Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 7, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:11:26

Ep. 192: The BIGGEST Cases of 2024 - Trump to Amos Miller to Brook Jackson! Viva & Barnes LIVE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Alright, this is interesting.
	Apparently, the interwebs don't want me playing the Alex Jones was right video.
	Hold on one second.
	We need to not have the confrontation with the police.
	We're going to make that the story.
	I'm going to march to the other side where we have a stage where you can speak and occupy peacefully.
	Tell everybody behind you, march to the other side.
	We don't have a camp state here.
	So, I love you.
	We're saving the republic.
	This is beautiful!
	But please, to everyone you know, march to the other side!
	To the other side!
	To the other side!
	Thank you.
	Hold on one second.
	I hear a video somewhere in the background.
	Give me one second to find the video that's playing music.
	Oh, jeez, Luis.
	Okay, so now I don't hear the video playing.
	Oh, there was a video playing in the backdrop.
	You can't see it, but I can hear something extra going on in my head.
	First of all, good afternoon.
	Happy New Year.
	I hear myself...
	Playing in the background.
	Where is it?
	Nobody can fully understand how annoying this is.
	I've left one window open.
	And I know what it is.
	It's the original...
	Hold on.
	Episode 192.
	Here we go.
	There, I found it.
	Okay.
	Now, back to the beginning.
	Good afternoon.
	Happy New Year for those who have not tuned in for any Viva Fry streams since we've entered a 2024.
	Karen, I'm feeling better.
	I had a week of antibiotics, which wreaks havoc, as my wife says, on the, what is it called?
	The gut biome?
	I don't know what it is.
	Whatever.
	I feel better.
	Still lingering.
	A lingering sinus-ish.
	Very minimal.
	For those who don't know, go back to Canada, get sick, get a sinus infection.
	I'm out.
	For a week.
	I mean, I was struggling to get streams together.
	Struggling to put out the vlogs.
	Excuse me.
	So that I could stay in touch with everyone that I love.
	Oh yeah, the gut biome.
	That's it.
	So now I have to eat a bunch of yogurt and probiotics and all this other crap.
	Okay, but nobody wants to hear about that TMI.
	Like, you get old, all you talk about is your physical ailments.
	I'm sure everybody's very interested to know my sciatic is better.
	So now I went back to jogging on a treadmill for about a week or two weeks, and I feel better.
	So maybe it's jogging on pavement, but now I'm back in Florida, so I'm going to have to go back to jogging on pavement.
	Regardless, Happy New Year.
	We have to start the show at 4 o 'clock today because this is not a humble flex and there's no but to this.
	I don't really want to go, but I've been told you can't say no.
	To this particular football game, I was invited to the Dolphins versus the Bills.
	And I was like, okay, I'll send my...
	Marion can go.
	The kids can go.
	And they're like, no, you can't really turn down this football game.
	I've never been to an American football game in my entire life.
	I went to a CFL game.
	I mean, that I think is like comparing figure skating to NHL.
	Not to be too mean to the CFL.
	I went to see the Montreal Alouettes play at the McGill Stadium.
	And was it the Montreal Alouettes or was it the McGill?
	Whatever.
	I've seen a Canadian football game.
	Someone said, Viva, I got two extra tickets.
	You gotta come.
	And I was like, I got the show.
	I don't really want to go.
	I don't like crowds.
	And I don't really like football.
	I haven't watched it in a long time.
	I was told that it's not a game that anybody can turn down.
	So I'm going to the football game.
	I think it starts at 8.20 tonight, which is very late.
	And I don't like late nights, but whatever.
	I'm going to go.
	So that's why I have to do the show a little early.
	We'll get to the sponsor in a second.
	I want to do a bit of a special intro, because yesterday was January 6th.
	It was Happy Insurrection Day.
	And for people who spend too much time on Twitter...
	That would include me and I can fully recognize that.
	I find it useful to know what the enemy is saying.
	And if you were on Twitter on Insurrection Day, January 6th, the three-year anniversary of the day that will live in infamy, what you saw on Twitter is a tale of two cities, a tale of two worlds, one screen, two films.
	It was some of the most enraging rubbish you could ever possibly imagine.
	Propaganda.
	Up the wazoo, Tristan Snell, Hakeem Jeffries, everybody coming out.
	It was the darkest day.
	We must remember this solemn day forever.
	In hindsight, once you understand what a setup, what an inside job January 6th was, it becomes impossible to just watch and look at the rubbish on Twitter without feeling the need to vociferously call out the bullshit, which I think I did.
	And Ashley Babbitt murderer is still free.
	No, no, it's not murder because murder in law is the unlawful killing of a human.
	They investigated Lieutenant Byrd and said it was totally lawful.
	We're going to talk about the estate of Ashley Babbitt's lawsuit against the government for wrongful death, etc.
	You read that lawsuit and it will enrage you.
	Because one fact that I don't think many people appreciate highlighted in that lawsuit, Lieutenant Byrd...
	Was not in uniform.
	There were no warnings given before fatally shooting Ashley Babbitt.
	So what you have is basically a plain-clothed assassin in a crowd firing into a crowded area with no warning, no instructions to stop doing what you're doing or face lethal consequences.
	What's not unclothed?
	Plain-clothed.
	It's enraging.
	So we're going to do a bit of an intro.
	It'll be the day after Insurrection Day special because I didn't listen to Joe Biden's full speech.
	I cannot and I will not.
	I got the highlights.
	I got as much of the highlights as I need to get.
	I want to play you some of the highlights.
	And then we're going to have a laugh.
	Listen to highlight number one.
	Listen to this.
	Just understand what he said here.
	This man is...
	Demented.
	The man is senile.
	The man has dementia, Alzheimer's, some cognitive impairment.
	Anybody who's ever seen the face of someone suffering from it knows what that face looks like.
	It looks like this.
	Listen to this highlight.
	God bless you all and may God protect our troops.
	God bless you all and may God protect our troops.
	Yep.
	Where am I going?
	Where am I?
	What's going on?
	Watch this.
	This man is lost.
	Oh, there's Jill.
	Listen to this.
	I understand power.
	Did everybody understand what he just said there?
	I understand power.
	I understand power.
	Thank you all.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
	God bless you all and may God protect us.
	What was it when we said democracy?
	Look at this.
	Lost, demented fool.
	I understand power.
	Oh, he understands power.
	I'm sure Putin is taking notes.
	Help me, help me, Jill.
	Kiss a woman.
	I understand power.
	I understand power.
	What in the name of sweet holy hell is that about?
	You imagine, like, other than the fact, it's scary on its face.
	He understands power, and we're going to see in a second, he really does understand power.
	Sitting there boasting about the fact that they locked up...
	Got convictions or plea deals from 900 protesters.
	They locked him up for over 840 years.
	We'll get there.
	He's a lost, dawdling old, old demented man.
	A woman comes in, he hugs his wife and then immediately turns to the mic and says, I understand power.
	Holy hell, people.
	That is certainly indicative of some wiring of a brain.
	That looks at women and immediately thinks power.
	On the one hand.
	And even if it were just him flexing, saying, I understand power.
	Oh, he understands power.
	Listen to this.
	This is from Charlie Kirk.
	One desperate act available to him.
	The violence of January the 6th.
	And since that day, more than 1,200 people have been charged for their assault on the Capitol.
	Nearly 900 of them.
	For those of you who can't understand his slurring, demented speech, over 1,200 were charged for the assault on the Capitol.
	Have been charged for the assault on the Capitol.
	Nearly 900 of them have been convicted or pled guilty.
	900.
	Collectively to date, they have been sentenced to more than 840 years in prison.
	Collectively to date, they have been sentenced to more than 840 years in prison.
	He's bragging about this.
	they have been sentenced to more than 840 years in prison Look at this demented face.
	Can I zoom in?
	I can't.
	This is the face of someone who has no idea what he's doing, where he is, what's going on, what year it is.
	Oh, but the crowd is cheering.
	This is the left people.
	This is criminal justice reform left.
	This is freedom of speech left.
	This is a racist patriarchal justice system left celebrating over 840 years in prison for the January 6th protesters.
	And they clap!
	Well done!
	This is the same animal that calls Putin a tyrant.
	That calls Putin an autocrat dictator for locking up journalists, for locking up dissidents.
	This man sat there and boasted to America that he, I mean, it's an interesting thing that he's sitting here boasting about the fact that they got 840 years of prison for protesters.
	It's supposed to have nothing to do with the justice system.
	It's supposed to be a system that works totally independently, yet he seems to be taking credit for the convictions, for the plea deals, for the persecutions.
	Boasting about the fact that they've locked up protesters for 840 man years.
	I was sitting there this morning like, it's enraging.
	It's enraging, but it's mostly depressing.
	And I'm not saying this to be melodramatic or hyperbolic.
	It's sad.
	Not just that this demented fool, this demented tyrant, is sitting here burning the system down.
	You go on Twitter, and there's people who I know are real people.
	Cheering it on.
	There are people out there saying, Dad, it's good.
	Lock them up.
	Oh, what's that?
	You know, the system is racist and locks up black people.
	We need to have judicial reform, criminal justice reform, bail, no cash bail.
	The same people who say this are the same hypocrites who justify two years of pretrial detention torture.
	The same hypocrites who say that.
	Are the ones who are cheering on 840 years for protesters.
	Whether or not you consider them violent protesters, whether or not you agree with what they did.
	God damned hypocrites.
	There's no other way to say it.
	And there's a lot of them out there.
	And there's a lot of them because they're listening to people like this.
	Listen to this.
	I forget the guy's name.
	You'll see it in a second.
	There's people out there who listen to this news, get this for their news, and it's just Hitlerian-level, Goebbels-level propaganda, Stalin-level propaganda.
	Listen to this.
	Former D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone was there that day, there on the west front of the Capitol, battling the mob.
	He was dragged down the Capitol steps.
	He was tased by someone in the pro-Trump mob.
	He suffered a heart attack during the fighting.
	And in a detail that crystallizes the horror that unfolded on January 6th, Fanon recalls insurrectionists shouting, quote, kill him with his own gun.
	Despite having lived through that harrowing assault and living with the consequences of that trauma, Fanon has not stopped defending our democracy.
	He has sought to hold those responsible accountable.
	And he has an urgent message for the American people as the 2024 presidential campaign season gets underway.
	Fanon told HuffPost, quote, ultimately you, the American voter, will be the last line of defense when it comes to preserving democracy as we know it and ensuring the peaceful transfer of power.
	And it's that serious.
	Joining me now in studio is Michael Fanone, former D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer, Courage for America Council Member, and author of Hold the Line, The Insurrection, and One Cop's Battle for America's Soul.
	Officer Fanone, I'm going to try to get through this.
	Thank you for what you did three years ago today.
	This guy looks like he can't believe what he's looking at himself.
	Please, tell me your thoughts on this third anniversary.
	Hold the line, the insurrection, and one cop's battle for America's soul.
	Officer Fanon, I'm going to try to get through this.
	Um, oh.
	Thank you for what you did three years ago today.
	Please tell me your thoughts on this third anniversary.
	Now I'm done.
	Holy cow.
	Can it get any worse than that?
	Officer Fanon, I'm going to try to get through this.
	Here's the tweet.
	First of all, I'll tell you one thing.
	If you're that fragile of a human, get the hell out of journalism.
	You have no business being in journalism if that is the type of stuff that brings you to tears.
	On air.
	Get the hell out of journalism, whoever that guy was.
	I forget his name.
	Incompetent, fragile, weak, and unfit for the profession.
	That's assuming it's sincere.
	That is about as sincere as saccharine.
	That's about as natural as crystal meth.
	Disgusting display of shameless propaganda is what that is.
	Oh, crying over January 6th.
	Oh my goodness, man.
	Send him to Gaza.
	Have him report there.
	I mean, he won't be able to get a sentence out of his mouth.
	Send him to Ukraine.
	Send him to a conflict zone.
	You know, hey, send him to the southern border.
	Hell, send him to anywhere in America where hundreds of thousands of people are dying from fentanyl overdose.
	Will he cry then?
	No, he won't.
	Because it's not part of the bloody agenda.
	This is about 2024 election interference, and we're seeing the groundwork for it now.
	Okay, I see Barnes in the backdrop.
	But, Robert, before I bring you in, you may have noticed, in fact, you should have, when you came into the stream that it said, this stream contains a paid promotion.
	Because it does, people.
	It's the new year.
	Okay, new year is not just about making resolutions that you will not keep.
	Keep your resolutions realistic.
	Keep them proportionate.
	And keep them attainable so that you don't let yourself down by setting unrealistic, unattainable objectives as a New Year's resolution.
	The easiest one to make and keep, be healthy.
	Cut out the bad habits, add in some exercise, add in some sunlight, all the regular stuff.
	Eat healthy, get the bad habits out of your system.
	Pun intended.
	Easiest way to do that?
	Fieldofgreens.com, people.
	Desecated powdered greens.
	Eat your fruits and vegetables.
	It's a little known fact.
	You're supposed to have five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	Most people do not have that.
	And it's a bad habit to get in.
	They suck down a disgusting Diet Coke or a sugar-laden Red Bull.
	Don't do that.
	One spoonful twice a day will give you one serving of fruits and vegetables per spoonful twice a day.
	That's two spoons.
	Two servings of fruits and vegetables.
	All the antioxidant stuff.
	It's food.
	It's not an extract.
	It's not a supplement.
	It's USDA organic certified.
	Made in America.
	Tastes good.
	Twice a day, you cut out the bad habits, you add in a good habit, and you treat your body like the temple that it is and not like the experimental testing grounds that our governments of the world have turned it into.
	Go to Viva, not Viva, sorry, it's fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA, 15% off your first order.
	And what else do they got?
	So they got a bunch of flavors.
	They've got other products as well.
	But the easiest thing to do, get a good healthy habit.
	One spoonful twice a day, fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA.
	And you're already off to a good New Year's.
	Alright, I see Robert in the backdrop.
	I'm going to bring him in now.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Long time no see.
	Now, hold on.
	I'm going to go into the audio on YouTube and just make sure that our audio is aligned.
	No thanks.
	Hold on one second.
	Live.
	Okay, Robert, tell us what you did over the New Year's and I'll see if our audio is aligned.
	I was in Chattanooga, Tennessee, my hometown.
	It's good.
	All right.
	May I ask, what was the weather like in Tennessee over winter?
	Is it cool or warm?
	It varies.
	And you had a good New Year's?
	Yep.
	Okay, well, Robert, I mean, it's one of our subjects of the afternoon.
	I suspect you had a good New Year right up until the raid on Amos Miller Farms.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Okay, first of all, so tell us, what's the book behind you?
	Are you smoking a cigar?
	And what's on the menu for the evening?
	The Devil's Empire, a book about the French New Orleans, French colonial New Orleans, that I'll be in New Orleans this week.
	On Wednesday morning, they're going to have the oral argument in the Fifth Circuit.
	They're in the Federal Court of Appeals.
	They're in the New Orleans courthouse concerning children's health defense, whether there's a right to sue by them and other parents, concerning the FDA's authorization, approval, labeling, branding, and marketing.
	of the COVID-19 vaccine and its boosters for young children.
	So our argument is that, in fact, there is standing, there is a Article III case or controversy that the case should proceed and progress accordingly, and the case should be reinstated.
	And so I'll be down there preparing for that and making the oral argument Wednesday morning.
	And that's just a book about New Orleans, which is kind of interesting during the pre-American stage of New Orleans when it was a French colony.
	And the cigar is a gift of one of our great board members.
	It's Pappy Van Buren Cigars, which is Pappy's favorite bourbon, great bourbon, 23-year Pappy's in particular.
	So thanks to the board member who sent those courtesy of Christmas.
	And that's about it.
	All right, awesome.
	And what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	So we're going to review the biggest cases of 2024.
	So we got Trump, Trump's criminal cases, Trump's civil cases, whether Trump will be on the ballot.
	We've got the big cases up before the Supreme Court concerning big tech, concerning the Second Amendment, concerning January 6th.
	We've got the Amos Miller case.
	We've got the vaccine-related cases, Brooke Jackson's case, CHD's children's health defense cases, the Tyson Foods and employer cases.
	We've got crypto and the Fed and the issues that may be implicated in financial freedom.
	So we've got political freedom, food freedom, financial freedom, medical freedom, all on the docket in 2024.
	We've got a couple of bonus cases about paralegals suing, claiming a First Amendment right to give legal advice.
	We've got Cher.
	Trying to become a conservator for her kid.
	And we've got Biden suing Texas to stop them from enforcing the immigration laws that he's not enforcing.
	And New York suing to stop Texas from sending immigrants to New York City, which even though it's a sanctuary city and a sanctuary state, decides they don't want to be the sanctuary place anymore.
	May I impose and can I add as the start-off to the show the estate of Ashley Babbitt wrongful death lawsuit against the government?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And now just so everybody knows, we're going to end on YouTube.
	I guess we'll do this in maybe one or two more subjects.
	Then we're going to end on YouTube.
	Go over to Viva Fry on Rumble or VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com on Locals because we're going to get off of the commie tube and go over to the free speech platform.
	Robert, okay, so the big news, we talked about it extensively back in the day.
	Ashley Babbitt, the estate of wrongful death lawsuit against the government, they had to exhaust whatever the administrative delays are for the government to either answer their claim or deny their claim.
	Apparently it's been two years the government did not respond to the claim, so it's a deemed, what, a deemed refusal, and they filed lawsuit the estate of and the husband for wrongful death.
	I read through it.
	I mean, I went through the highlights.
	Some of the fact pattern is quite damning as far as I'm concerned in terms of Officer Byrd being plain clothed and therefore indiscernible to the crowd in any event.
	They go through some of the factual elements as to whether or not Byrd rightly or wrongly thought that he was defending Congress people, whether or not he rightly or wrongly thought that he was trapped in that corridor.
	In fact, he had an exit.
	In fact...
	The majority of Congress had already been evacuated from the building, so who the hell was he protecting?
	Reckless discharge of a firearm into a crowded area, which, according to the lawsuit, you can't do regardless because you need to know who's behind you.
	You've got to have a damn good reason for using lethal force.
	What do you think the chances of success are on this lawsuit in terms of holding anybody accountable?
	Well, we'll see.
	I mean, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, wrongful death claims can be brought against federal officers.
	You do have to exhaust your administrative remedies first before you're allowed to file suit.
	Credit to Judicial Watch, which my understanding has taken over the prosecution of the suit, at least at some level.
	They've also used the Freedom of Information Act request.
	Judicial Watch with Tom Fitton does great work in that capacity.
	That's how we found out about Hillary Clinton's emails, even existing, was through Judicial Watch's aggressive FOIA activity.
	Judicial Watch also does great work on purging illegally registered voters from the voter rolls in a bunch of states.
	They're doing important work there as well.
	So I'm glad that they are involved with the case on her behalf and on her estate.
	To me, it's a classic case of wrongful death.
	I mean, no one can tell me that that is self-defense.
	There's no way that's self-defense.
	To shoot a person who is not presenting an imminent risk of severe bodily harm without notice and just shoot him dead.
	To me, it's a classic wrongful death case.
	As the suit details, this officer has a history of misfiring his weapon and mishandling these circumstances and situations.
	It was a summary execution by the Capitol Police.
	And there should be legal consequence.
	The question is whether the courts in the District of Columbia, either the judges or juries, will ever give it or grant it.
	And I think it shows, once again, the problem of a District of Columbia even existing as a federal court system.
	It has exposed its political prejudice and partisan bias in such a way throughout all these January 6th cases, throughout all the Trump cases.
	That they shouldn't exist.
	And if Congress ever gets serious about judicial reform in America, then it can start by getting rid of the District of Columbia as a separate judicial jurisdiction.
	We watched this weekend at the board the film Judgment at Nuremberg.
	And who was on trial in the Judgment at Nuremberg?
	The judges.
	That's who was at trial.
	The judges just followed what the government told them to do.
	So they sterilized people against their will.
	They sent people to the concentration camps.
	They sent them to be executed on bogus grounds.
	As the film finishes, he explains to the judge, the German judge, you're absolutely guilty.
	You knew as soon as you executed one innocent man that you put us on the path to what happened in the Holocaust.
	And so the judges need to be put more on trial.
	And one way to do that is to get rid of the District of Columbia as a branch because this is a straightforward case that in any other instance, if the politics were flipped, if the racial dynamics were flipped, if there was a white cop and a black victim, there's no doubt the media would be outraged and the courts would enforce justice.
	So if justice doesn't happen here, it's purely for prejudicial reasons that prove the incapacity of the judicial branch to be impartial in the District of Columbia.
	I hate doing the if the races were inverted, but it's so patently obvious.
	You get, like, armed black men who get shot, and then they turn it into a racial issue.
	A black cop shoots a white woman, point blank, in his own testimony.
	He says, you know, I didn't know if she was a man or a woman.
	I didn't know what she had in her hands.
	I didn't see anything.
	Point blank.
	It would be headline news forever.
	And it's, you know, at first it was just like...
	The day it happened, I was like, you know, you do stupid things.
	You're asking for trouble, but not that much trouble.
	You know, it was dumb to be there.
	It was dumb to be smashing windows.
	You might be asking for trouble, like, with the judicial system, not for summary execution.
	This is the guy, by the way, Lieutenant Byrd, once upon a time, left his firearm in a bathroom in the D.C. building.
	Left it in the bathroom.
	He took it out to take a dump.
	Left it on a counter.
	Just a very, very qualified officer.
	The question that I was going to ask in terms of...
	Oh, it doesn't matter.
	Yeah, never mind.
	Okay, we'll see.
	Robert, hold on.
	Let me do three super chats because I forgot to do these.
	Viva, you can jog in the park while kick soccer ball.
	No, no, I'm watching the football game.
	That was from KM.
	Passion Moyer says, I'm certain that when Biden said he understood power, he meant that Jill has the power, not him.
	Oh, I didn't even think of it that way.
	When Jill came out, then Biden knew what he had to do.
	Okay, that's good.
	I still like my interpretation better.
	P.S. Never zoom in on Biden, alright?
	Okay, let's do one of the Trump ones before we head over?
	Yeah, so the Supreme Court has taken up the ballot case.
	There's also the criminal cases that is pending before the D.C. Court of Appeals.
	The D.C. Court of Appeals agreed to former Attorney General Edwin Meese, challenging whether Jack Smith even has any constitutional authority to do anything.
	Okay, hold on.
	Actually, let's stop it.
	We'll do that one, then we'll go over to the rest.
	So I covered that over the holidays, the amicus.
	This was before...
	This was before the Supreme Court agreed to take it up, so I thought that amicus had...
	The Supreme Court did not agree to take that up.
	And so that's back before the D.C. Court of Appeals, and so now the D.C. Court of Appeals agreed to add that to the pending appeal about presidential immunity.
	Does Jack Smith have legal power in the first place?
	Okay, only on the issue that amicus, which was from Meese, which said that Jack was, Jack Smith, is citizen Jack Smith, was never lawfully appointed, cannot be appointed to that position, bypassing all of the congressional hearings, etc., etc.
	Therefore, everything he's ever done in the context of this persecution, prosecution, has been invalid.
	Let's just say, Robert, I think it's totally unrealistic to even think that even if they come to that conclusion, they're going to strike down everything he did.
	Would they have an administrative way of saying, all right, we'll replace someone who's going to retroactively ratify all of the acts of Jack Smith?
	They can't, no.
	Now, it wouldn't prevent them from another prosecutor separately bringing an indictment, but the current indictments would have to be dismissed.
	Well, shut my big mouth then.
	All right, we're 30 minutes in, Robert.
	Let's go on over to Rumble, where we're going to continue with the rest of this.
	Hold on just one second, everybody.
	I think the link should be pinned, but link to Rumble here, and I'll give everyone the link to locals as well.
	If anybody wants to come over there, come on over to Locals.
	I will get to the...
	Hold on one second.
	I will get to the Rumble rants over on Locals.
	Now, everybody's got the links to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and Rumble.
	And now we're going to end on YouTube because they don't deserve this.
	Peace, people.
	Come on over.
	Okay.
	All right, Robin.
	So which one did the Supreme Court say they're going to take?
	The ballot.
	Okay.
	What's the time frame?
	They've got to start moving their butts on this.
	Yeah, they've already expedited it, so there's briefing that's going to be wrapped up with oral argument by February.
	Okay, I mean, I know the questions of law here now as to whether or not states have the willy-nilly power to self-execute the 14th Amendment third paragraph.
	I guess maybe if there's more to the legal question, let me know, but Robert, what's your prediction as to what the Supreme Court is going to rule here?
	I think they've been put in a position where they have no choice but to hopefully make a very broad ruling that states don't have this power, period.
	That the access to the ballot is limited by the Constitution, which only for the presidency concerns age, concerns natural-born citizenship, and concerns length of residency.
	That's it.
	Secondly, that the enforcement mechanism, even for those provisions, What the court should rule is exclusively the prerogative of Congress.
	It is not the prerogative of anyone else.
	They tried to challenge John McCain on grounds he shouldn't run because he was born in Panama.
	They tried to challenge Barack Obama on the grounds he shouldn't be on the ballot, on the grounds the allegation was he was born outside the United States.
	In those cases, the court said this is none of the state's business.
	This is none of the court's business.
	This is Congress's business, whether or not a person is qualified or not.
	And that there's a remedy in place constitutionally for Congress to execute in case that occurs.
	If someone is actually chosen to be the president who doesn't constitutionally qualify, the whole provision going back to FDR, the 25th Amendment is there, in ways that the vice president, or you go down the successive chain.
	Whoever qualified, it would be put in until that person is qualified if there's some durational limitation.
	But this is solely and exclusively in the power of Congress, and that's what they should enforce.
	And that would put an end to this altogether.
	No more challenges to people getting on the ballot based on purported qualifications.
	They should also reinforce the right of the voters to choose and expand that law and expand that ballot access in general.
	The states come up with every excuse known to man to try to keep somebody off the ballot.
	Three different states, including Maine and some others, are currently trying to prevent Robert Kennedy from even getting his petitions to be on the ballot.
	So this was after he had to sue in Utah to make sure he could have the opportunity to be on the ballot because they had a ridiculously early deadline.
	So they should broadly expand that this is the right of the people to choose.
	Once the state gives them that right.
	If a state determines, the state wants to say the state legislature determines, fine.
	But once a state says, you, the people, get to choose who's president, that should end it.
	I mean, this was the only good part of Bush v.
	Gore, in my opinion, was they said, once you give the power to the people, that's it.
	And you can't try to take it back from them later.
	And you have to enforce the rules fairly and equally.
	It was an equal protection claim in Bush v.
	Gore.
	They should extend that as well to the ballot access.
	I don't think they'll go that far because they don't have to to resolve this case, but I would like them to.
	But I don't think they have any choice but to say this is not within the power.
	Now they have other alternative paths to that outcome.
	They could also say that the 14th Amendment simply doesn't apply to the president, as even the Liberal District Court and other courts have recognized across the country.
	The insurrection clause has no application to the presidency.
	It's quite frankly quite obvious if you just read the plain text of it.
	But they could go further.
	They could also establish that the insurrection clause is only enforceable by Congress as well, and that at a minimum it requires a...
	Judicial finding of guilt of insurrection.
	They could go further.
	They could say the fact that the president has already been acquitted on this charge under the impeachment clause also prohibits the efforts of the states to try to remove him from the ballot on these grounds.
	And then last but not least, they could simply state that in terms of state power in this arena, That they violated Trump's due process rights and how they went about this.
	I mean, it was mass hearsay introduced.
	I mean, it's the most...
	Basically, they broke evidentiary rules, process rules, constitutional rules.
	They broke all the rules just to keep Trump off the ballot.
	And credit to the people who pointed out in this all-Democratic court, all the Democrats who went to the Ivy Leagues were the ones to kick Trump off the ballot.
	The ones who didn't go to the Ivy Leagues were the ones saying this is not a good idea.
	Well, we're going to go step by step on this.
	The first thing is, just to clarify, because it even confuses me sometimes, in the Colorado case, in the Maine case, they were talking about not including or disqualifying Trump from the primary versus the general.
	Are there any legal distinctions between exclusion from the primary versus exclusion from the general?
	Not the legal principles applied.
	So it is correct that right now he's not even on a general ballot yet.
	Because he isn't the nominee yet.
	But if the court upheld what the Colorado court did, then he will be excluded from the general election ballot in a bunch of states.
	So, I mean, that's the practical reality of it.
	So this isn't about the primary because the Republican Party can just change and do a caucus or just ignore the outcomes of the Colorado vote and change its rules to give Trump those electors or nominate Trump independently of that.
	So it really has no impact on the primary.
	This is solely designed to establish a precedent to keep Trump off the general election ballot when he's the Republican Party nominee, as is almost a guarantee at this stage.
	Okay, excellent.
	That's the first question.
	Second question, we're going to go back to the main Secretary of State decision.
	In all her wisdom, addressed Trump's arguments as relates to Article 14, subparagraph 3, not relating, not applying to the president, the office of the presidency, or the vice presidency.
	Because as Trump's counsel submitted to the court, earlier drafts of that provision of the Constitution included the Office of the Vice President and the Office of the President, and then they removed it from the final version.
	For most people, that would say they intended not to include it.
	According to the Secretary of State, she says, no, that implies...
	Suggests that they intended for it to have a broader application and that the office of the vice presidency and the presidency are offices under that paragraph.
	Can you, I don't know, can you make those?
	It's a patently frivolous argument.
	It's a patently frivolous argument.
	This has been determined many times by the courts that when there's general reference to officers, that does not include the president.
	They've said this over and over and over again in a wide range of contexts.
	That ends the question.
	That ends the issue, period.
	So the fact that they specifically originally included and took it out just puts a nail in the coffin.
	So this is someone that's just making up claims, directly contradicting plain law, who, by the way, would rule just the opposite if it was her Democratic allies that were being challenged.
	This is a partisan hack who shouldn't even be a Secretary of State in this country.
	That she was appointed by the state legislature incompetently by the Maine state legislature, that they're busy violating people's rights in a wide range of ways these days up in Maine because the little commie Portland has taken over the state.
	But it's a frivolous interpretation.
	It's just a frivolous interpretation.
	And so that's why I don't think the Supreme Court has any choice.
	Legally, there's only one outcome here.
	That makes any sense, that is historically correct, textually correct, that is consistent with our policies, consistent with our precedents, but just the politics of it.
	I mean, when you have people like Governor Newsom, when you have people like Bill Barr, you have people like that who are Trump haters, saying this is a bad idea, then you get a sense that, I mean, you couldn't even get all seven Democratic judges on the Colorado Supreme Court.
	The three dissidents had the most blistering dissidents.
	And they're all hardcore Democrats.
	They just, none of them went to the Ivy League.
	From now on, if you go to the Ivy League, you should be excluded from consideration from federal courts.
	I mean, they're just too dangerous to put on there.
	Or state courts.
	And this is further proof of it.
	It's like the popular bumper sticker now, my kid did not go to Harvard, is an achievement.
	Not that your kid did go to Harvard.
	Because of what an embarrassment these institutions have become.
	And what they've promoted and promulgated through our systems of power and influence.
	These are the same people who a century ago were pushing eugenics, and proudly so.
	The Oliver Wendell Holmes of the world.
	They've been wrong a lot more often than they've been right.
	But I think politically, they don't have a choice either.
	Because otherwise you have complete chaos.
	You're going to have a bunch of conservative states say, okay, this is the new law, Biden's off the ballot.
	I mean, they'll be tit for tat.
	All of a sudden, he's off the ballot in Florida.
	He's off the ballot in Texas.
	He's off the ballot who knows where else.
	So, I mean, the idea that this can work, they know this is utterly unsustainable.
	It would make American democracy look like an utter joke, an embarrassment to the world.
	That's why the court has no choice.
	And don't be surprised if it's nine to nothing.
	The Democrats might write and take some potshots at Trump, but don't be surprised if they join the ultimate conclusion that what Colorado did is not well-founded.
	And explain to those out there, I try to make sense of it, I think I've made sense of it, the self-executing argument of Article 14, subparagraph 3, that it needs no act of Congress, it needs no criminal charge, criminal conviction.
	It's self-executing, meaning anybody at any state level can willy-nilly declare insurrection and then exclude.
	That makes no sense at all.
	That, by definition, makes no sense.
	That would subject the presidential election.
	To the whim of state officials.
	Why is it these same people said that the actual constitutional qualifications for the presidency, this is another problem.
	If their intention was to apply this to a qualification of the presidency, there's specific constitutional provisions about what qualifications you have to have.
	They didn't add it to that.
	Why didn't they?
	Because they had no intention to apply it to the presidency.
	And there was obvious reasons for it.
	There was no president to apply it to.
	This was solely to deal with the Confederacy, as Dershowitz has pointed out.
	This is a historical vestige that has no modern application.
	Until Trump, no one had ever attempted this particular kind of claim before.
	There was like one or two one-offs in random cases over the years.
	It was just absurd to try to preposterous, to try to claim this.
	But why wouldn't the, whether someone's been a resident for 14 years, why wouldn't that be self-executing?
	Whether somebody's a natural-born citizen.
	A bunch of people don't believe Kamala Harris is.
	Can they just start kicking her off the vice presidential ballot?
	Is it self-executing?
	I mean, self-executing is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
	So it makes no sense that we delegate certain tasks to certain bodies for a reason.
	And here, we don't have to question whether it's about Congress because the rest of the 14th Amendment talks about Congress being the one to create the laws to enforce it.
	So the idea that they had some doubts as to who was supposed to do this is removed by the plain text of the Constitution itself.
	People want sanctions against the judges, against the main Secretary of State.
	Don't hold their breath?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	They'll never do that.
	All right.
	What is the other one?
	What else is going up to SCOTUS?
	Well, with Trump, the D.C. Court of Appeals has now two different issues that could resolve all of his criminal cases.
	One is the issue of presidential immunity, because every claim, every criminal charge brought against him.
	You could argue about aspects of the Florida criminal charge.
	But all the rest concern things he did while he was president.
	And as such, presidential immunity historically has extended to criminal prosecutions.
	I think that the ultimately Supreme Court...
	You can't have any confidence in the D.C. Court of Appeals.
	But I think the Supreme Court will ultimately rule presidential immunity applies for the same reason.
	For the very simple policy reason of are you going to subject the president to the extortionate whim of any local prosecutor anywhere really in the world?
	I mean, not just America.
	What about a country we have an extradition treaty with?
	Could they just decide they don't like somebody?
	Indict them and extradite them?
	Could they threaten to do so while he's president and therefore extort public policy benefits to them for foreign governments?
	This is not manageable.
	And my view is there is a path, like Jack Smith is saying, oh, this would be green light for Trump to go out and commit mass murder.
	The path is the impeachment clause, that if you impeach a president or former president and convict him, then that's the thing you can prosecute him for, which the Constitution clearly lays out that path.
	That should be the exclusive path, because if it's not, then every president is subject to being extorted by any prosecutor in the world.
	And to flesh this out for those who may not understand, Jack Smith's, whatever his argument, not the fact, and whatever the heck, the submission to the court is that they frame it as Trump already committed a crime, and therefore presidential immunity cannot apply to crimes.
	The defense is saying, well, first of all, Trump's team is saying nobody's been convicted of anything yet.
	These are all sort of presumptively presidential acts.
	And the example everybody runs with is, hypothetically, Trump shoots a member of the cleaning staff in the Oval Office.
	Well, he doesn't benefit from presidential immunity to that.
	Robert, your argument, the retort to that is he'll undoubtedly get impeached for that and likely convicted.
	And therefore, once that happens, then he can get prosecuted after he's no longer president.
	It's about who decides.
	I mean, that's what we're going to decide.
	Again, the Constitution lays out a nice, clean path for this.
	It says, here's how you deal with this situation.
	You impeach, you convict, and by the way, once there's a conviction, anybody can criminally prosecute.
	And by the way, he can't pardon himself for the impeachment.
	The impeachable offense.
	That's the path.
	Any other path diverts power, because every question is, who decides?
	It shifts power to random prosecutors in the entire world.
	And that's the reason presidential immunity exists.
	It exists to prevent him being subject to the whim of an individual suit or an individual prosecutor anywhere in the world from being able to do his job.
	As president.
	And again, if it's truly egregious what he is doing, there is a remedy.
	I mean, right now there's governments around the world that would indict every former president for war crimes.
	So, I mean, all of them.
	They line them up.
	Barack Obama can be prosecuted and be going to prison for life.
	George W. Bush, same thing.
	Bill Clinton, same thing.
	So, you know, Jimmy Carter's still alive.
	He's one of the few people there isn't a lot of war crime charges against, but the rest there are.
	And are we going to do that?
	I mean, if you don't grant, if you don't do the interpretation I'm talking about, you run that risk.
	And that's a much greater risk than the idea that the president's going to become a mass murderer who no one can do anything about.
	And so some would say Joe Biden is already doing that in many respects.
	But that's why immunity needs to be there.
	And in my view, the way you interpret it is you interpret the immunity in light of the impeachment clause.
	But some of the arguments that are being made are ludicrous.
	Or it's saying, well, if it's a crime, it's not immunity.
	Well, I mean, that's never been what the courts have said.
	The courts have said it's whether or not it's in the course of your duties, not whether or not it's a crime or not, not whether or not it's a tort or not.
	Otherwise, there wouldn't be any immunity.
	There'd be no immunity from a criminal charge if, by definition, criminal accusations remove immunity.
	There'd be no immunity from a tort if, by definition, the allegations of a tort remove immunity.
	I mean, this precise claim has been addressed and rejected by every court to ever adjudicate the matter.
	So you look at immunity, and the only way to have a preserve the presidency in its office is to grant it, and to grant it extensively and expansively, letting the impeachment clause be the remedy for extreme circumstances and situations.
	Then the other thing is, I do think Mies is right.
	I don't think Jack Smith was lawfully appointed at all.
	Before we get into the Jack Smith appointment, let's just say hypothetically, take a less radical example, but let's just assume that the impeachment process is so corrupted, so partisan, that even though you have a crime as apparent as drug dealing in the White House, let's take that one, he gets impeached but not convicted, the argument's going to be, well, then he can't be prosecuted for drug dealing in the White House.
	Correct.
	That's absolutely right.
	Why?
	Because if it wasn't sufficiently persuasive that he was actually drug dealing or that it was consequential, then he would have been convicted.
	If he's not convicted, that means it's like any jury case, right?
	In other words, you could make the same claim for any jury trial case.
	Say, oh, the guy gets away with it if all 12 don't convict?
	Yeah, that's our system.
	So essentially we're saying if it's truly an egregious crime, then must be prosecuted.
	Then you should be able to convince two-thirds of the Senate.
	If you can't, that means it probably isn't.
	All right.
	And I also would imagine that if it became as egregious as the president committed murder in the White House but was acquitted by the impeachment...
	A country's broken at that point.
	Well, that's my other point.
	Exactly.
	I mean, if you're in a situation where the system is so corrupt that your elected United States senators are covering for the criminal behavior of a president, you've got bigger problems than the rest.
	And the question, again, is who do we give the power to?
	We're seeing now with Trump, if you give power to local prosecutors, it's a political disaster.
	It's a political nightmare.
	It's like the problem on the ballot.
	If you give it to a bunch of people, a bunch of random state officials, local officials, you have a disaster on your hand.
	So that's where there's serious issues with trying to do that at any level.
	And it makes the ballot process an embarrassment, the American democracy an embarrassment, and our constitutional governance.
	No longer constitutional governance.
	And that's really the other problem with Jack Smith.
	He's someone who's a rogue official who did not have the power to do any of this.
	And that also could remove all the federal cases that are pending.
	And is it likely someone else is going to step in and try to prosecute?
	Maybe.
	But there'll be all kinds of issues with it, how it's tainted by the illegal, unauthorized behaviors of Jack Smith.
	I remember we talked about this at one point where we're basically saying, like, Jack Smith seems to be like...
	Joe Biden's personally appointed henchman.
	Who does he answer to?
	Who is he acting for and on behalf of?
	Meese's amicus.
	Meese was a former attorney general.
	I'm not wrong about this.
	That's correct.
	Under Reagan.
	Under Reagan.
	So the guy knows what he's talking about.
	He says, Merrick Garland had no authority to handpick a private citizen, not go through the ordinary process, to appoint him to this special counsel position, which...
	Am I wrong in also remembering that the position doesn't exist under the law?
	Correct.
	I mean, what happened was the independent counsel statute was appointed post-Nixon to try to resolve some of the issues that arose during the Nixon-Watergate related issues in terms of the Saturday Night Massacre and lots of people being fired at the Justice Department if they kept going towards Nixon, etc.
	And by the end of the 90s, both parties were done with the independent counsel statute.
	They're like, this doesn't work.
	This creates a political nightmare.
	This incentivizes dragging out cases.
	We're going to return to our constitutional system.
	Justices like Scalia never liked the independent counsel statute, and nor did I. I found it constitutionally abhorrent anyway.
	But once that, and so then the question was, well, how do we have a special counsel now?
	The only lawful way to do a special counsel...
	Is you appoint someone who has already been given prosecutorial power as an officer.
	An existing attorney general of any, what they could have picked from any of the states.
	Well, not from the states, it's from the feds.
	So it could be anybody that went through the process of becoming an officer, which requires consent of the Senate.
	And so that's the attorney general, the assistant attorney general for tax, the deputy attorney general.
	And then each United States attorney, the head United States attorney in each office.
	No one else has constitutional authority to execute their duties.
	The way I used to put this, because I've dealt with this in a range of contexts where somebody went rogue, is what prevents the local janitor who's a federal employee from walking into the grand jury room and asking them, hey, will you please indict my ex-wife?
	What prevents that?
	Federal employee, right?
	Well, they're not given that.
	Constitutional authority.
	Only someone that is an officer can delegate it to someone else, and then the officer has to make the ultimate decision.
	Here, they didn't trust any of their own appointees.
	Not one of them.
	425 U.S. assistant United States attorneys in America.
	They didn't trust one of them to prosecute Trump.
	So they went and got their hatchet, the deep state hatchet man, involved with all kinds of corruption from these international criminal court days, as Patrick Byrne and others have been talking about, to do it.
	Problem was, that's not constitutional.
	That's not lawful.
	And if I may, just to clarify the one point, they could have selected from any one of their 425 existing...
	Members, if they had done that, though, it would have had to have gone through congressional hearings or senatorial hearings?
	No, because they're already congressionally appointed.
	Those are people who are already officers.
	They clearly didn't trust any of their own appointed officers to do what they got Jack Smith to do.
	And that's why they appointed him.
	And the problem is that directly violates the law.
	And it gives an easy opt-out for the Supreme Court, for example.
	To ultimately step in and dismiss all the charges.
	So, you know, you can't do this.
	You have to go to the proper...
	And then, boom!
	The federal Florida case, out.
	D.C. case, out.
	Then they have to go get one of their hacks to try to bring back up the case.
	But by that point, it's late.
	It's post-election.
	So, it's unlikely to occur.
	So, I think they have identified two very serious issues that...
	Could completely end the federal criminal prosecution and in the immunity context, end the two state prosecutions as well.
	I was going to say, because that would get rid of D.C., it would get rid of Florida, but not Georgia, New York, unless the immunity argument is granted as well, in which case that would get rid of the state cases.
	But hold on.
	I want to come back to Jack Smith and the allegations of corruption.
	What country is it in, Robert?
	I forget what country he's alleged to be basically running an extortion ring out of.
	So this was the first days in the International Criminal Court.
	I recommend a film called The Whistleblower, which is really good about what was really going on in the Balkans.
	Basically, you had human trafficking taking place under the guise of various U.N. activities and U.S.-related and intelligence-related operatives in the Balkans.
	Albania is a famous center for human trafficking for the better part of several decades.
	Popularly portrayed in the film Taken.
	Which had maybe the greatest trailer of all time.
	I'm a man with a certain set of skills that you don't want to test, as Liam Neeson said.
	Basically, he was neck deep in all that.
	So he was neck deep in a range of extortion-related activities.
	If you want to avoid getting prosecuted at the ICC, you pay this person this much, or you do this favor, or you do this.
	The ICC, the International Criminal Court is a racket.
	It shouldn't even exist.
	We generally have not recognized its jurisdiction, but it's a useless court.
	And it's a court that is political, has always been political.
	They're just a political hatchet court pretending that they're the Nuremberg descendants when they're just the opposite in terms of that.
	They're more like the people who passed the Nuremberg laws than passed the Nuremberg code, if you know what I mean.
	So consequently, but it doesn't surprise me.
	He's been a hatchet man his whole life, deep state hatchet man his whole life.
	He's a front guy.
	He's not smart enough to do his own thing.
	And you saw how scared he was when he announced his first indictment.
	Trump.
	His hands were shaking at the press conference.
	But it tells you something about how ridiculous the charges are against Trump, that they had to trump them up by getting somebody that was not even an official appointed officer.
	And I think Mises' argument is almost undefeatable if you're going to enforce the Constitution at all.
	So I think between these two, I think the chances now are better than ever before.
	That there's no criminal trial that goes forward this year against Trump, and that all the charges are ultimately forced to be dismissed by Supreme Court action, and that the efforts to exclude him from the ballot completely fail by Supreme Court order.
	I think that the system has been too eager to get Trump, and in the process of rushing through it, violated so many rules and laws that they forced the Supreme Court to take preventative action, and now are...
	I mean, they would have been much better off if they would have...
	They tailored their case to one issue and one case in a selective forum.
	But instead, they went from one to the next, to the next, to the next.
	And then they hopped it on with that.
	And it was so abusive that they're forcing the court system, Supreme Court in particular, to take corrective action just to maintain respect for the courts and the judiciary.
	Robert, before we get to the next one, and before I fall too far behind on the rumble rants, let's just go get some of these.
	Ooh, never surrender.
	Silver coin?
	I can get some of that.
	Okay.
	Allgoodguy says, Novel Theory and future Hush-Hush episode run by Barnes.
	Administrative state fearing Kennedy steps up media narrative that his candidacy is hurting Trump.
	Okay, I hope they mean metaphorically.
	Executes a kill order on Kennedy and frames Trump and sons for a hit.
	Freddie65 says, Lara Logan has a great January 6th video last night on X...
	Please promote it.
	Well, that's as good as a promote.
	I'm going to go watch it.
	I haven't seen it.
	I'm not your buddy guy says, can capitalism exist without corporations?
	I believe it can, and the only reason I contemplate this is that we are all witnessing our enemies weaponizing corporations against the people in free countries.
	It's called fascism in its purest sense.
	I'm not your buddy guy says, these people would celebrate the right, a.k.a.
	everyone they disagree with being sent to camps.
	I agree with that.
	Newbie of death.
	When is Epstein's estate suing for wrongful death?
	Wrongful suicide?
	And we got Occupant 42. I've been reviewing and updating my when in the course of human events list.
	Alright.
	Alright.
	Robert, what's next on the menu?
	Another case that will impact Trump.
	Is the January 6th cases that the Supreme Court has now taken up?
	They're going to interpret the obstruction charges for everyone, all of those who have been convicted under that statute, the argument being not void for vagueness, but whether or not it was ever intended to apply to these set of circumstances.
	We've talked about it at length.
	I know what you feel about it, Robert, but they're going to take it up.
	How long?
	All of these rulings have to be issued by, what, June of 2024, right?
	Correct.
	When the Supreme Court takes it, it's got to decide by June.
	The ballot case will be decided probably by late February, early March.
	And they come out at any time, but yes, by June.
	And I think the Supreme Court, as it has consistently done in these obstruction cases, whatever the context over the past 25 years, we're talking about Aguilar, we're talking about the Enron cases, talking about Arthur Anderson.
	They have continuously limited these cases because they see how easy it is to abuse them.
	If you can call disagreement with the government obstruction, which is at times the way the D.C. Court of Appeals has so broadly interpreted this, and let's remember it split the D.C. Court of Appeals.
	There was only one honest judge at the district court level that said this couldn't apply.
	The rest of them are so intimidated by January 6th cases they refuse to apply the plain language of the law.
	It's quite obvious that a protest can't be obstruction.
	That what they meant by obstruction was things like...
	You do something to contaminate the process in such a way that you prevent the agency or try to prevent the agency from determining the truth.
	So what is that?
	That's things like threatening or intimidating a witness.
	That's things like bribery.
	That's things like falsifying evidence, falsifying testimony, falsifying documents, certain cases destroying documents.
	But to give you an example, in the SEC versus Arthur Anderson case, They said Arthur Anderson couldn't be prosecuted, even though they shredded everything on the eve of the SEC's subpoena.
	They said, in the Aguilar case, a federal judge lied to FBI agents during a grand jury investigation.
	And the Supreme Court said that can't be obstruction because he didn't know there was a grand jury.
	So that gives you an idea of how much they've required this nexus.
	I have to be doing something, intending it, and with the likely impact of preventing, by some unlawful means, The government from functioning in a certain way.
	This often comes up in the IRS context, where the IRS likes to say, oh, you've been corruptly impairing and impeding the Internal Revenue Service by your protest activities or other activities, or by not helping us, or by not filing documents or returns.
	And the courts have consistently said, no, that can't be corruptly impairing and impeding.
	They've got to lie to you.
	They've got to bribe somebody.
	They've got to send you a false document.
	That's what this is supposed to apply to.
	Not the idea that under this interpretation, any protest could be interpreted as this.
	They could go back to the Kavanaugh protesters, lock them all up for 25 years.
	They could go back to every D.C. protest ever happened, lock them up.
	There's just no limits on this.
	And it was always clear that most of these charges were bogus to begin with.
	There was no meaningful evidence that any of these defendants intended to prevent Congress from determining whether or not the election was done correctly.
	And this is the game that the January 6th prosecutors and the political hack or coward judges have played in D.C. They've said you were trying to prevent the certification of Biden being president.
	But that isn't what was going on.
	What was going on was who was elected president.
	They weren't trying to prevent the certification process from going on.
	They wanted the certification process to go on because the proper certification process was to decide who got elected legally and properly.
	They always skip that.
	The media tries to pretend this was just about certifying Biden.
	That's a foregone conclusion that's incorrect.
	The certification process is about determining who won, not deciding in advance who won and then rubber stamping it.
	So there was no proceeding to even obstruct, nor was there any evidence they even intended to obstruct it.
	So it was bad adjudications at the district court and court of appeals level, bad prosecutions that have precarious policy implications across the board.
	And I think the Supreme Court, once they took it, almost, I would say, 80-85% chance they say that these obstruction claims do not apply.
	And that's going to remove the most serious charge from almost all the January 6th cases.
	And it would, I mean, that would also end Trump's D.C. case.
	Yeah, yeah, correct.
	And what had all these people who served time, tough nookies, I mean, how does that practically work?
	You get no remedy.
	There's some state laws where you can sometimes sue and get something, but you get no remedy for being wrongfully imprisoned, typically, sadly.
	Unbelievable.
	All right.
	Okay.
	What else are the courts taking up here?
	Well, speaking of self-defense, there's a big Second Amendment case where the oral argument, you know, Roberts and Barrett were terrible at the oral argument, so maybe it won't go the way it should.
	And the reason why people should pay attention to it is this was the case we discussed in the domestic violence context.
	It's because if they approve the law that allows them to take away your guns without any jury trial, without, in many cases, any judicial finding of anything that should merit attention, they can strip you of your Second Amendment rights based on an order of protection.
	They can strip you of your Second Amendment rights based on any red flag.
	And then they can do it without any due process or jury trial.
	So that's why that case is far more significant.
	And they hyped up.
	I mean, probably the lawyer could have been a little better prepared for where they might go in the sense of they're like, oh, look at how dangerous your client is.
	And it's like, well, based on whose determination?
	And Barrett was like, look at these lists of allegations against him.
	Well, what jury determined that?
	There wasn't one Supreme Court Justice Barrett.
	Or did you forget that part of the Constitution like you forgot the right to petition the government when you were before Congress?
	All those cheerleaders for Barrett, if she comes down on the wrong decision, are going to be embarrassed once again.
	They were wrong on Barrett.
	Barrett is a mediocre corporate establishment, old Southern aristocratic act who wants to please and placate the same elites that when she was at Notre Dame Law School was busy imposing vaccine mandates that she vindicated at the Seventh Circuit when she was there.
	She favorably cited Jacobson, a decision that led to the eugenics decision of Buck v.
	Bell, was the only basis for Buck v.
	Bell.
	So, you know, this is someone who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court and revealed it once again with her emotional rhetoric.
	So that has nothing to do with constitutional law, which he's quite clearly poor at, if this case is any indicator.
	But it's a very dangerous case because if this case, the Supreme Court approves what happened here, red flag laws will now be constitutional in America.
	Refresh my memory as to what happened in this case.
	This was the guy...
	Someone phoned in that he was suffering some mental distress.
	No, this one is the one where, that's a Fourth Amendment case.
	This is the one where there was an order of protection taken out.
	So the order of protection, and usually what happens is those are done very quickly.
	They're often done ex parte.
	Often the defendant signs off just to get it resolved because he can't get things resolved.
	What happens is under federal law, automatically, if any court issues an order of protection against you, you lose your gun rights.
	And that's never been constitutional.
	The Fifth Circuit, it never should have been considered constitutional.
	Fifth Circuit said it isn't, violates the Second Amendment under the plain logic of the Bruin decision.
	Supreme Court took it up, and Roberts and Barrett were more concerned with the facts alleged than they were the Second Amendment in their emotional, political ploy.
	And so that's a precarious sign because that's how all red flag laws greenlight.
	It's like, oh, you don't want the crazy person with a gun, right?
	You don't want the violent person with a gun, right?
	You don't want the domestic abuser with a gun, right?
	Well, everybody gets the right to self-defense, number one, unless they're criminally convicted in court of a crime.
	And secondly, and only then of certain crimes.
	And then secondly, the issue is the process.
	Who determines whether the person's crazy?
	Who determines whether the person is a danger to the community?
	Because we already know they consider, if you say certain things on the internet, questioning the Fauci narrative, you are considered dangerous to the community.
	So the red flag laws are extremely dangerous.
	They should be shut down constitutionally.
	The right decision in this case would do that.
	The wrong decision would open it up, green light it fully.
	And all those people that cheered Barrett should write me apologies later.
	And I presume you're not down with administrative tribunals to process.
	Red flag application.
	Criminal conviction, and then only as it relates to specific types of crimes, we're precluding...
	Consistent with our founding.
	If it was something that was a grounds to remove your gun rights at the time of our founding, then okay.
	But that's limited to very specific limited circumstances, understandably so.
	Otherwise, the Brits, the king just screwed up with how he could have taken away people's guns, our original government.
	I mean, because we were in protest of those policies informing these rights and fashioning these amendments.
	It's, oh, you just accused them of something and you can take it all away.
	This is my Eighth Amendment argument against conservatives that don't like bail.
	You're giving the state the right to lock people up.
	How'd that work out in the January 6th cases?
	Locked up for years.
	No means to defend themselves.
	I get it.
	You look at it when you see the person let out for some serious criminal accusation and you don't like it, but that's called the Eighth Amendment.
	Who are you going to give the power to?
	Second Amendment gave it to the people.
	Eighth Amendment took it away from the courts.
	And yet what we're doing here is saying, you know, just on an accusation, you can lose your Second Amendment right of self-defense.
	I'm totally ignorant Canadian to this.
	Not hypothetically, but back in the day of the Constitution, what would have been the grounds for barring someone from owning a gun?
	Very, very limited.
	You'd already been previously convicted.
	They could require you or previously certain findings.
	Then you could be required to post a bond in certain circumstances in terms of being able to carry it in public.
	And then you could be restricted in terms of you're convicted of murder or other crimes and you're locked up or other things.
	So a lot of your freedoms can be taken away in that context.
	But that was about it.
	There were very few limitations on your right to defend yourself.
	Because it was about also individuals were given the power of the state.
	The point of the militia was that we would not have a standing army, and the militia would enforce the law, and that required ordinary people, and ordinary people would thus be a check on the abuse of the concentration of power.
	It was no centralized power of taxation internally, no standing army, and the two were the means by which the constitutional republic would be protected from politicians, and they want to take it away from the people and give it back to the politicians, which is what our constitution was all about preventing.
	And that relates to the other big, big case before the Supreme Court, which is the power of direct taxation.
	If they approve the tax that went through on foreign investments, that will mean they can directly impose a property tax on America.
	They could tax you for just living.
	The IRS in the 1930s wanted to actually tax people for cooking their own food.
	Cooking your own food.
	That's what they wanted to tax them for.
	I mean, if you do any labor in your own home, you would have to pay a tax on it.
	This is the hated head tax, the capitation tax that was so offensive to people at the time of our founding that helped lead to America.
	And that case is also pending before the Supreme Court.
	So do you have a right to bear arms, to defend yourself against the state and be the means of enforcement for the state in ways that protect?
	Ordinary people's rights?
	And do you have the right to not have all your property and liberty stripped from you under the guise of confiscatory taxation?
	Both the Supreme Court's going to decide in the next six months.
	It's amazing.
	Coming from Canada, where you have no Second Amendment rights, and they tax you up the wazoo for everything and anything.
	15% sales tax, government, federal, provincial, property tax, 44% income tax, depending on your bracket.
	Yeah, no, that's it.
	Oh, exactly.
	They're not yet taxing you to breathe.
	But they're not letting you get your oven-cooked bagels because it's bad for the environment.
	In the last big cases before the Supreme Court concerned Big Tech, can Big Tech and the Biden administration collude to censor, which is the Missouri versus Biden case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States?
	And can Big Tech enjoy certain monopolistic practices?
	And censor on its own accord when it's effectively a public forum against these laws passed by states of Texas and Florida trying to prohibit them from doing so.
	Those cases concern, and there's several other big tech big cases before the Supreme Court, but the future of big tech and its power to censor, its power to control, its power to monopolize our ability to limit their monopolistic abuse of power.
	Also will be determined in the next six months, and those will be the other big cases to watch.
	The problem is, Missouri versus Biden, even if the court comes down and says what the government did was improper and you have to have a bit more distance between government and private big tech, I mean, they're just going to get more surreptitious in the manner in which they do it.
	In which case, I mean, it's the idea that it's a wink-wink, nudge-nudge when big tech knows what the government wants and how they can work together.
	They don't really have to be as explicit about it as Jen Psaki and Biden might have been, so they'll just be more discreet and more surreptitious going forward.
	What could possibly be a long-lasting practical resolution that would prevent it from happening again in a more subtle form?
	Well, the scope of the injunction was pretty broad.
	So the weakness, if the injunction is affirmed...
	Big tech will stay away from any degree of censorship because they don't want to get into contempt charges or all of that.
	So it depends on the decision.
	But if the injunction is affirmed in its current form or substantially in its current form, then big tech censorship will radically reduce.
	If they also say that Texas and Florida laws are enforceable, which allow any person to sue and get their attorney's fees, then you're going to see them They'll do a lot less cancel culture.
	A lot less blocking.
	Because they're not going to pay everybody's attorney's fees every time they do it.
	That's just not manageable for them.
	Because then there'll be lawyers that line up and they only do that.
	Sue Twitter tomorrow.
	Sue YouTube tomorrow.
	Sue Google tomorrow.
	Sue whomever tomorrow.
	Sue Facebook.
	Sue Instagram for blocking access.
	And all they're doing is writing check after check after check after check to lawyers and they have to reinstate the person anyway.
	So that's where that case has meaningful consequence as well.
	And then there's the other big tech cases pending about their entire economic practice, like the Oracle case and the other Facebook cases that concern how they're doing business advertising, how they're monetizing and commoditizing private information to people.
	And if they can't do that economically or have to restore the monies, then their entire economic model is shattered.
	And then there's the antitrust cases pending in multiple jurisdictions that could determine that...
	They have to break up entirely and Google no longer own YouTube.
	So big consequences for big tech over the next six months that will shape the future of our ability to communicate on the digital public square.
	There will be oral hearings that we will be able to listen to.
	There will be oral arguments on all of these.
	Yeah, so big cases before the spring.
	The future of American constitutional democracy will be determined in the next six months.
	2024 is going to be the biggest year, I mean, obviously for a number of reasons, but I think it's not an exaggeration to say the biggest year in American history.
	Definitely from an American legal history.
	No question about that, in my opinion.
	You could argue Dred Scott, 1851, but that was limited to one issue.
	A big issue, obviously.
	Unfortunately, I get people that are skeptical of the Supreme Court.
	The Supreme Court failed in 1851 when their Dred Scott decision gave us the Civil War.
	And it was the wrong decision, by the way.
	Then their inconsistency in the early 1900s, granting and greenlighting eugenics was the justification for the Nazis to do what they did and led to all of that horror.
	And, you know, more often than not, Korematsu, they're on the wrong side, Jacobson on the wrong side, Buck v.
	Bell on the wrong side, Dred Scott, wrong side, Plessy for Ferguson, wrong side.
	There's a long list of decisions.
	I mean, they were the ones who created segregation in the South.
	They were the ones who decided not to enforce civil rights or civil liberties for a half a century in the South that led to all the problems in the South.
	So, I mean, the history of the Supreme Court fails when it's tested.
	I am hoping that this time they are politically cognizant enough that they don't fail this time.
	I wish you hadn't said the Dred Scott decision was a failure of the court.
	That led to the Civil War.
	That sounds like the crossroads that we might be at these days.
	It really is.
	It really is.
	I mean, if they do something to let Trump be excluded from the ballot, you've got a disaster.
	I mean, even Eric Holder is acknowledging this.
	I mean, high-ranking Democrats are saying, uh, this is a very bad idea.
	They haven't even, they still haven't quite put the math together that if you take Trump off the ballot in states like Illinois, Colorado, Maine, and California, I mean, Newsom's done the math.
	Because he said, no, no, no, we're not doing that in California.
	But in Illinois, Colorado, or Maine, the most likely impact is that Biden may lose those electoral votes that are otherwise almost a lock because Robert Kennedy absorbs all the Trump vote.
	So they haven't done, some people have done the political math.
	Bill Barr's done the political math.
	Gavin Newsom's done the political math.
	I mean, this was a guy who six months ago was gung-ho on excluding Trump from the ballot.
	Now he's like, no, no, no, we should never do that.
	It probably has something to do with Robert Kennedy being on the ballot.
	That doesn't mean they won't try to stop to keep him off the ballot.
	But historically, those efforts fail as well because the system doesn't like the world to know that we have less of a functioning constitutional democracy than the countries we like to condemn.
	There will still be more candidates on the presidential ballot in Russia than there is in the United States in the 2024 election.
	Yeah, and the journalists in Russia get actually less prison time than the Jan 6th protesters in America.
	Now, speaking of rogue agencies and why we shouldn't give them this kind of power in the first place, the raid on Amos Miller.
	Hold on.
	Before we get there, Robert, let me read three Rumble Rants, and then we're going to get into this.
	Let me see here.
	Hold on.
	It's going to be four Rumble Rants.
	The monopolies we have now are a result of government regulations and laws because the companies pay off the politicians.
	This has been a problem since the days of Robert Fulton, at least from T-1990.
	Shofar.
	I have no faith in the courts to do the right thing.
	They have proven they don't want to stand up to tyranny as a third branch of government.
	Rumbled says, get your kid a nice present for me.
	Thank you very much, Rumbled.
	And Rumbled says, here it is.
	Here is how I met you in a dream world, Viva.
	And I'm going to go look at what this is afterwards.
	Okay, Robert, what happened with...
	So, look, everybody knows what's been going on with Amos Miller.
	Amish farmer up in Pennsylvania has been, you know...
	Raising, breeding, slaughtering, distributing his own meat to his own customers who buy it in full awareness of fact and law, want the meat that is not jacked up with hormones, antibiotics, all this other crap.
	The feds come in and say you're violating the rules of the FDA as relate to slaughter and distribution of meat and if you don't abide by those rules you can't sell outside of the stand.
	They can't sell anywhere basically.
	They've been harassed for an extensive period of time.
	You can highlight that.
	And then, when was it?
	Two days ago, they get raided, allegedly, or not allegedly.
	They get visited by who?
	Feds?
	Not the Feds.
	The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture comes to inspect Amos Miller's farm yet again.
	What happened?
	I mean, we only saw one video on Twitter.
	What was the purpose of their visit?
	What were they there to do?
	What did they in fact do?
	And what the heck is going on?
	So the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has been lurking in the shadows behind the campaigns against Amos Miller.
	We use the Sunshine laws and the Open Records Act laws that are kind of your state version of Freedom of Information Act or FOIA laws to inquire into about nine months ago.
	What the state of Pennsylvania had been up to all along during these cases.
	And it turned out that the state of Pennsylvania started everything.
	That they didn't like Amos Miller and the success of an Amish farmer.
	And the success of an Amish farmer exporting that way of life to others.
	They wanted him shut down.
	But they didn't have any legal basis to do so.
	And they didn't have the political chutzpah to try it.
	So they instead...
	Referred his case to the Food and Drug Administration on the grounds of challenging his all-natural, non-homogenized milk sales.
	The FDA looked at it and decided there was nothing for them to do, and they transferred it at the request of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, according to these files, to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and said, go after him on meat.
	There's amenable meats, certain things that are governed under the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
	And they decided that they were going to assert control over it, did multiple raids, seized a bunch of meat.
	And at one point, prior to my representation of them, were seeking a bankrupting judgment against he and his wife that would take away his farm and put him in prison.
	We ultimately reached a resolution with the U.S. Department of Agriculture that removed all the risk of that.
	No more bankrupting judgment.
	No more sentencing anybody to imprisonment.
	No more contempt.
	All of it got satisfactorily resolved.
	We're still in progress and in process of what else we can achieve in resolution with the USDA so that the private members of Amos Miller, who are the only people he distributes food to, he does not sell them commercially in the open market, doesn't sell them at grocery stores, doesn't sell them at food stands.
	He only sells it to people that have informed consent at what they're getting.
	And it's people who want it the way he makes it.
	They don't want it any other way.
	Whether it's milk, whether it's cheese, whether it's yogurt, whether it's beef, whether it's poultry, whether it's bison, whether it's buffalo, whatever it might be.
	And the FDA, USDA has worked together to get resolution.
	And throughout this process, the state of Pennsylvania was often on the phone call in the case when we were talking to the judge about it.
	And they voiced no objection at all to this process.
	So then all of a sudden after, now what has happened is...
	Amos is being successful.
	That he's able to get resolution, keep functioning.
	People continue to support him.
	People continue to like his product.
	People are keeping him afloat.
	And consequently, I think the people at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, who have been following these cases in the press, been following me in the press, were unhappy that it looked like Amos would be successful and that more people would get to enjoy the benefits of Amos Miller's Extraordinary food.
	That's the best food I've ever eaten, period.
	And I've eaten at the greatest restaurants literally in the world.
	I've never had a better meal than I had at Amos Miller's.
	And then you look at the Amish.
	I mean, this is what's really lurking politically in the background.
	The Amish are an alternative control group.
	Who is it out there that isn't inundated with big food controlled by...
	Most Americans still don't know that almost 80-90% of the food distributed in America that we eat come from a small number of big corporations who use every kind of fertilizer, every kind of chemical, every kind of additive known to man.
	They've been wiping out small farmers all across America and consolidating power, whether it's pig farmers or chicken farmers or cattle farmers.
	And they've been consolidating and monopolizing their power.
	There's a little glimpse of this when we suddenly had a meat shortage during the pandemic.
	It's like, how do we have a meat shortage?
	It's because at any point in these big supply chains, if there's a problem, all of a sudden that 90% of our food goes away.
	So Thomas Massey is currently trying to pass the Prime Act in Congress to give more power to ordinary farmers to farm the way they want and the way they have traditionally and the way their customers want them to.
	And more power to the ordinary person to decide what goes in our body.
	We pick our menu, not the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
	During the time the USDA and the State Department of Agriculture have been picking our menu, we've got fatter, we've died sooner, we've had more disease, we've had all these other problems.
	The Amish are also free of big tech.
	They don't use social media.
	They're not out there.
	There's other people that use social media on their behalf, but they don't.
	Their kids aren't sitting there on TikTok all day long.
	They are outside the big educational structure.
	Their kids don't go to public schools.
	Their kids don't go to Harvard.
	They don't go to any of those universities.
	They get educated the same way their forefathers were educated.
	And they don't use all the vaccines, all the big pharma.
	Well, what's happened?
	We've had a real-life control group over the last half century.
	What happens when you're free of big food?
	What happens when you're free of big pharma?
	What happens when you're free of big tech?
	What happens when you're free of our educational structure?
	You get healthier, happier people who live longer lives.
	There has been no autism explosion in the Amish community.
	There has been no anxiety explosion in the autism community.
	There has been no depression explosion in the autism community.
	There has been no self-harming suicide explosion in the Amish community.
	There's been no cancer explosion in the Amish community.
	So this is for the statists and the bureaucrats and the corporate monopolists.
	This is a blaring signal of how corrupt their system of governance has become of our lives.
	I'm going to get to two things I've been pulling up in the backdrop while you talk about this, Robert.
	It's amazing.
	First of all, what does Pennsylvania, what does the state want from Amos Miller in all of this?
	They want to destroy the Amish way of life.
	What made Amos the primary target, and they've lied about this, there were some local Lancaster media publications that were lying about him this week.
	Great credit to Lancaster Patriot, who covered this extensively.
	He's doing a fundraiser for him because the goal has been to financially freeze him in such a way that he can't function and has to shut down anyway.
	And it will take too long to get relief or remedy in the process because the Amish don't sue.
	The Amish don't sue.
	The Amish don't seek publicity.
	This is what makes them vulnerable targets.
	And the Amish as a whole are so disconnected from what's happening in the outside world and are so good faith in how they...
	Amos treats everyone like he himself is.
	So he's very trusting towards these people, tries to engage them, tries to work with them, tries to negotiate with them, and doesn't realize how they're acting in bad faith because in the Amish world that's kind of foreign to their entire life experience, to their entire lived experience.
	So here's what terrifies...
	The entire apparatus of these commiecrats in positions of power and influence, many of whom are corporate bought off.
	I mean, these people either go to or from right back to the big corporate world, the big ag world, big food world, big pharma world that they're supposedly regulating and controlling.
	They're working on behalf of to shut down the small producer and take away our individual rights to control our own bodies.
	I mean, this is...
	All of the policies of the USDA, the FDA, the State Departments of Agriculture, all of them fundamentally are about taking away our rights to informed consent, to strip what Nuremberg was supposed to establish for us for forever.
	That's why that federal judge went ballistic when I filed a Nuremberg claim.
	He doesn't want the system exposed at what it's doing.
	It's trying to reinstate the same logic that led to eugenics in the first place.
	Not a coincidence they love the Jacobson case, the only case cited for forced sterilization in America as the grounds for it in Buck v.
	Bell.
	So the thing was, but what made Amos in particular a target was he was exporting this lifestyle to all those who wanted to join.
	So people were like, oh, I can actually get food that tastes good and is good for me.
	I don't have to get, you go to any working class grocery store in America, Mexican-American, African-American, blue, white, ethnic, whatever.
	You know, like the Mexican grocery stores I went to outside Austin, Texas.
	You can't even find healthy food in there.
	It is all filled with sugar and processed foods that's going to kill you early.
	And, you know, don't have to pay as much Social Security.
	Don't have to pay as much pension.
	Let these working class people work until they're no longer functional as workers, and then we've killed them off with the way we've used our food supply.
	People like Alex Jones have been talking about this for a quarter century, that this is part of a systematic objective.
	So Amos Miller is providing an exit ramp.
	From Big Food.
	And he's just saying, hey, this is the way my grandfather made it, my great-grandfather made it, my great-grandfather made it, I think you guys might like it.
	People are like, we want it exactly like you do it, because once we get it, we're never going back to Big Food.
	And that's what terrifies the commiecrats and all these Food and Drug Administration-level officials, whether at the state or federal level.
	And so what they did is they went and executed a search warrant on Amos Miller's farm.
	Now, keep in mind, they've known of my representation for years.
	They were on the phone calls.
	They never once objected to anything we were doing with the feds.
	Not once.
	Number two, they have never reached out to me a single time suggesting they think he should be a registered food establishment, that he should be a licensed retail seller, that he should have a permitted milk selling license.
	Ever.
	Ever.
	In that entire time period.
	Not once.
	And so what they do is they go and get a search warrant, even though Pennsylvania statutes don't give them the legal authority to bring a search warrant.
	Their search warrant authority is very circumscribed.
	It says, okay, let's say you have a contaminated animal, and that's what you're worried about.
	Or let's say it's a commercial feed operation.
	Selective set of circumstances that were completely inapplicable here.
	The judge was such a rubber stamp, a pitiful, disgraceful rubber stamp.
	Of a judge in Pennsylvania.
	That the judge didn't even look to see whether the search warrant alleged a crime.
	Because that's what you have to have to do a search warrant.
	You have to have probable cause of a crime.
	There isn't one alleged.
	There's no probable cause of a crime.
	The judge is a rubber stamp.
	That's what a lot of judges do in America.
	You can blow a leaf across the desk of many judges in America, and if the government's the one blowing that leaf, they rush to sign it.
	Disgraceful.
	So you have no allegation of a crime.
	Then they lie.
	High-ranking officials for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, they lie by omission and they lie by commission.
	They lie by omission by excluding the entire history of me in there.
	Like an honest judge, an honorable judge, doing their job, would have looked at that affidavit and say, why is the last fact you allege concerning your interaction with Amos Miller almost two years ago?
	Why is that?
	And now you're seeking a search warrant.
	Something happened two years ago?
	Three years ago?
	Because they had to tell that lie by omitting all of my representation, all of the federal settlements.
	They would have told a very different story.
	They would have led a judge to go, oh, hold on.
	There's no grounds for a search warrant here.
	One, there's no allegation of a crime.
	Two, there's no basis of your agency even having the authority to do the search warrant.
	But three, there's no even factual grounds of anything here.
	Because to give you an idea of what the search warrant was based on, they thought maybe he's an unregistered food establishment.
	Maybe he's an unlicensed retail seller.
	Maybe he's an unpermitted milk seller.
	None of which is grounds for a search warrant in the first place.
	But I don't know, is there not an obligation when you know that someone is represented, even if it's the state executing a search warrant, that they at least serve it on you first before serving it on...
	And in the outreach.
	So, for example, they claim in the search warrant that a concern was arisen that one person got sick somewhere from eggnog.
	That's it.
	Okay, if you think that's the case, you reach out.
	We'll go in and we'll test it.
	No problem.
	Make sure everything's fine.
	I mean, to give you an idea, they falsely accused Amos Miller before.
	I mean, almost a decade ago.
	It was all nonsense.
	And it's been nonsense in the past about this in general.
	They tried to create a listeria scare about raw milk.
	They've tried to create all these scares that have been...
	You compare anywhere the health record of Amos Miller to a random restaurant in Philly.
	And I guarantee you, Amos Miller comes out number one and way ahead.
	Robert, I'm still traumatized.
	I was brought up being told that unpasteurized milk will get you sick and you'll die if you drink it.
	I mean, I still have that residue even as an adult.
	Exactly.
	I mean, they would just tell lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie because it's about corporate control and status control of what we eat and what we have access to as what we eat.
	But of course, their unlawful conduct doesn't end there.
	They didn't have grounds to have a search warrant under the statute.
	They didn't establish probable cause of any crime whatsoever.
	They omitted information about the entire history of what's happened over the last two years.
	And then they kind of deliberately lied by making it appear they had gone to him before about registration or about licensure in ways that are not really accurate at all and leave out all kinds of information and are just material misrepresentations of fact.
	And this, by the way, is one of the highest-ranking officials of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture because they've all been sitting up there in Scranton and elsewhere conspiring to go after and end Amos Miller for almost a decade.
	Now, when they get there, they tell Amos Miller that he can't see anything.
	He's not allowed to be in there and just watch them do it.
	That no one is.
	There was press there.
	The press asked to be able to monitor what was going on.
	Nope.
	Kicked out.
	What is it they have to hide?
	Now, take for example, let's say you're going to go in there and sample the food product.
	How you do that is critical that you don't contaminate it yourself.
	And if you saw some of the people going in there, let's just say they aren't beacons of health.
	So why wouldn't you want people to observe it if it's an honest process, if it's a transparent process, if it's a legitimate process?
	I'm not saying that I'm skeptical, but they'll contaminate it themselves.
	Exactly!
	That'd be the only reason to exclude people.
	And so that's problem number four.
	The way you execute a search warrant has to be reasonable.
	Then you have problem number five.
	The search warrant did not authorize them to detain food.
	The search warrant authorized them to seize necessary items for sampling purposes only concerning dairy products.
	But what do you think they did?
	On the way out...
	They stuck a sign on his door saying he's not allowed to sell anything or do anything or sample anything that was in the freezer.
	So what does that do?
	That prohibits him from being able to counter any fake evidence they come up with about sampling the evidence.
	Again, if you're going to take on this kind of high-profile case, wouldn't you want it to be done with impeccable, unquestionable integrity?
	They've done it exactly the opposite because they know...
	This is a guy who's been looked at by everybody under a microscope for a decade, and they can't find anything wrong with his food.
	They know it.
	The people love his food.
	People don't get sick from his food.
	It's where you get sick, and what's killing you is what Big Ag is telling you to eat.
	It's what the FDA is telling you to eat on their food pyramid.
	Get your latest dumping of processed foods, of foods that help...
	Made by the Rockefeller of the world.
	So you look at, in fact, they're behind a lot of the processing.
	That's another story altogether.
	Almost everything bad in the world you can trace to a Rockefeller.
	Just a little side point.
	But the detention order is not part of the search warrant.
	So what they did was a general warrant.
	So what founded the Fourth Amendment was no more general warrants.
	What would happen is the Brits would just come in and just randomly ransack your entire property.
	This is called the requirement of particularity.
	So, one, the warrant wasn't sufficiently particular for the court to sign in the first place, but putting that problem aside, in their execution of it, there's nothing in the warrant that says you can just randomly inspect anything you want, and you can randomly detain anything you want, including food that had absolutely nothing to do with what they were there to sample.
	Like, I mean, buffalo meat was frozen from him.
	They just wanted to shut him down.
	They know if we shut him down...
	He's going to refund his customers, because that's the kind of guy he is, as many as he can.
	And because of the number of people who work for him, because of the scale of his operation, because of the limited life of some of the foods he has.
	The food would go bad.
	Exactly.
	That they can bankrupt him.
	That's the entire goal.
	And they know he's not going to sue.
	So they're like, okay, to go through the administrative process, these other processes are going to take him too long.
	And by the end of it, he'll be broke.
	And we'll say, see, we broke Amos Miller, and then they're going for everybody else in the Amish community.
	Unfortunately, the Amish community is still asleep at the wheel about this.
	I've talked to them multiple times, tried to explain what's going on.
	To them, it's so foreign, they can't imagine it.
	They can't even conceive that their way of life, which is great for everybody, not a threat to anyone, is a threat to people with real power.
	And that those people with real power want to crush them.
	And that this is going to make the school fight from a half century ago look like small change.
	Because if the Amish can't control their own food, then the Amish way of life will disappear.
	Because their employment is based on that.
	Not just how they eat, not just what they eat, not just where they eat, but their entire economy is.
	Strip them of their ability to farm, and you strip them of their ability to maintain their way of life entirely.
	And then there's no more alternative control group to scream out to the rest of us of the problems with big food dominated.
	What ended up happening with the state's attempt to seize or freeze the foods?
	Well, it's detained.
	I mean, he can't do anything.
	If he does anything, he's been threatened that they'll put him in prison.
	So there'll be a request made to lift it.
	The Secretary of Agriculture has five days to either lift it or make detailed factual findings that meet a very high evidentiary standard if he wanted to try to destroy it or relabel it.
	That they don't have.
	They don't have any factual basis for Buffalo.
	They don't have any factual basis for any of it.
	I mean, any of it.
	It's all garbage.
	If they thought there was a problem with eggnog, you'd just test the eggnog.
	I mean, it's ludicrous.
	And you have one incident that you think might be connected to him over a decade and a half?
	He's the guy you go after?
	There's an incident every day somewhere in Philadelphia.
	Have you eaten at some of the places in Philadelphia?
	I mean, it's ludicrous.
	These people are frauds.
	They're fakes.
	They're phonies.
	They're misusing and abusing their power.
	They violated every rule and law known to man.
	And we are going to find ways to seek remedy, creative ways.
	There are customers that may have a right to sue because they possess a property interest as members of his association in that food that was unlawfully and illegally detained.
	So if they don't release it, we will be bringing civil rights suits related there too on their behalf because that doesn't require Amos be a named plaintiff.
	And we'll seek the release of the product as immediately as possible.
	We will try to get it independently sampled to make sure they can't lie about them like they're trying to do and planning to do.
	Because the scaremongering is always the approach they take.
	Be very skeptical of that approach.
	He wouldn't have the customer base he had if there was ever any problem with his food.
	Just do the math.
	Everybody knows it.
	So that will be a bunch of garbage that they're coming with next.
	And I'll try to defend him in every possible way.
	And thanks to the Lancaster Patriot, which covered it, which exposed large parts of it, which Thomas Massey, Congressman Massey, retweeted out, thankfully.
	There's a great fundraiser going on.
	I got it pinned at the vivabarneslaw.locals.com board.
	It's also pinned on my X account at Barnes underscore Law, where you can donate to them.
	The goal is to raise $150,000.
	Because the scale of his operation is such that that's what he needs to raise to be able to substitute for being put out of business.
	He still has inventory.
	So there's some inventory still out there.
	So if people like his product, go and get his product.
	That's another way you can support him.
	But for all the product that got frozen, that part of his business, they got detained.
	If we're able to raise $150,000, then that will give Amos a 60-day window to be able to stay economically afloat because there's all these things he has to pay every month.
	They know that because they've been secretly involved in all the federal stuff behind the scenes, according to the various communications that we got from the Open Records Act of the Sunshine Laws.
	So keep Amos Miller afloat, and you can keep our own exit ramp available from the control of big food and big government.
	I want to bring up two things, Robert, that I had on the backdrop while you were talking.
	Listen to this.
	The average life expectancy for the Amish people over 70 years, while the average American was only 47 during the early 20th century, Amish people still have a notable edge in late-life health quality with lower chances of serious illness that are very common for the rest of the world.
	Then you go down here.
	I mean, it's so amazing.
	Do Amish hold the key to a longer life?
	Study finds anti-aging gene in religious group.
	So we've just answered one question.
	They live longer than the average population.
	Is it because of health?
	Is it because of diet?
	Is it because of an inherent gene that they have, which is totally unrelated to both?
	That was one.
	Then the other one, which I thought was just hilarious.
	Listen to this.
	No evidence.
	No evidence that Amish kids have, quote, zero cancer, diabetes, and autism.
	Yeah, because that's always been the claim, that it's zero.
	There's not one example of cancer or whatever.
	For those people who don't know, that is your classic definition of a scarecrow argument.
	Strawman.
	Strawman argument.
	I always think of the straw man as a scarecrow.
	Because it's that, too, in this context.
	That they use the straw man argument to scarecrow people away from the truth.
	And what they don't want to talk about is that everything is extremely low in the Amish community.
	Right here.
	Look at type 2 diabetes.
	Very low.
	Oh, it must be because they're so physically active.
	That helps.
	But that isn't the main reason.
	It's the food supply.
	We all know it's the food supply.
	It's amazing because it starts off with the no, there's not zero.
	No idiot would say that.
	And if there's one Facebook post that does, nobody believes it to be that.
	Yes, lower in type 2 diabetes.
	What was the other one here?
	And then you just go down here.
	Oh, here we go.
	It appears to stave off diseases of aging by reducing levels of protein.
	Yeah, but my favorite part is the other studies have documented cancer.
	Oh, their rates are much lower, but there's some.
	It's ludicrous.
	So that's where I think.
	So thanks to everybody that went to the fundraiser to continue to keep him afloat out there, because that's the best way to immediately counter this.
	If you wanted, the legal fundraising is done at FreeAmericaLawCenter.com.
	You can go there and donate to support the legal fees.
	I'm continuing to do all that work, whether we get paid or not.
	Hopefully, I mean, what it is, is that work went from being a modest amount for the next 60 days to a very large amount for the next 60 days.
	Because they just won't give up coming after the guy.
	The other factor may have been here, the federal judge assigned the case who had been pretty fair, recently passed away.
	And I think they saw that as a Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture saw that as a window of opportunity.
	That there was, okay, no judge supervised.
	You know, whatever judge gets reassigned, you don't know what that judge's politics is going to be like.
	Let's just say there's an interesting mix there in Philly.
	And so that may have been part of the reason, too.
	But as long as we keep him afloat, people ask how Amos is handling it.
	He stays cool during all this.
	He's just going to keep trying.
	All he wants to do is provide the food that people want, that people demand, actually, quite frankly, and keep the Amish way of life alive for he and his family.
	That his kids can carry on the same tradition that he is carrying on, that his father did, that his grandfather did, that his grandfather did.
	I mean, he goes all the way back to his family line, some of the original Amish in America, who have survived every effort at persecution for centuries.
	And this is just the newest wave, but it's the most dangerous wave, not only to the Amish, but to all of our freedoms and liberties, including our own ability to choose what goes into our own bodies.
	Which relates to the other thing the Amish don't do?
	They don't take a whole lot of vaccines.
	Well, but Robert, the fact check said that vaccination is quite common.
	I guess certain types of vaccines.
	Vaccination is not the number of vaccines.
	And I guess maybe the ones that are actually vaccines and the ones that actually work.
	Speaking of which, Robert, I will not call it a vaccine, but what's the latest on Brooke Jackson's whistleblower lawsuit as relates to the bungled bullshit trials that Pfizer was conducting that she was a part of?
	Yeah, give us the update on where things are at with that.
	So, they filed, the, Pfizer filed their motion to dismiss.
	We have now filed our opposition to the motion to dismiss.
	I shared it at the board at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	Highlighted a version of it in the Barnes Law School series.
	And now they'll file their reply, and it'll be up to the court whether and when to schedule oral argument on their motion to dismiss.
	The argument is simple.
	Their claim is this.
	We have alleged fraud in the inducement.
	That's the claim the court allowed us to reinstate.
	And their argument is Pfizer's fraud came later.
	Pfizer's always got creative arguments with this, right?
	So they're like, our fraud might have been inducing the payment, but it wasn't inducing the contract.
	Ha ha ha.
	So that's not real fraud in the inducement because the contract wasn't induced by fraud, just the payment was.
	I mean, imagine these defenses being asserted in a state criminal proceeding.
	Well, this is after they've already argued the defense that it wasn't fraud because the government knew?
	Yeah, exactly.
	They're still making that argument.
	The argument's not material because we're still getting the checks.
	And as long as we're still getting the checks, well, then clearly it's not a problem.
	The two legal problems with their argument is fraud and the inducement is all about payment.
	It's not just limited to the contract.
	In fact, the whole fraud is that payment was received for something that it should not have been received for, because you did something materially wrong to get that payment.
	That's all it is.
	Whether you classify it as implied certification, false certification, whatever language or terminology you want to use, that's what it's all about.
	This is what Justice Thomas said in Escobar, the leading case concerning False Claims Act and QTAM in America.
	He said, look at the essence of the bargain.
	And for those that don't remember, the essence of the bargain, as articulated in the Defense Department contract itself, was that Pfizer promised to deliver a safe, effective vaccine that would prevent the transmission of COVID-19 at speed and scale.
	The only thing they delivered was speed and scale.
	They didn't deliver safety.
	They didn't deliver efficacy.
	They didn't deliver a vaccine.
	And it never prevented COVID-19.
	That's the fraud, and they got paid billions of dollars for that fraud.
	Robert, they never said it would prevent transmission.
	If you go to Albert Brewer...
	They did it in the contract.
	That's the problem.
	It's in the contract.
	They said, this is what we're going to deliver to you.
	They didn't.
	And it's said over six different times in six different ways.
	And that's the essence of the bargain.
	Does anybody really believe that the U.S. taxpayer would pay money for something that wouldn't prevent COVID-19?
	That wouldn't inoculate, as a vaccine should.
	That wasn't effective against COVID-19's transmission and infection rate.
	That wasn't something that was safe, but could cause death and disability at the rate it has.
	Of course not.
	Nobody's buying that.
	And that's why, so that's problem one with their defense, is their, oh, our fraud came in the inducing the payment, not the inducement of the contract.
	It also came in the inducement of the contract because they got rid of ivermectin, helped coordinate the efforts against ivermectin in order that there be no alternatives because that's the only way they could get EUA authorization is if there was no alternative treatments available for COVID-19.
	That's why they were complicit in undermining ivermectin safety and efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19 with their media partners and allies where they advertise so much money.
	If you were watching over the holidays, you saw Pfizer ads bombarding you and Moderna ads bombarding you.
	With false advertising to this day, in my opinion.
	So they actually fraudulently induced the contract as well as the payment.
	But on top of that, as to their materiality claim, materiality is when I know, I believe the allegation is true, but I still write a check.
	So, for example, Trump's civil case, right?
	Even if they believed that Trump's real estate was worth...
	1% of what he claimed.
	What they testified to is that wouldn't have mattered because he had 100 other ways to pay back with a collateral and confidence in his repayment ability, which was proven by his actual repayment.
	That's something that's immaterial.
	It wouldn't change my mind even if I agreed that it was true.
	What Pfizer misled the court about the first time around was suggesting that all that mattered was whether a check got issued, not whether or not...
	The FDA and the Defense Department agreed with Brooke Jackson's allegations that the vaccine is not safe and not effective, not even a vaccine.
	It doesn't prevent COVID-19 based on the information she saw and blew the whistle on while she was a clinical trial investigator there on assignment of the project.
	And the federal judge recognized that.
	He said, you know what?
	Materiality really requires they believe the allegations are true and that they don't have an answer to.
	Because they cannot produce any proof.
	No government official is willing to go on the record for Pfizer.
	They weren't able to get it in their initial brief.
	They're not going to be able to get in their reply that says, yes, Brooke Jackson is right.
	This isn't safe.
	This isn't effective.
	This isn't a vaccine.
	This doesn't prevent COVID-19.
	But we don't care.
	There's no government official that's going to go on the record on that because then they're the criminal.
	And so that's Pfizer's problem.
	They can't get anybody to go on a record.
	Robert, I feel so stupid.
	Just every now and again, when you make that argument, I'm going to the South Africa contract.
	1.56 vaccine, quote, shall include all vaccines manufactured in whole or in part or supplied directly or indirectly by or on behalf of Pfizer or BioNTech or any of their affiliates that are intended for the prevention of the human disease COVID-19.
	Holy crap.
	That's what's in all these contracts.
	Do I have my next...
	And they breached it because as they later admitted...
	They never even tested for it correctly.
	No, but I keep having these fights with people on Twitter that cause more stress than they should.
	They never said it would prevent transmission.
	You mother effers.
	It's right there.
	Oh, God.
	Oh, but they're going to say, Robert, it was to prevent severe cases of the disease.
	No, that's called a diagnostic.
	And it's specifically in the contract.
	They weren't negotiating a diagnostic.
	They weren't a therapeutic.
	There's diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventative.
	Those are the three things that were listed in the contract as alternatives.
	Like, we're not looking for a diagnostic tool.
	We're not paying you for that.
	We're not looking for a therapeutic, because that's what would be reducing the significance of the severity of the illness.
	They said, we want something that prevents it.
	That's what we're paying for.
	Prevention, not therapeutics.
	So that's completely contradicted by the plain language of what they promised in writing.
	Oh, do I have my next death?
	No, the nail in the coffin rebuttal whenever I have to have that argument again with somebody.
	Okay, that's phenomenal.
	The other big vaccine case.
	Is the CHD this week in New Orleans.
	Oh, that's Children's Health Defense.
	I don't...
	Well, first of all, government has not yet stepped in to take the case away from Brooke Jackson and shut it down.
	No, no.
	Okay.
	What's up with Children's Health Defense?
	I'm not up to speed on that.
	So this is the case we brought against the Food and Drug Administration in the Western District of Texas, the Waco Division, and the FDA's...
	And our grounds was that CHD had petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to not authorize and label the COVID-19 vaccine and its boosters as safe and effective for children.
	Because it wasn't, based on the available medical information.
	The FDA, in some cases, partially responded or simply didn't respond at all.
	Then it did the authorization, knowing all the downstream consequences that flow from that authorization, including that the Children's Health Defense would have to divert almost all of its reasons.
	It led to budget deficits throughout the rest of what Children's Health Defense was doing because of how overwhelming this issue was and its impact on children and the rights of parents to control what goes into their children's bodies and getting accuracy of information from the Food and Drug Administration.
	The claim that we brought Was that they had violated the right to petition process in the Administrative Procedures Act and how they'd handled the FDA and how the FDA had handled CHD's petition.
	They had also targeted Children's Health Defense to maintain, because what is the FDA fundamentally?
	It's a branding, marketing, and labeling agency.
	Like, there was an allegation.
	They froze a bunch of Amos Miller's food saying maybe, maybe it's misbranded.
	How?
	How's it misbranded?
	They don't identify any grounds for claiming it.
	What's misbranded is what the FDA did with this COVID vaccine for kids.
	Well, they did for everybody, but it's even more egregious as to kids.
	This was not safe for kids.
	This was not effective for kids.
	It didn't prevent COVID-19 for kids.
	And it was more harmful than helpful by a long degree.
	So brought suit saying this authorization shouldn't have been issued, that the petitioning process should have been recognized and honored.
	That the labeling and branding that they're putting out there is false and misleading to people, and that the downstream consequences of this, and in addition, when the Children's Health Defense tried to get the truth out there, the FDA, as the Biden versus Missouri case detailed, deliberately targeted Children's Health Defense to prevent Children's Health Defense from communicating the truth about the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccine for little kids.
	They authorized it all the way down to six months old.
	And we sued on behalf of parents.
	We sued on behalf of members.
	We sued on behalf of the organization.
	And we sued on behalf of foster kids who are going to be mass injected in Texas, in orphanages and other locations, given how it was set up.
	So we brought suit because parents, their relationship with their child was being invaded by the state's misrepresentation and misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine.
	It was creating, and has been documented in the D.C. case, a...
	An atmosphere of coercion on children in all kinds of settings because the caregivers, the doctors, the professionals had been told by the FDA false information about the vaccine that was then interfering with and impairing the parent's relationship with the child, its own cognizable injury, while also impacting the psychology of the kid, a separate independent injury.
	And of course, there's all the economic drain.
	On the children's health defense from having to divert resources massively to this.
	So to me, that fit Article 3's definition of a case or controversy.
	That's all the Article 3 says.
	It says federal courts have jurisdictions over case or, not and, or controversy.
	That should be a case or controversy.
	The district court said no.
	The district court treated our complaint as if we were just whining in general about a government policy out of the blue.
	It's like, that's not what's happening here.
	In fact, at the pleading stage of the case, all of our facts have to be presumed true.
	Any reasonable inference has to be presumed true on our side.
	Instead, the judge did just the opposite.
	I think the clerk probably wrote the opinion.
	All of the defendant's arguments were taken as true.
	As an example, they said, well, you didn't allege that this will lead to people not buying or using vaccines.
	Actually, we did!
	They just disagreed with us about whether it would lead to that.
	Now we all know the level at which, because one of the allegations is this misinformation is going to lead to other injury beyond the COVID vaccine, which is that vaccines that might be good for people, people are no longer going to take because they no longer know what's safe and what's not.
	And in fact, we know that the rate of vaccine declination has more than tripled in the United States since the COVID-19 vaccine debacle.
	And we, by the way, we allege that was going to be the case in the complaint.
	Which the judges ignored.
	Didn't talk about 12b6 standard.
	Didn't talk about pleading standard.
	Didn't talk about reasonable inferences.
	Didn't talk about presuming all facts are true.
	He just presumed all the defense allegations were true, which was its own violation.
	But so our argument is this is a case of controversy.
	There have been downstream consequences from this violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, from this misinformation and mislabeling that the FDA has given to the world about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine for little children.
	And so the question for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is, Did we state in the pleadings, assuming all facts are true and all inferences in our favor, a case or controversy under Article 3?
	If this isn't a case or controversy under Article 3, then what is?
	Aside from my long-standing objection to the misapplication of the standing doctrine, the word standing ain't in the Constitution, and a lot of these originalists seem to keep forgetting that, the plain text just says case or controversy, but even under the existing rules.
	Misinformation of this kind that has these downstream consequences causing direct economic, psychological, and relational harm on individuals and organizations has always been recognized as grounds for standing, and there should be no exception just because it's the COVID-19 vaccine or the FDA.
	What the FDA is claiming is nobody can ever sue them other than the drug companies themselves, that even if they completely violate the Constitution.
	Even if they completely violate what Congress restricted them from doing, even if they violated their own rules and restrictions, even if they violated Congress's limitations to the Administrative Procedures Act enforcing the right to petition of the First Amendment, no court can review them.
	Nobody can sue them unless it's the drug company themselves.
	And that has never been the law, nor can it be if we're going to have a constitutional democracy or constitutional republic.
	Robert, before I ask you the question as to whether or not you've read this new study that alleges 17,000 people were killed by HCQ, I know you got something with Tyson Foods.
	Yeah, we got a bunch of cases.
	So credit to one of our great board members, Little Rock Attorney, stepping into the gap because in the federal case we filed against Tyson Foods in Arkansas, because it was the only venue, unfortunately.
	I had skepticism about the impartiality of the Arkansas judiciary when it comes to Tyson Foods.
	And that was, in my view, vindicated by what I've seen and witnessed so far.
	We filed suit in federal court.
	The federal judge dismissed them and then threatened to sanction me for talking about the Nuremberg Code.
	And that we are taking up to the appeal in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	But we also brought a claim under Arkansas state law that was supposed to prohibit vaccine mandates and discrimination based on it for employees.
	And the judge dismissed.
	So that's what we did.
	We went and filed in state court.
	But we were up against the clock because it was a pretty short clock to be able to preserve certain arguments about the statute of limitations in Arkansas.
	Probably not applicable in any instance, but we just wanted to preserve it just in case.
	And a bunch of lawyers who had previously told me they're happy to be local counsel in Arkansas.
	Suddenly weren't available.
	You'll get some big talkers now and then.
	Maybe it was the holidays and people were gone, so I'll excuse that as a possibility.
	But I had been told early on by other Arkansas lawyers who had previously said, hey, I'd be happy to work with you on some of these cases.
	When I said I wanted to sue Tyson Foods in Fayetteville, they were like, let me get back to you on that.
	And some others were like, are you crazy?
	Do you understand how Tyson Foods wins all the time in Fayetteville?
	I'm like, well, that's the only place we can sue.
	But Little Rock attorney stepped right into the gap, made sure we got everything filed.
	He's our local counsel now against Tyson Foods on that state law claim in state law court, in state court there in Arkansas.
	And then we got a bunch of other cases.
	We have multiple cases in Tennessee, cases in Pennsylvania, cases in Oklahoma, case in Missouri, case in Kentucky.
	Suing Tyson Foods all across the country.
	The latest line of logic from Tyson Foods and 3M, one of the other major companies that we're suing in this capacity.
	And there'll be even some of the Red Hat, IBM, James O 'Keefe issues are implicated in one of our cases that derive indirectly from the vaccine mandate issues.
	Is the corporation throwing everything at us?
	And some of the judges are asserting that suddenly it's no longer a religious objection.
	That they're just going to interpret what is and isn't religious out of the blue.
	That's one line of logic they're pursuing.
	Another line of logic is to harass the heck out of the plaintiffs.
	Disclose all of your social media forever.
	Disclose your entire medical history forever.
	Judges that would never allow this in other contexts are in this case because they, in my view, want to punish people suing over vaccine mandates.
	Some courts are saying religious harassment doesn't apply.
	Only sexual harassment or racial harassment applies.
	And you can't sue for religious harassment.
	So we're challenging that.
	We have over 25 pending vaccine mandate cases in state and federal court across the country.
	On behalf of about 40 different individuals that we'll be pursuing, I actually added people to my legal team to help with those cases because they're reaching the summary judgment stage, the full discovery stage, the potential trial stage.
	Depending on what a judge determines in Tennessee, we may have a trial upcoming in the big Tennessee case in spring.
	But I think over the next 2024, we'll shape the future of vaccine mandate cases.
	Because unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided to go in and vacate all the cases against the Biden administration.
	So we need to establish that this is wrong.
	So that this will not happen again.
	To quote the Nuremberg Code, never, or the principle of it, never again.
	So we're going to be pursuing those.
	I'm going to pursue the Nuremberg claims at the highest possible level.
	How is it the only people that can enforce the Nuremberg Code are foreigners in foreign jurisdictions?
	That makes no sense.
	America invented it.
	America enforced it on the rest of the world.
	By golly, it's enforceable against American companies and Americans here on behalf of Americans.
	So we're going to assert those claims as far as we can, try to get as much relief or remedy.
	Same with the ADA-based discrimination claims.
	A lot of courts don't like condoning here.
	We're going to continue to...
	Push and see if the courts will recognize that that discrimination law also applies under this circumstance.
	And then, of course, the religious discrimination various state law claims will continue to pursue.
	But whether or not this can ever happen again will be determined in 2024 by the various court adjudications that are going to take place, especially in the Tyson cases, but also in other cases that we have.
	If it's going to follow the way of Canada, not only is it going to happen again in the future, it's going to happen sooner than later.
	Robert, have you heard this new study that's claiming that there was an estimated 17,000 deaths caused by compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine?
	No.
	Okay.
	I just posted the link to the study to our community.
	And I would like the aggregate knowledge to break it down because I got my questions.
	These were allegedly hospitalized patients with COVID.
	They administered hydroxychloroquine, and now in a retrospective, they're saying they died from HCQ, not from COVID.
	Okay, we'll break that down.
	All right.
	What else do we have, Robert?
	The topics briefly are just that crypto is going to be up for a big appellate review about whether or not the feds can regulate crypto.
	They unsurprisingly shut down the political corruption aspects of the Sam Bankman-Fried cases.
	We had talked about how they had structured the extradition, so that was pretty much a guarantee.
	Well, that's the thing.
	It was nothing new.
	It was the extradition argument that they tacked on those charges after the extradition agreement.
	Well, that was half of it.
	The other charges they dropped were some that were still within the extradition.
	But would have gone to evidence concerning political corruption.
	And they decided, we don't really need to go there.
	No reason to talk about the biggest Biden campaign 2020 Democratic contributor was Sam Bankman-Fried and his family.
	No, we don't need to go there in an election year.
	We cleaned up all that mess.
	We got that boy locked away.
	He ain't talking to nobody in time soon.
	He's in the same jail Epstein was in.
	Good luck with that if he wants to whisper something to somebody the wrong way about what and how he was really up to and on behalf of whom.
	But their war on crypto will continue.
	Elizabeth Warren is trying to expand and get into it.
	The IRS is trying to tax more of it, trace it, wants to know everybody that's been involved in that.
	That dangerous Bitcoin world.
	And so you're going to see more wars on it.
	They want to classify it as a security, even though it really isn't in most instances.
	So they can regulate it, restrict it, and run it out of town.
	And similarly, there may be George Gammon may be bringing suit soon against the Federal Reserve.
	Based on their wrongful denial of a range of Freedom of Information Act requests we made, one of which includes their internal conversations about crypto and crypto regulation.
	But going back to their conversations all the way back to 1913, including income tax limitations and the like about what they've really been up to.
	We want a real set of books from the Fed.
	So in order to audit the Fed, you probably got to sue the Fed.
	We've now established most of the factual record we need for the FOIA case to reach trial litigation.
	I don't know how eager George Gaiman is to be George Gaiman versus the Federal Reserve.
	You know, we'll find out when we run into him down there in Maine, I mean, May in Orlando, when he wants to go bowling with you, since he got his bowling instruction video from you.
	But those are the other financial freedom cases of great impact and import for 2024.
	Someone in the chat on Rumble says, Viva, let me see here, where was it?
	Some Canadian children inhaled fibers from masks.
	Any lawsuit for them from Infowarrior 4?
	Not that I know of, because I don't know that there's been any damage or injury attributed to that, but that was back in...
	Say, the early days of COVID, when allegedly there were potentially toxic face masks that had been mandated at various daycares for students and teachers.
	People were complaining.
	It felt like they had cat hairs in their throat, and it turns out they contained a very small particle.
	I think it was, I want to say graphene, but I might be mistaken.
	And all of those masks were recalled, and people are now going to live in terror as to whether or not they basically inhaled their current version of asbestos through those face masks.
	We're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party.
	Shofar on Rumble with a rant says, as I said, no faith in the courts anymore.
	And Andres Decano says, are there existing hush-hushes on the Rockefellers?
	Robert, I don't know about that.
	Not yet.
	I don't think so.
	I think I've done the big ones I'm going to do.
	Now, there is, if you want a good description on Rockefeller, the Colbert.
	No, I'm getting his last name wrong.
	The Report.
	Somebody in the chat will remember.
	Colbert.
	Colbert.
	Yeah, that's right.
	It is Colbert.
	Colbert.
	Right?
	Yeah.
	It's throwing me off because it's the same last name as the other dude.
	The guy who's no longer funny.
	No, no, not him.
	This is a different guy.
	Whatever reason.
	Does great reports.
	You can just look up Big Oil documentary, Rockefeller, and it'll come up on YouTube at Rumble.
	And that's a very good introduction as well.
	Okay, excellent.
	I'm giving everybody the link in the Rumble chat.
	And by the way, just so everybody knows, this is not the new time for the show, period.
	And it will always go back to 6 o 'clock.
	I'm just going to the Dolphins versus the New York Bills?
	The Buffalo Bills.
	Corbett Report.
	Corbett Report.
	That's the title of it.
	Yeah, they're saying Corbett.
	Okay.
	Corbett Report.
	I knew I was saying Colbert.
	That kid may be right.
	Corbett Report.
	He does a lot of great independent research.
	Did a great combination on big tech.
	He also, on big oil, also did a great one on Bill Gates.
	So if you want to look up his four-part documentary on big oil, look at his four-part documentary on Bill Gates.
	You'll be well served.
	He did a very good job at both of those.
	Hold on.
	I sent this to our locals community.
	Listen to this.
	Deaths induced by compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine during the first COVID-19 wave, an estimate.
	And I think, let's see if we go down to section 2.2.1.
	We conducted a systematic review of meta-analysis of cohort studies to estimate the mortality rates and the proportion of ACQ exposure in hospital patients in each country represented in the studies.
	I'm going to have to go see how they did this study.
	My prediction?
	It's going to be a steaming load of bullcrap.
	But they're going to go back and reclassify what they had prior already classified as COVID deaths to HCQ deaths.
	That's my prediction.
	Okay.
	What we are doing right now, people, we are ending on Rumble.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	law.locals.com.
	Here's the link.
	And we're going to do the after party there.
	We have four stories.
	We're going to do the chats, the tips, and then I'm going to go see an American football game for the first time in my entire life.
	We're going to see how that works.
	Okay.
	Ending on Rumble right now.
	Everybody, Happy New Year.
	And come on over for the white pill.
	Barnes will give us a white pill because I know that Barnes has got one.
	Ending on Rumble.
	Three, two, one.
	Peace.

▲