opponent and figured out stuff that anybody could watch live time anyway.
	So it's one of those kind of dumb rules.
	Because they get it's a rule, but it's a rule that's easily circumvented by other mechanisms.
	And so the question is what penalty should be there.
	And the Big Ten Conference waited until a holiday, Veterans Day, to issue the penalty so they couldn't get into court quick enough.
	So that he was suspended for the Penn State game.
	Didn't matter.
	Michigan won pretty comfortably anyway.
	But the bigger game is the game at home in Ann Arbor against Ohio State in one of the biggest rivalries in all of sports, which this year will have a Big Ten title on the line, maybe the national title on the line, Ohio State Buckeyes against the Wolverines of Michigan.
	And so he wants to be on the sidelines for that.
	So they have filed suit, and there's a hearing this coming Friday before the game Saturday against Maryland and then the next game against Ohio State.
	In which they're saying their due process rights were violated, that there was a rush to judgment, that the harm of him not being able to be on the sidelines of being MIA in such a big game is an irreparable injury, according to the University of Michigan.
	There's also all kinds of controversy because the lawsuits are filed in Michigan, and so many of the judges are Michigan fans and Michigan alums.
	So there's allegations that they couldn't get possibly a fair verdict.
	The Big Ten conference in the place with so many biased judges.
	It was interesting how many legal commenters and journalists were focusing on where the graduate was of the judge.
	It's like, huh, I thought we were told that all these judges are magically impartial and beyond human bias.
	Apparently not when it involves the Big Ten and the University of Michigan football program.
	If you're on one side or the other, you're excited about it, and then all of a sudden you read all kinds of tea leaves.
	But I think they probably will win their injunction, and Harbaugh will probably be on the sidelines for the game against Ohio State.
	Stealing signs?
	That sounds stupid, especially since if they're stealing signs and they injunct this guy out of coaching, he can just tell them what to do by cell phone.
	I don't know how that works.
	It seems like injuncting out expert opinion.
	Sounds ridiculous.
	If you can just do it by calling in and relaying it to somebody else.
	But...
	Robert, so we're going to go now to locals, correct?
	And we're going to answer some of the tips there.
	Hold on one second.
	I'm going to make sure everybody's got the link in here.
	Robert, what do you have?
	You've got, like, actual legal work coming up next week.
	What's going on?
	We filed our opposition.
	Tyson Foods claimed that they didn't take an adverse action against any of the Tennessee employees when they put them on unpaid leave because they first made the unpaid leave decision prior to Tennessee state law prohibiting it by just like 10 days or so, two weeks or so.
	The problem Tyson has is the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with this precise scenario.
	After the Title VII laws were passed in the 1960s.
	And you had a bunch of employers that said, look, there might be some discriminatory impact now of policies we had before the laws were passed, but you can't hold us responsible for that impact, that effect, when our policies were passed when it was legal.
	And the Supreme Court said, no, you don't get away with it.
	By continually harming your employees with discriminatory policies merely because you created those discriminatory policies before the law was passed prohibiting it because it was your policies that the law was intended to stop.
	And here Tyson Foods didn't stop their notice, their unpaid leave lockouts of employees on November 14th.
	They left them locked out for a year.
	And now they're saying, that's not an adverse action.
	Well, that wasn't taken.
	It's hogwash.
	It's a ludicrous claim.
	And so hopefully we'll prevail on that aspect before the court.
	So we'll be working on that, working on some other cases as well.
	They may be on with Nick Ricada at some point during the week, with Megan Fox to talk a little bit more about her case, if I feel a little bit better at some point during the week.
	Robert, I'm such an idiot.
	I accidentally just tweeted out vivabarneslaw.locals.com on Salty Cracker's live stream because I had it in the background.
	I meant to put it on ours so you can come to ours.
	But by the way, Salty Cracker is live right now.
	Hold on.
	In fairness, so I can make up for my own mistake, Salty Restream right here.
	Let's see what Salty's about here.
	How do I get the volume?
	Are you kidding, mate?
	I've seen the sharks with laser beams on their heads.
	I'm getting a rifle too.
	So I accidentally tweeted that out.
	His beard is beautiful.
	He's wearing glasses.
	And now he's got alcohol.
	Put these guys over here and get lit while you know it.
	Okay, Robert, we're going over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	That's what's going on there.
	On Wednesday night, we have...
	Not American History X. History Legends.
	Canadian History Legends.
	American History X, History Legends, same thing.
	What time?
	7 o 'clock?
	Yep.
	Okay, awesome.
	The Canadian dude covering history is going to be amazing.
	That's Wednesday.
	Yeah, he does great breakdowns of the war, the conflict in Gaza, Ukraine, all over the place.
	So he has a great channel and it'll be great to chat with him.
	Okay, amazing.
	And actually, before we go over to...
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com I hope Salty's not going to be angry with me.
	I didn't mean to raid his chat.
	We got Mad Pierre says, Robert, can you recommend a lawyer with the interest and withdrawal to bring a case against the Veterans Administration?
	Thanks.
	Do you know anyone offhand?
	There are some people that focus on that.
	Jane Catherine Barry.
	Robert, my sister was a minor pop star in the UK about 25 years ago.
	There was AI-generated bios about her that include falsehoods and show her net worth in the millions.
	She feels at risk.
	Could she sue?
	Potentially, yeah.
	The Wired.
	CP child porn laws are broken.
	Don't protect anyone naturally to more harm than good.
	Especially when you entangle actual children in them.
	See crime against children also first ever been protected.
	That was from The Wired.
	Freddie65.
	Give send go Sergeant Yetman.
	Oh yes.
	I meant to do that.
	That's Sergeant Yetman that Julie Kelly's been covering.
	I will share that again and I'll blast it out for the rest of the week.
	Give, send, go.
	Sergeant Yetman.
	January 6th.
	Turned himself in to avoid FBI arrest.
	He turned himself in to avoid FBI execution.
	And he's smart for having done it.
	Thank God he's alive.
	That's from Freddy65.
	I'm going to blast that out after this.
	Kenzie67.
	Thanks for supporting Chris Lysak.
	He needs so much help.
	150K is just the retainer.
	635 days in solitary.
	Give, send, go.
	We got it there.
	Free Owen from Galting.
	Hold on.
	Galting.
	Francis Montgomery.
	Barnes, do you think the judge Engron's summary judgment will stand if it is appealed?
	If Trump loses the appeal, what will be the long-term consequences of the property ownership in New York City?
	Don't be in New York.
	Get the F out.
	Ginster C. Newby here and loving the chat.
	Thank you.
	And then we got it.
	Okay, now, what we're doing, we're ending it now.
	On.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	This.
	We're ending it on Rumble.
	I'll be live tomorrow.
	If it's not tomorrow, it'll be Tuesday.
	No schedule.
	Hashtag FTW.
	Live streaming.
	I'm ending it.
	We're ending it on Rumble right now.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com or go over to Salty Cracker and say Viva and Barnes sent you.
	Ending it and we're going over to Rumble.
	Locals.
	Right now.
	Now.
	Now.
	Done.
	Robert, okay.
	I think we're done.
	Crap, I didn't mean to look like I was rating Salty's chat to say, come on over to Viva Bar's Law!
	That's gonna...
	Okay, whatever.
	We'll see what happens there.

▲