Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 26, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:13:01

Ep. 212: Trump FBI Raid; Alex Jones' Lawyer Victory; Biden Ballot & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is all wrong.
	I shouldn't be up here.
	I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean.
	Yet you all come to us young people for hope.
	How dare you?
	You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.
	And yet I'm one of the lucky ones.
	People are suffering.
	People are dying.
	Entire ecosystems are collapsing.
	We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.
	How dare you!
	What?
	For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear.
	How dare you continue to look away?
	And come here saying that you're doing enough when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.
	You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency.
	But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that.
	Because if you really understood the situation...
	And still kept on failing to act.
	That would make you evil.
	And that I refuse to believe.
	Okay.
	I was re-watching this yesterday.
	Because it's a weird thing.
	You have to occasionally go back and revisit your memory.
	And I went back and I...
	For the life of me, it's turned into a meme.
	Everybody knows that.
	How dare you?
	And you get the meme and it's on Twitter and the GIFs and it's on whatever.
	I went back and watched it again just because I was having a little bit of, what's the word, nostalgia yesterday?
	I went back and watched Grace VanderWaal's original performance.
	And I went back and watched this.
	I won't play the whole thing again.
	But a lot of it makes a lot more sense in retrospect.
	She's not an actress.
	She's a prop.
	And I didn't realize the degree to which...
	Whatever puppet masters were playing her like the marionette that she is, were exploiting this fragile, mentally unwell child.
	Dreams, my childhood with your empty words.
	Do you hear the intake of breath?
	It's like when a kid cries so much and you hear them like...
	Like, I mean, it's all happened.
	You just sob and you're like, it's a panic.
	Oh, what did I just do here?
	No.
	I just want to focus on that.
	Entire ecosystems are collapsing.
	We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.
	And all you can talk about is money.
	This is a straight-up panic attack.
	And instead of the adults in the room being the adults in the room, the adults in the room sat there and exploited, I was going to say Greta Van Susteren again, Greta Thunberg.
	For the prop that she is.
	A child being exploited and weaponized for political profit.
	And did she say like for the last 40 years?
	For the last 40 years?
	I'm old enough to remember that we had a magazine, Time magazine, talking about global cooling.
	Talking about the fact that we were going to enter into an ice age if we kept going at this rate.
	The polar ice caps were going to take over the earth.
	That was settled science back then.
	Anyhow, I've been called an anti- An anticlimatist?
	An anticlimatite?
	An anticlimactic-type.
	I've been called an anticlimatist, a climate denier, because I point out the obvious, that the people who say the science is settled are the same idiots who told us that the Jibby Jab would prevent infection.
	That the people who say it's settled science are also the ones telling us, you know, global cooling 40 years ago.
	The ones saying it's settled science, go green, and then don't answer the basic questions, what the hell charges the cars, Joe?
	Holy crabapples!
	Good evening, everybody!
	Let me see what I look like here.
	It seems that it's asymmetrical because it's showing too much of that side.
	That's going to bother me.
	There you go.
	That's it.
	I like the Betsy Ross flag.
	I forget who...
	It's beautiful.
	Good evening.
	It's another Sunday, which means it's another day of Viva and Barnes Law for the People Sunday Night Law Extravaganza.
	I was taking a trip down memory lane last night.
	I watched Greta Thunberg's video again, and I went back and watched Grace VanderWaal.
	No, sorry, hold on.
	Please.
	When we find any misinformation, Carly, I believe Carly is actually a troll or like a satire parody account, so it's actually quite funny.
	We'll let you know when we find any misinformation, Carly.
	So I went back and watched Greta Thunberg because I was looking for the meme, how dare you, in the vlog that I put out yesterday, which was an analysis of Alex Jones' lawyer, Norm Pattis, had a big W. We're going to talk about it tonight.
	And it's like, oh, speaking of child exploitation, I wanted to go back and watch Grace VanderWaal and then see what's happened to Grace VanderWaal.
	And I did.
	And I went back and watched her song, I Don't Know It.
	Beautiful song.
	I remember my kids were in love with it back in the day.
	And I forgot that that's like 10 years ago now, give or take.
	And then I had my philosophical musings, meanderings as an old man.
	Now knowing the level of child exploitation that goes on.
	In the world, and especially in certain parts of the world, that being the Hollywood parts of the world.
	And I put out a tweet, you know, like, the idea, like, when I get what I want, I'll be happy.
	It's from a Lazy Boy song.
	I forget which one.
	I think it's, we only read the headlines.
	Lazy Boy has some great songs.
	But the greatest lie anybody can tell themselves is, when I get what I want, I'll be happy.
	And you look back at all these people who strike gold.
	They get fame, fortune.
	At a very young age, at a too young age, that girl that danced in the song for Lady Gaga.
	Oh, no, not Lady Gaga.
	Sia.
	Sia.
	That ballet dancer who, you know, got too famous too quick.
	And then I just decided to look into, you know, whatever happened to Grace VanderWaal and the standard stuff.
	You know, psychological distress, all the other stuff, you know, going through articles.
	But I put out a tweet, and I guess I have a big enough following now that I've got to...
	I can't have random philosophical musings.
	I say, imagine if you realize that your big break actually turned out to be your biggest curse.
	Just a standard thought, like, you know, Drew Barrymore, I do wonder if she thinks her childhood stardom was a blessing or a curse.
	And then I wake up this morning and I see a frickin' community note on my meanderings as an old man pontificating on the meaning of life.
	This is simply engagement farming by giving no context leading to assumptions.
	Talk about giving no context leading to assumptions.
	You weaponized rubbish.
	Community notes.
	Nothing in the news states anything negative that has happened to Grace Vanderbilt.
	I guess they don't follow the news as much.
	The girl posted the video in her past or present.
	And I guess they didn't, you know, follow her.
	America's Got Talent Grace Vanderbilt shares mental repercussions of growing up in spotlight.
	That was a year and a half ago.
	And then, and I just go back and I'm looking at this and this is just like, it makes me angry in retrospect.
	Like people want...
	To be recognized that they want to succeed on their merits.
	And then, as the old adage goes, be careful what you wish for, because sometimes getting what you want could be the biggest curse.
	Anyways, they took down that community note because it was absolute, absolute rubbish.
	But speaking of people acting like lefties, I'm joking.
	I'm not going to go into my vlog earlier today, but I put out a vlog breaking down that funny event at the Libertarian Convention yesterday.
	I haven't gotten as much hate from the libertarians as I thought I would because I was needling them a little bit, picking on particular the New Hampshire libertarian Twitter account, which is, if it were a troll account, I think, you know, the libertarians of the rest of America would do good to disavow it or dissociate themselves from it.
	But no, we're going to talk real lefties before we get the show on.
	If you didn't know, by the way, yesterday was the fourth...
	Anniversary?
	Do you call it an anniversary when you're commemorating a death?
	I mean, I guess you do.
	If you didn't know, well, I got to tell you, then you weren't on Twitter yesterday.
	It's the wildest thing on earth.
	Now that we've lived through what we've lived as a collective, we've lived through COVID and the lies about COVID.
	We've lived through jab mandates and the lies about jab mandates.
	We've lived through face masks and the lies about face masks.
	We've lived through Ukraine-Russia conflict and we've learned...
	Do you remember when Victoria Nuland came out and said, there are no biochemical or bioweapons labs?
	There are bioweapons research facilities.
	In case you didn't know, the same people that had been pushing all those lies, January 6th.
	Lies of narratives.
	Well, they've got a new one, and in case you missed it, I mean, I don't know where the hell you were yesterday.
	This is Joe Biden from yesterday.
	George Floyd should be alive today.
	He deserved so much more.
	Today I joined all those who loved him and all those who touched by the civil rights movement he inspired in remembering the tragedy and injustice of his death.
	He changed the world.
	Now let's act in his memory.
	Can you imagine trying to turn George Floyd into a civil rights martyr?
	I mean...
	His death is tragic, and some might say he deserves so much more.
	Yeah, Joe Biden, you drafted the crime bill that destroyed a generation of black men's lives.
	He deserves so much more.
	Yeah, he deserved not to get hooked on fentanyl and drugs, but you've been shipping too much money off to Ukraine to take care of your own citizens.
	He did deserve more, oddly enough, from the very government that is now celebrating his death, because that's what the government does.
	And I'll point a finger and say that's what Democrats love to do.
	Weaponize the victims of their neglect to teach us all a lesson.
	Justin Trudeau gets caught wearing blackface.
	He's got to use that as a teaching moment for me, not for him.
	Imagine, just in the best, most charitable of interpretations and circumstances, George Floyd was a career criminal, drug addict, who died in tragic circumstances because, and I no longer believe this because I watched the trial, but in the most charitable of interpretations of reality, he was a career criminal who held a gun to the belly of a pregnant woman as they robbed her.
	Who was hooked on drugs.
	Who died because of some miraculous complication of Derek Chauvin putting his knee on his back.
	Set aside the fact that I don't think the evidence supports that anymore.
	They go around and parade him as a martyr.
	In the best of cases, that's what he was.
	In the worst of cases, he was a criminal who died of a drug overdose while he was getting arrested.
	Fact check.
	But the coroner says that he was...
	The coroner says some very interesting things.
	And now we know a lot more about that trial.
	But it wasn't enough with Joe Biden.
	Nancy Pelosi's got to chime in.
	Four years ago, George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis.
	His last words, I can't breathe.
	Remember the hands up, don't shoot?
	I can't breathe?
	Oh, hoaxes, lies.
	He mobilized, his last words, mobilized millions around the world to call for an end.
	He mobilized people around the world to burn shit down.
	How many people died during the Summer of Love 2020 revolts to George Floyd, the martyr George Floyd's death?
	David Dorn?
	Shot by someone else defending a store from looters?
	No.
	They don't honor that black man.
	We must honor his memory by passing Democrats' George Floyd justice in...
	The harder they push this crap, the more I know that the official narrative is wrong.
	Ben Crump, four years ago, George Floyd was killed.
	What's the other one here?
	Senator Alex Padilla, George Floyd should still be alive.
	Today, four years after his murder, we continue to demand accountability.
	I mean, you know that it's a lie of a narrative, if only by virtue of how they respond to it.
	How they push this endlessly.
	Like, endless pushing of a narrative, which you know, in as much as they talk about the January 6th insurrection, you know that this is probably just as false.
	Now, I'm getting distracted because I want to send Barnes a link.
	For the show tonight.
	There we go.
	So that was what they were doing yesterday.
	And I put out a poll to see.
	Who thinks that drugs were a contributing factor to George Floyd's death?
	And it was like 94% said yes.
	Oh, lordy, lordy.
	No, here, here.
	Drew Hernandez put out a video.
	This is what George Floyd's death sparked.
	Civil rights.
	Drew Hernandez, I'll share the tweet with you.
	Civil rights people.
	Police brutality.
	Civil rights.
	Can you imagine this?
	Ew!
	Ain't nobody gonna knock you!
	I'm not a fan of this recording.
	Stop spinning in circles, man.
	Alright.
	Get out.
	Summer of love.
	Mostly peaceful.
	Lightly fiery protests.
	I'll tell you, look.
	I'm not much of a person to go out and protest civil rights.
	I do.
	But when I do, I make sure to loot and steal stuff and burn stuff down.
	That was the link to the tweet.
	By the way, you may notice I did it for the first time.
	Why was I late tonight, everybody?
	Because I went to the car because my beautiful Florida man purse was there.
	Because I wanted to upgrade my stream yard so that I could stream to four places, including Twitter.
	Because we're going to do it!
	And we're doing it.
	And I have to add something which I'm, you know, hopefully not going to use for very long.
	But we're live on Twitter as well, people.
	So all four platforms, but we're going to end on YouTube and Twitter to bring everyone over to Rumble and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	All right, people, back.
	Well, let's say back to the show.
	We're live across the platforms.
	I should have made sure that we are good and live on Rumble.
	Viva Fry on Rumble.
	Let me make sure we're good here.
	It looks like we're good here.
	Oh, yeah, we're here.
	We're good.
	Let me make sure we're good.
	Put this on pause.
	Put it on pause.
	Close that.
	Make sure we're good on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Are we?
	We are.
	We're live on Rumble.
	And we're live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And we're live on Twitter as well, for whatever that's worth.
	Everybody!
	When the poo-poo hits the fan again.
	And you are locked in your homes because the government decides to tell you what to do with your bodies.
	Or you're locked in your homes because people are burning stuff down in the streets in their civil rights protesting police brutality.
	Except when, you know, if it ever happens again and you find yourself screwed in that you can't get to a pharmacy because it's been looted in the name of civil rights and you need medicines, everybody.
	Where do you go?
	Make sure that you have protected yourself with The Wellness Company.
	Everybody!
	Oh, the Who's Global Pandemic Treaty has been a topic of conversation for many months and many reasons.
	But if the government has a play in this game, which they always will, it will be to inject as many people as they can with whatever they deem necessary this time around.
	And wouldn't you do it?
	On the eve of the treaty, but we're going to talk about this tonight as well, the FDA commissioner stood on Capitol Hill and stated that the current bird flu virus is mutating quickly and that the 24% mortality rate that has been documented with this virus has jumped to humans confirms the need for testing, antivirals, and...
	You guessed it.
	More jibby jabs, people.
	I'm not calling them vaccines because they're not vaccines.
	Jibby jabs.
	I don't know about you, but at this point, my response to this kind of rhetoric is...
	Nope!
	Fool me once, shame on me.
	I screwed it up.
	Fool me once, shame on you.
	Fool me twice, shame on me.
	The chief medical board of the wellness company has been monitoring this bird flu outbreak for many weeks now.
	Dr. Peter McCullough recently made a statement that we should all take to heart.
	Dr. McCullough.
	Pointed out that the severity of the bird flu pandemic would achieve multiple global goals all at once.
	The severity and transmissibility of the virus would result in the killing of animals, which means food scarcity.
	And the fatality rate of the avian flu means historically, oh my goodness, people should fear getting the disease.
	It's the next fear campaign.
	And who was I talking to that said if it jumps to humans and goes from human to human too quickly, we know that they've been doing a little bit of special stuff.
	So is H5N1 disease X?
	It's hard to know for sure, but the media pushed behind this disease at this time should not be ignored.
	People, if we ever result in the exact same thing that happened the last time, non-essential businesses shut down, but essential pharmacies left open, but you have to, you know, I don't know, queue up to get in.
	Make sure you have your own contagion kit at home.
	Avoid the prices of doctor visits, et cetera, et cetera.
	Get a contagion kit.
	It will save lives through early treatment, and every American should have at least one of these kits in their home.
	That's the website right here.
	I'm just going to make sure.
	TWC.health forward slash Viva for your promo code, which will get you to make sure that I don't oversell what it's going to get you.
	Well, son of a bee sting.
	I just need to make sure I'm always neurotic about...
	Promising more than what my promo code will get you.
	It'll get you 10% off free shipping at checkout.
	TWC.health forward slash Viva.
	And that's it.
	They're great.
	The link is in the description and they're doing amazing stuff at the Wellness Company.
	All right, I see Biggity Barnes in the back.
	Hold on a second.
	Now I hear my voice.
	Hold on.
	Boom.
	All right, let me take this out.
	Bring Barnes in.
	Is there anything else I need to talk about before Barnes got here?
	No, we've done it all, people.
	Oh yeah, so the standard things here.
	I forgot just before Barnes gets in here.
	Thank you very much.
	Superchats, YouTube takes 30%.
	If you want to be efficient about this, go to Rumble, and they have Rumble Rants, and there's a load of them lined up already.
	Rumble takes 0%.
	Easiest way and bestest way to support, if you like what Robert and I do.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	$10 a month.
	$100 a year if you get the entire year.
	I assume this is the first defense for Nick and his wife, so hopefully probation.
	More importantly, Nick's got to become clean and sober for his family.
	We are going to have to talk about the elephant in the room, in as much as I'd rather not, but we're going to.
	Barnes, I'm bringing you in.
	3, 2, 1, sir.
	How goes the battle?
	Happy belated birthday!
	Oh, yes.
	Yes, that's right.
	I forgot to mention it on the stream on Thursday.
	I'm 45 years old.
	The year of the Trump.
	Any particular gifts or cake or celebrations?
	I'm a simple man, Robert.
	We got steak.
	We got meat at Easy Meats on Glades.
	And we had a barbecue.
	I did the exact same thing on my birthday that I do every day.
	Did a stream, jogging, fished in the afternoon.
	That's all I ever want for a birthday.
	It was fantastic.
	My wife got me spike ball, that thing that you play at the beach.
	I'll show you what I got actually later on.
	And another gift, which is fantastic.
	Sorry.
	A good combination out there is a group that, I think it's FAFO Farms, that supports independent small farmers, like Amos Miller, is that there are several that are veteran-owned, and they're promoting him on Twitter.
	So that might be a cool way to celebrate your Memorial Day, is to get some steak and meat from a veteran-owned small independent farm.
	Otherwise, of course, one of the best places to get all your other food products is AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com, which they're trying to shut them down in the next two weeks.
	So get your products now to make sure that you can get them at all while we continue to fight the government.
	Robert, I guess, look, before we even get into the show...
	Line up stuff of the night.
	I guess we'll have to address the elephant in the room, which is the news with Rakeda.
	You put out a post on Locals.
	I put out my summary just of the legal situation.
	It's a very sad situation.
	And someone said to me, well, you didn't show this much.
	Well, I didn't reply to it.
	I have to stop replying to trolls.
	But they said, you didn't show this much sympathy and empathy when it was Hunter Biden.
	I was like, if you don't understand the difference between all of this, then I can't explain it by way of a comment in Twitter.
	The bottom line is Nick and his wife and a third person, who I don't know who she is content-wise, but an internet personality, were arrested.
	They got charged with three charges.
	One was felony possession of controlled substance over a certain amount, 25 grams.
	You'll explain the importance of that.
	The two were gross misdemeanors.
	One was possession of firearms in the presence of a controlled substance, and the other was child neglect, I believe.
	From what I understand, and these are public documents, so I don't think I'm saying anything that's not public, apparently there was not a wellness check, I don't know what it is, a mandated monitor who said that they were concerned for the kids being neglected, and then police showed up.
	This is all in public court documents.
	They wouldn't open the door.
	They battered the door down, and they found a bunch of stuff when they came there for that reason from the warrant.
	Take it from there, because I don't know what more I can add to the situation.
	There are substantial constitutional questions about everything connected to the Ricada case.
	So there's been a lot of focus in LawTube on the substantive charges and those that want to make sure that Nick's health is in good state, and that's understandable.
	But I think LawTube should start to focus on the constitutional issues of what's taking place here.
	You have a high-profile critic of the local court system.
	of the local prosecutors, of the local police, suddenly being subject to an extraordinary search warrant raid and questionable charges that raise questions under the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and even the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	Within two days of this case, there are major constitutional questions about the conduct of the government.
	And that, to date, has not been talked about at great length.
	So the First Amendment question is, you look at the underlying facts, and I expected to find something different in the probable cause affidavit supporting detention than what I found.
	According to the only allegation, there's a lot of false statements being made out there.
	I love the quartering, but he's...
	Been taken in by some of these false statements and false claims.
	Just go to what is actually alleged in the probable cause.
	We don't yet have the probable cause for the search warrant.
	I'm very curious about that.
	But you go to the probable cause for the detention, initial detention, and it basically says a pastor came and reported concern for the children.
	That normally leads to a wellness check.
	That doesn't normally lead to search warrant, knock down your door, arrest everybody inside.
	So my first is, not only that, there was a week delay.
	So, I mean, they're seriously concerned for the children, so they do nothing for a week.
	Can I stop you there?
	Actually, my first question when I heard that, because at first I read that it was a pastor who requested a wellness check.
	I forget what the term is.
	And my first reaction to that was...
	Isn't that the type of thing that should remain confidential?
	If indeed, I don't know, if Nick is talking to the pastor, isn't that confidential or privileged?
	And there has to be exigent circumstances for a pastor to violate whatever rules of secrecy he's bound by.
	I have long opposed mandatory reporting laws.
	And I understand where they originated.
	They originated out of concern that child abuse was being unreported by people in a position to know, particularly medical care providers.
	The problem is it has got to such a length that people cannot seek out counseling.
	I dealt with this with another client where I had to advise them, you can't get counseling.
	If you go get counseling, then you may disclose something to that counselor that can now then be used against you.
	That shouldn't be the case.
	We're supposed to have a provider, a petitioner.
	Privilege, both in the context of ministers and healthcare officials.
	And yet these laws are overriding it, and it's always done in the name of let's protect children.
	It usually leads to children being in more harm because people in a position to seek assistance don't.
	So I've not been a fan of mandatory reporting laws.
	But the second aspect of all this is what that's supposed to lead to is a wellness check, not a...
	Not a search warrant and raid of somebody's home.
	So that is, I find, and the question is, is it a coincidence that the judges involved, apparently, in this effort are judges that Nick has been very publicly critical of in questioning not only their competency but their ethics, that it involves a prosecutor's office?
	That Nick has been publicly critical of, exposing issues of corruption and competence.
	And a police department he has been publicly critical of.
	Exposing corruption and competence.
	And to stop you there for a moment, because I heard the same thing as well, and I had the same queries that you had.
	Apparently, the judge assigned to Nick's criminal case is the same judge who's involved in his civil case, the defamation case, where he's been a vocal critic of her.
	And I had the same question, like, how the hell is a judge doing both criminal and civil?
	But many people say it's a small town, so maybe they're not that many judges.
	Well, that's the issue.
	You have the biggest high-profile critic.
	In a small county of all these powerful actors.
	Like, people ask me now and then, why do I live in Las Vegas?
	It's because I don't practice law in Las Vegas.
	I don't practice law in the state of Nevada.
	It provides a degree of protection from, if you know anything about Las Vegas police, you would know, you'd want to be careful.
	If you want to practice law in Nevada, don't live in Nevada.
	I'll put it there.
	We'll get to that when we get to the Gruden case a little later on.
	So I have First Amendment case questions.
	I mean, were biased, prejudiced, partisan officials, part of the entire process, we'll get to this when we talk about the Trump case, in authorizing and approving this extraordinary search warrant?
	Then you get to the, and that could be discriminatory, selective, disparate, under the First Amendment, all legitimate issues that also President Trump has raised in all of his cases.
	Then you get to the Second Amendment issues.
	I was curious.
	I was like, okay, why is there a gun charge here?
	He legally had the right to possess the guns.
	He's got no criminal history of any category.
	And I thought, well, there must be something in the probable cause for detention that will say the guns were in the presence of the children or something like that.
	Nope.
	It's in his private bedroom, his personal bedroom.
	In the bathroom of that bedroom is where they found the substances and where they found a gun and some ammunition.
	It's like...
	How is that grounds under the Second Amendment to charge anybody with a crime?
	And then you have the bail provisions that say, because you've now been charged with this crime, you have no Second Amendment rights.
	You lose your right to possess a gun in Minnesota under their regular routine conditions of bail in Minnesota.
	That strikes me as violating the Second Amendment.
	And we've discussed this before.
	Remember the Oklahoma case, other cases.
	There is no constitutional history, and that's the standard under Bruin, of criminally punishing someone merely for possession of a gun, merely because they've also been charged with possession of some illegal substance.
	It's only been illegal use of a gun at the time you possess or are under the influence of illegal substances.
	Or under the influence beyond the range of what's legal, such as alcohol, and usually in a public place.
	And so I think that the criminal charge of the gun charge against Rakeda patently violates his Second Amendment rights.
	I think the bail condition violates his Second Amendment rights.
	Well, the gun charge is a gross misdemeanor, so 364 days maximum sentence.
	The big one is the possession of a controlled substance.
	The other thing is they use it as an enhancement.
	For sentencing purposes on the drug charge.
	So there's a dual-level influence of that particular aspect.
	And there's no allegation, no allegation of any illegal use of a gun.
	No allegation that he used the gun in a public place.
	No allegation that he used the gun while under the influence.
	The report mentioned a spent shell, which was near the Glock.
	It sounds scary.
	Was he discharging the firearm in the house?
	The bail.
	Robert, we have the same two questions, I think, as well.
	And if I made a mistake, I'll correct myself on Twitter.
	They were saying $50,000, what was it, unconditional, it was a UR, it was an acronym they used.
	And it sounded like it was $50,000 bond or all of these conditions, when in reality, what was agreed to was $50,000 and a bunch of conditions, correct?
	No, no, it's or.
	So Minnesota's unique.
	Most states, that's always an and.
	In Minnesota, I can tell you why they're doing this.
	They're doing this to evade constitutional challenges, though actually they don't evade it in the process, because you can't impose a monetary fine on the assertion of your constitutional rights or remedies.
	That would be a form of unreasonable bail under the Eighth Amendment, just as it would be an excessive fine if it were a fine as some form of civil or criminal punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
	What they're doing is...
	They're setting themselves up to make it easy.
	Say, you didn't have to apply any of these conditions as long as you posted bail.
	They give the two options.
	Either you post bail and then you have no conditions on you.
	None.
	Or you agree to the conditions and then you're out on your personal recognizance and you don't have to issue.
	And the theory is that either one will secure your appearance later.
	How does taking away somebody's Second Amendment rights secure their appearance?
	I mean, why wouldn't the options?
	I thought they were alternative, and then I thought they were cumulative when they were agreed to.
	It was $50,000 bond, which he would have only had to post 10% and get the rest by a bonding company.
	Or these conditions.
	It depends on the jurisdiction.
	There's some places that are pure cash bail.
	You have to post a whole amount.
	I think in Minnesota, you can get a bond agency to post.
	He agreed to the conditions, which include travel restrictions, drug testing, what else?
	But also loss of gun rights.
	Well, my own question was, independently, what happens if someone's out on bail and then there's a random drug check or alcohol test check?
	Well, that raises separate Fourth Amendment issues, always has.
	Drug testing, while on bail, to me, is also unconstitutional.
	It's arisen in the probation context, even.
	The Ninth Circuit called it an unconstitutional condition.
	So in my view, that's, again, and what they're trying to do is use scandalous or sensational facts to slowly strip us of all of our liberties and rights.
	They're trying to use bail as a control mechanism.
	And so that's its own independent problem.
	The same with controlled substances.
	For those folks out there that might be like, well, I really hate particular substances.
	Don't think they should ever, persons should ever use them.
	Okay.
	Just remember, right now, the state of Pennsylvania.
	Has already said that having Amos Miller's raw milk in your refrigerator is the exact same as having any illegal drug in your possession.
	Now imagine if they could use you have Amos Miller's raw milk in your fridge as grounds to strip you of all your Second Amendment rights.
	And then we get to the next charge, the child endangerment charge.
	I assume there was some connection.
	There's none.
	They're simply saying if you possess an illegal substance, we're going to call that endangerment of a child.
	And it's like...
	That strikes me as a Fifth Amendment violation because under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the most fundamental of all fundamental rights under the Due Process Clause, as the Supreme Court itself has acknowledged many times, is the right of a parent for control, custody, and care of their children, for them to make those decisions.
	That can only be invaded if you show harm to the child.
	There is no allegation at all.
	That he has caused any harm to his children ever.
	That's according to the government.
	I'm just going with the government's own probable cause declaration.
	And that's what I was going to say.
	Say the quartering, for example, says Nick has been blackout drunk and then four hours later talks about driving his kids around.
	You're not sober within four hours, whatever.
	A lot of other people have seen what I'll call the public meltdown, which I think is related to alcohol abuse at the very least.
	You know, infuse that or combine that, whereas from the state's perspective, it's not like they even referenced the streams.
	Exactly.
	If that was the basis, it would have been in that...
	See, I thought they had some independent basis for this.
	They had none.
	They had none.
	All they did is some...
	This will get to the Fourth Amendment issue now.
	I thought there was something more here.
	Not, okay, you found something in a dude's bathroom?
	And that's it?
	All of a sudden, you're going to take that as a grounds for a search warrant?
	You're going to take that as a grounds to take away Second Amendment rights?
	You're going to take that as grounds to take away care, custody, and control of children?
	You're going to use that to let child endangerment?
	I read the statute that requires the child be in the presence.
	They're interpreting that so broadly that they can basically take away anybody's child if any substance you're using they don't like.
	And remember, the state of Pennsylvania includes Amos Miller's raw milk in that.
	This violates constitutional rights and they're using the scandal and sensational facts and people like the quartering misunderstanding the facts to try to get away with a severe deprivation of constitutional liberty.
	Well, no, I think a lot of people are joining what they know personally and what they've witnessed over the last little while with the law.
	So they're saying, okay, well, I know all this stuff.
	Like, no one has witnessed anything bad, but I assume they had these facts.
	They don't.
	Anything negative towards the children at all, other than they thought the house was messy.
	And I was like, hold on a second.
	That's not grounds of...
	Or alleged child endangerment?
	I mean...
	I commit it every other day, if that's the case.
	And the document says, you know, dirty dishes and the house is sort of in disarray.
	I'm like, crap, if someone comes through this at my house and says there's dog poo and streaks of dog, they won't know it's dog blood, but like one of our paralyzed dogs, she sometimes bleeds and drags her feet around.
	That much I'm very skeptical of.
	I think what a lot of people are doing is merging what they have seen personally and publicly of Nick with these charges.
	Yeah, I've seen the live chat where people are saying, well, I know this in general about...
	People who have problems with alcohol or drugs or gambling or other addiction-related issues causing issues with children.
	Yeah, but we don't presume things like that.
	We don't assume that everybody that has an issue, you have to prove it with actual facts.
	And, you know, that's the problem here.
	Now we get to the Fourth Amendment problems next.
	Well, before you get to the Fourth Amendment, let me just throw this in because people say, look, a pastor was so concerned.
	He said a wellness check on the kids, and there has to be a good reason for that.
	Who the hell knows what information the pastor had?
	We are living in a world where...
	I'm not trying to be over-cynical.
	I thought that was more detail.
	I mean, that's where I thought, okay, this is a detention warrant.
	This is saying this is the grounds for all of this.
	And I thought, okay, there's going to be a lot of details of what the pastor said that...
	Really precipitated, serious concern.
	And that it's not there.
	I mean, I was stunned it wasn't there.
	I was like, wow.
	They saw this as an opportunity to go after one of their, probably their biggest critic, given how small a county they are.
	Their biggest critic.
	They're like, this is a chance to shut him up and punish him for yipping about us for years.
	That's what I see.
	Because that pastor's complaint was more like...
	Hey, I got a basic concern.
	It was not, here, this specifics, this specific, this specific.
	Nothing like that was there.
	And people can say, like, I see some of the chat, like, you know, you're defending them.
	I care less about those people.
	I care about constitutional liberty.
	I want Nick to do well.
	I want him to get good counsel.
	All those things on a personal basis.
	But this is, we're not the shrink show, nor are we the moral judgment show.
	We're the law for the people show.
	And we care about constitutional rights and liberties.
	And guess what, folks?
	You dig into a lot of constitutional rights.
	Miranda?
	Miranda wasn't the sweetest human being on the planet.
	So, I mean, you give people that some of our core constitutional rights are...
	When they want to eviscerate our rights, they're not going to go after popular people.
	They're not going to go after people who have the most perfect life history.
	For those that don't remember, Rush Limbaugh had his own addiction problems.
	Half of America will either have a personal close relationship with someone or themselves.
	Have an addiction problem at some point in their lifetime.
	So these people, they get real judgmental.
	It's like, hold on a second.
	This is pretty darn common.
	You know, Mark Robert does great work in terms of helping people.
	You can go to America's Untold Stories.
	He covers that.
	You can read his book about Rehab Nation.
	There's good stuff there.
	But on the law side, they're trying to eviscerate his constitutional rights.
	And I see all the law, too, not talking about this.
	And it's like, to me, once I dug in...
	I was shocked at what I was seeing.
	Especially in the context of that umbrella guy's covering it.
	I mean, he's also concerned for what Nick considers to be a friend.
	But they called CPS on that umbrella guy as well.
	Anonymous calls.
	Who knows what information the pastor is acting on?
	They've got five kids.
	That's the Fourth Amendment issue.
	So I thought, okay, so first of all, and for people out there, when people get swatted, that's usually a Fourth Amendment violation by the government.
	The government can't rely on anonymous information, third-party information, hearsay information as their sole basis to go and take a ram and bang down your door in your house.
	That's not what is allowed under the Fourth Amendment.
	You have to have probable cause of a crime, and under internal public policy, it's discouraged.
	We'll get to this when we talk about Trump and Mar-a-Lago.
	You've got to be discreet when you're executing search warrants, okay?
	Search warrants should be for exceptional cases, right?
	That's drug dealer cases.
	How many times have you heard about search warrant being executed on a first-time alleged drug user?
	I mean, this is very rare.
	I'd be curious how often they've done it in that small county.
	So, again, going to the First Amendment issues, but what was their basis for probable cause?
	So the pastor doesn't have any firsthand information, doesn't report any firsthand information.
	Okay, so now you've got like, and he's reporting it from somebody else.
	So he's like, you got thirdhand information.
	The information may be privileged in the way in which he got access to it, which raises its own separate set of questions.
	He apparently had no detail.
	I mean, it's of any actual neglect or abuse.
	He didn't say, okay, that the child is having this problem or this problem.
	None of that is, hey, I think that there may be an issue with substance abuse of the parent.
	I'm concerned with how that impacts the kids.
	He's clearly asking for a wellness check.
	He's not asking to raid the house in front of the kids with a bunch of armed police officers, ramming the door down.
	And so I think there's serious Fourth Amendment issues present here because I'm very curious how they got the probable cause because, by golly, it ain't in that detention warrant.
	And then we still have another one.
	Because they're busy violating every constitutional liberty they can figure out there in that small Minnesota county.
	We have the Sixth Amendment issues.
	They apparently were on notice at some point early on that he was the counsel for his wife and for the third person that was arrested there.
	One thing is, why are they arresting everybody?
	It's like they arrested everybody in the House?
	If they do some sort of raid at some place, a party, or possession, you're not supposed to arrest everybody.
	But they arrest every adult.
	So the kids get forced out of the house.
	That raises its own question.
	Clearly they didn't have much evidence on the third person because then they dismissed the charges two days later.
	So her name is April Imholt.
	They dismissed their charges?
	Mm-hmm.
	All dismissed.
	All gone.
	All finito.
	Some people might be hypothesizing that that means she's cooperating with the states.
	There's always a possibility that that's why they arrested her.
	But here's the issue.
	Did they talk to her?
	If they knew Riketa was her lawyer, did they talk to her without notice to Riketa?
	Because that's what Riketa reported.
	He said he had been foreclosed from talking to either his wife, who he was representing, or her, who he was representing.
	Let me stop you there.
	They put him on immediate notice.
	He says he put them on immediate notice that he was representing them.
	So that's Sixth Amendment right to counsel issues.
	There's also Miranda issues, because they'll have said they would have Miranda-ized everybody.
	But it's like, did they arrest her solely to scare and terrify her into telling whatever story they wanted her to tell outside the presence of counsel?
	So they didn't have probable cause for the arrest, didn't have probable cause for her detention, and then invaded her Sixth Amendment rights in order to secure whatever favorable testimony they possibly could as payback to Rakeda being a high-profile public critic.
	Let me ask you the question before I'm going to read some of these chats because they have some decent questions in there as well.
	It's one thing to say I want to represent someone and I'm being denied counsel.
	Can a co-defendant who's an attorney represent another co-defendant?
	I'll give an example because the government's done this nonsense to me.
	So one of the games the government likes to play, they did it to Gotti when they finally got him, is that they try to find a way to separate out the client from the lawyer.
	Now, I was very public saying, if you're in a situation like Nick's, get independent counsel right away.
	It's the first call you make.
	You make sure they're all lined up.
	You make sure the cops all know.
	You make sure everybody all knows.
	That's just tactical advice.
	Putting that aside...
	That still doesn't change the constitutional analysis.
	So absolutely, he can represent them.
	And they can challenge it at a later point about whether there's a conflict, an era, an unwavering interest.
	But the government has done this multiple contexts in my cases.
	They try to always separate out the defendants.
	Usually the defendants are best served with joint defenses, often joint representation.
	But because they know that the best way they get people to point fingers at each other, both of them usually go down.
	That's how that tends to work, particularly in husband and wife situations.
	But the other aspect is they also, if the lawyer's real effective, they go after the lawyer.
	So years ago, I had a case in which my client sort of stumbled into a massive Obama scandal.
	And the scandal was that the Obama administration was using the IRS to enforce Obamacare.
	And it was the pretext by which the Obama IRS, who already had everybody's most private information through the financial records they confess each year on their tax returns, and their other mass gathering of it, part of why they want the PayPal information and all the rest, it's to put you into the surveillance grid.
	It's not about making sure they accurately collect tax.
	But what they did in this context is they were stealing everybody's medical records.
	They were going around to medical care providers, and record keepers especially, and forcing them to turn over all of their medical records.
	This was information that gave them, I called it J. Edgar Hoover's wet dream of a blackmail file.
	And they had stolen the medical records of every judge in the state of California, and I'm sure they were doing it across the country, of every major league baseball player, of every screenwriter, of every movie director.
	Of every movie actor, of every movie producer, they were stealing all of it.
	And basically they had blackmail on some of the most powerful people in the world, either in terms of social influence or political influence or legal or economic influence.
	Because, you know, they knew who had been in for sex addiction rehab treatment, for example, right?
	That kind of thing.
	And he stumbled into it and started to report it.
	And the IRS decided to put him under microscopic, microscopic inquiry for criminal tax cases and tried to lock him up for life.
	And he hired me, and I was the hit.
	I exposed what they had done on the medical records, started exposing their other misconduct.
	The prosecutor involved was very politically connected.
	He was the guy that was picked by the Obama administration to handle fast and furious charges in another jurisdiction.
	That's how politically ambitious this guy was.
	But the IRS got very agitated and his office got very agitated that I was having a lot of success.
	And so they decided to manufacture a case where they were going to accuse me and my client of being in a conspiracy to assassinate the prosecutor on one of the most ludicrous, asinine, absurd charges ever.
	But their whole goal was to separate me.
	From the lawyer.
	Say, oh, now you can't represent them anymore, Barnes, because now we've got an allegation, an accusation against you two.
	And if you don't play ball, Barnes, it'd be nice.
	Maybe, you know, this has a death penalty statute that this carries with it.
	And my attitude was, you know, F you.
	That I'm going to protect my client's constitutional rights and my own.
	And, you know, let's see how this all works out of the end.
	In the end, by the way, he didn't serve a single day.
	Federal prison.
	Didn't pay a single fine.
	But he did recognize the need to get out of the United States, and he's not come back since.
	And this was a guy who was a deep-hearted American when the whole case started.
	So this is an old game.
	They did it to Gotti.
	They got Gotti talking to his lawyer on tape in a way that they could interpret in a certain way.
	They got a judge to say Gotti could no longer use the lawyer who successfully got him acquitted repeatedly.
	So this is an old scam of the government, and it's never an excuse.
	And they know that.
	So that's where I think all the law tubers out there, I understand people's personal concern for Nick.
	Everybody wants Nick to do well.
	Nick has been a stand-up guy for a long time.
	He's helped a lot of people.
	By everything I've ever seen, he's a stand-up family man.
	He's a guy that stood up for Kyle Rittenhouse, was his lead advocate in the court of public opinion, and I'm glad he exposed corruption when he saw it in his local jurisdiction.
	Everybody wants him to do well.
	But what LawTube should start to focus on, in my view, is what the heck's going on in that county?
	This looks like serious, significant constitutional violations as punitive retaliation against someone they don't like.
	And we should all be concerned about that because that can happen to any of us who call out corruption or fraud in our government.
	I'm going to read through as many of the super chats that relate to Ricada before we move on to the other subject.
	Could probable cause have come from seeing Nick with apparent powder on his nose on a live stream?
	I haven't seen that.
	I've seen people commenting on that.
	There's nothing in there.
	Maybe they drew some connection.
	Maybe they used some evidence.
	Nothing.
	None of that is in the problem of cause affidavit for detention.
	Yeah, unless it's in the problem of cause.
	Why would that be in there?
	If that was the basis, I mean, the guy included whether the dishes were dirty, right?
	I mean, you would expect that.
	That fact would be in there if it existed.
	Even if it's cleared up, there will be no understanding to stop swatting Nick.
	His address was given out during the hearing.
	He looks unwell, though.
	There was no Glock in Nick's police report.
	The gun was under the bed.
	An unloaded Sig Sauer AR.
	The spent shell was a.22 caliber.
	No.22 caliber was listed in the police report.
	There are people who often carry different things in unused shells.
	And Pasha says if the charges are true, the children get the short end of the stick.
	If the charges are false, the children get the short end of the stick.
	I think even if the charges are false, we've witnessed a behavior that should be concerning.
	But the government is capable of.
	I mean, I think there's serious problems.
	I mean, for example, that judge should have disqualified herself right away.
	Who signed that search warrant?
	I mean, why is it their discretion being exercised by these judges and being...
	Careful.
	I think that, you know, what we're seeing, and maybe it's a good transition, we're seeing courts, whether it's Amos Miller case and dealing with the state government there, whether it's the illegally imprisoned farmers dealing with the rogue Commonwealth court judge, whether it's the judges trying to lock somebody up because somebody recorded a proceeding and documented judicial corruption there in the Pennsylvania courts, or right to Trump.
	What we're seeing is...
	Oh, sorry, sorry, go for it.
	Before we get into Trump, we have a common theme in all of this, which is out-of-control judges.
	We're going to get to the out-of-control judges in the rumble side of things, in vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	People should believe Robert.
	The police, in my experience, never help addicts.
	They only want to jail them.
	Nick should choose the no-condition bail.
	The subsequent testing is a setup, says NY.
	RenalMD.
	Nick should have chosen the no condition.
	Okay, we got that one.
	And then I'll just get a few left over here in the Rumble to see if we've missed any questions before.
	We give the menu of the evening and move on over to Rumble because we've been here for a while.
	Anton's Biltong is delicious.
	Then we got King of Biltong.
	Good evening from Anton's.
	Meet me.
	Free shipping on your Biltong using code VIVABiltongUSA.com.
	AntonUSA.com.
	Happy birthday, Viva.
	We have sent you some Carmine red tea.
	Enjoy.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay.
	MegaMoba says...
	1,000% or 100% agree, Barnes.
	I'm certainly glad, though, that there was some form of intervention.
	Nick isn't well.
	However, there was no reason for the level of intervention.
	I'm very curious to see the warrant.
	My only issue with Rakeda is that his hypocrisy damaged his credibility, says Pinochet's helicopter tour.
	The Rakeda case seems fishy as F to begin with.
	Rackets has literally prescribed the legal version of meth to begin with.
	I think that's an Adderall or something.
	Why on earth would he have the legal version?
	Well, I mean, you can think of ways that things can be reconciled or explained away, but the public display that concerned everybody is still a separate issue.
	Sadaka says, I have a lot of shells lying around because I reload.
	Spent shell means nothing.
	Just thinking Rakeda was pretty loud and constantly talking about the corruption at all levels.
	I wouldn't be surprised to find out that DOJ was involved in his arrest.
	Love you guys.
	Happy birthday, both me and Lee.
	I think that's it for Rakeda.
	Okay.
	What we're going to do, Robert, tell us the menu of the day, and then we're going to head on over to Rumble and then to locals, and I'll give everybody the link.
	What's our schedule?
	Speaking of out-of-control raids and out-of-control corrupt courts, we have the news on the Trump trial front, both the Mar-a-Lago raid facts that got disclosed.
	License to kill is what they were given, the Biden administration, raiding the Trump Mar-a-Lago, the Southern White House.
	And we got, we'll do a preview of closing arguments, and the judge rigging the trial even more in his insane jury instructions.
	Then we've got SCOTUS, the Supreme Court.
	People asked in the response to our board poll to talk about the federal funding case, so we'll add that to the SCOTUS cases, the Consumer Financial Protection Board, and the meaning.
	We have a little bit of a fake scandal involving Justice Alito.
	And Justice Sotomayor may explain that with her recent speech that hints that some cases are coming down that might lead to a lot of lefty crying this summer.
	We've got the Biden ballot case in Ohio.
	We've got the corrupt...
	A decision, in my opinion, by the Nevada courts, where thank God I don't practice, involving John Gruden in the NFL, also involving the abuse of arbitration, a common theme in this show about how they're eviscerating our jury trial rights and public trial rights with these excessive arbitration enforcement provisions.
	We've got people being denied transplants based on requiring them to take the COVID-19 vaccine before they get there.
	Is there any legal relief or remedy?
	We've got Ian Smith in New Jersey, the gym owner who fought the government and by golly he won rather than the government won.
	A white pill, you might say, for today.
	We've got the International Court of Justice issuing warrants for the President of Israel.
	I've got a specific question on that one.
	We'll get to it.
	And refusing to help out with the rogue country of Ecuador, which not only allowed its own embassy to be raided for the illicit arrest of Julian Assange, But then it raided the Mexican embassy to deny asylum to someone there.
	We have the Ticketmaster being exposed with a monopoly and might have a little fun bonus case about when the cookie crumbles, referencing the company crumble itself.
	Robert, we're going to end on YouTube now.
	So let's just get that number below 6,000 before we move over.
	But go over to either Skip...
	Rumble and come straight to vivabarneslaw.locals.com or Rumble Viva Fry.
	So what I'm going to do, I'm changing the format a little bit for tomorrow.
	I'm going to post the entire stream on Viva Clips, not on Viva Fry.
	So that's where all the full streams are going to go and the clips are going to go on the main channel and the vlogs because I think I'm confusing an algorithm.
	So get one's buttocks.
	Oh, we got...
	Thank you.
	Oh, what did you get for, uh, you didn't say what you got for your birthday.
	Oh, Marion, Marion, can you bring the Crocs?
	Hold on, I'll bring them.
	Could you bring my birthday present Crocs?
	Okay, we're gonna, well, as the numbers trickle down on YouTube, yes, you'll see what these, what my gift was.
	And there was a theme.
	Shoes, shorts, shirt, and spirit.
	Now, hold on a second.
	All I was gonna say is, you know, get your shot glasses.
	Was that another crocodile that stole fish?
	Yes!
	It's amazing.
	If I fish in all of this, I will be the most conspicuous fisherman on Earth.
	Yes, people.
	American flag crocs.
	They are comfortable.
	Absolutely.
	I got shorts with the American flag, a shirt with the American flag.
	All right.
	Everyone, let's go to Rumble.
	Rumble here.
	Hold on.
	Which one is that?
	That's Locals, and I'll give everyone the link one more time.
	We're starting with this.
	I know you're busy.
	Did you happen to see my interview with Steve Baker when we were discussing the raid?
	Yeah, I saw part of it.
	Either tomorrow is a Memorial Day special or Tuesday.
	Hopefully, I'll be live doing a special edition of What Are the Odds with Richard Barris at 2 p.m. Eastern.
	We got back the results from the 1776 Law Center poll survey on food freedom, medical freedom, financial freedom, political freedom, and got some great data and information, particularly how popular food freedom is and how popular certain solutions on medical freedom are.
	So we'll be doing a deep dive on those with Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily, either Monday or Tuesday at 2 p.m. Eastern.
	Amazing.
	Now, I'm ending it on Twitter, ending it on YouTube, and we're going to stay on Rumble and viabronslaw.locals.com.
	So, ending on YouTube now and ending on Twitter now as well.
	And I'll post it all tomorrow.
	Remove.
	Done.
	All right.
	And we should be good on Rumble and Locals now.
	All right, Robert.
	So, the news...
	Get my hair out of my face.
	The news of the week.
	That the FBI was authorized to use lethal force in their totally standard operating procedure protocol raid on a former president, leading presidential candidate.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene and some others were saying it's an assassination attempt.
	I know exactly what she means.
	And, you know, I call it a passive assassination attempt, like pass assassination.
	And then you had the lefty liars that all they do is lie.
	Daniel Goldman, it's just standard operating procedure.
	Conservatives, who I think of good faith, were saying, yeah, this is just a standard template.
	It's pre-filled out whenever the FBI does a raid.
	Of course they can use lethal force.
	And so no biggie.
	It's just standard operating procedure.
	Robert, I had Steve Baker on.
	We had a good fight, a good disagreement on three issues.
	James O 'Keefe, January 6th, Jake Lang, and this.
	I don't agree with him, and I think he's wrong.
	I think it's outrageous.
	Even if it is standard operating procedure, it's outrageous.
	They had the authorization to use lethal force while raiding a Secret Service-protected entity while being authorized to wear polos, plainclothes, carry guns, bring box cutters to raid the president's Mar-a-Lago property.
	You tell me what you think is this.
	Was this a passive assassination attempt?
	If it happens, all the better.
	If a shootout occurs, all the better.
	We could run with media.
	Or is this nothing to see here?
	Well, as one of the commenters in the reply threads today at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com pointed out, you know, why did they have the hostage team help assigned to the case as well?
	So this was something where they were hoping, kind of like January 6th, they were hoping there'd be an escalation.
	An escalation that would excuse their conduct.
	An escalation that would further marginalize President Trump.
	That, you know, they fancy and imagine him to be somebody that he's just never been.
	They fancy, they confess through projection their own crimes onto Trump.
	And at the same time, they confess through projection how they would react or respond onto Trump in this situation.
	And so the, first of all, there's no precedent at all for executing a search warrant on the president of the United States.
	Former president, future president, there's none.
	So anybody who said this was standard operating procedure, that's problem number one.
	Problem number two, Jack Smith, who's seeking an emergency gag order on Trump, but hey, federal judge, stop Trump from exposing the fact that we tried to kill him by hook or by crook, which again shows how First Amendment violating all these orders are, but also shows how their whole obsession is controlling the court of public opinion.
	Their goal was to hope that Trump escalated.
	Trump, that the Secret Service didn't go along.
	Like, one of his lies, Jack Smith's lies to the judge, and on the issue of the gag order, was he said, oh, you know, by the way, we reviewed this with Trump's counsel before we did anything.
	It's true that the warrant told them to do that.
	That's what they promised the judge in getting the warrant.
	But that is, in fact, not what they did.
	Well, Robert, that was my question.
	Like, I don't even know who to ask these questions to.
	Oh, they were collaborating between Secret Service and Trump.
	Then why raid?
	If you're in communication and you're discussing it, why do the raid?
	Correct.
	In fact, they never told Trump's counsel before the raid.
	They never conferred effectively with the Secret Service before the raid.
	Because, as you point out, there was no need for the raid.
	There never was any need for the raid.
	Trump had consistently complied with a wide range of their requests.
	We now know from the unsealed court files that, in fact, the government was the one who organized these documents and sent these documents in the way they did while they were busy trying to entrap Trump.
	That's what the archives are up to.
	It shows you how corrupt our government has become that the archivist is leading a conspiracy against a former president and future president of the United States.
	The archivist is the one who belongs in prison.
	There's a bunch of people that need to be criminally prosecuted for this.
	Trump took a walk on doing any of that in his first term.
	He can't take that walk in his second term.
	He said to the Libertarian Party, the dog agrees.
	I'm going to let him in here.
	He said at the Libertarian Party, he wasn't always a Libertarian, but he became a Libertarian after 91 indictments.
	And, you know, so I hope we see some remedy on that stage.
	But it's clear nothing about what the FBI did with standard operating procedure.
	They lied to get the warrant because they lied about how they would employ protective protocols and procedures to preclude this.
	And the bigger question people should be asking is why in the world is it standard operating procedure to give people a license to kill every time they do a search warrant?
	Maybe that's why so many of these cases end up like a Ruby Ridge.
	End up like Waco.
	Craig Robertson, the most recent one, go and effect a raid at 6.15 in the morning on a man who you know is probably mentally unwell, paranoid, armed, instead of doing it in a passive manner that will not escalate the situation.
	Exactly.
	I mean, they are basically inviting escalation by having this standard operating procedure of licensing lethal force.
	And that if this is standard operating procedure, it needs to no longer be standard operating procedure.
	What was the issue?
	Why are they allowing them to be plain clothes?
	Wear polos and carry arms and box cutters.
	I mean, that looks like you have a gang raiding your property.
	In fact, often people pretend this happens to a higher degree than people know.
	I represented some clients in the unauthorized product distribution business at scale.
	I only represented them on the tax charges.
	But what happened was when they were raided, he was armed and ready to go because one of the things they would do is people would pretend to be law enforcement and raid houses where they thought there was money and property, particularly if that person maybe didn't have, say, reported money or property, and steal it.
	And one of the best ways to do it was, and this happens on fraud scams, people pretend to be the IRS and send people bogus emails and letters.
	And they get their money in property that way.
	I mean, I get those inquiries on a monthly basis where somebody says, I got a call that says, I got to send this money in now or they're going to seize my account and be like, that's not a legitimate IRS inquiry.
	So given that, they shouldn't be escalating like this.
	Search warrants should be rare.
	They should be exceptional and extraordinary cases, number one.
	And number two, there should never be a standard operating protocol to escalate.
	The standard operating protocol should be to de-escalate.
	And so it further shows the systemic institutional corruption and fraud in the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
	It was Alpha Warrior, who I did the interview.
	He's the...
	He was raided again at 6 in the morning where they used concussive grenades around his house, knowing that he had firearms in the house, called him to the front door, and but for the grace of God, he showed up to the front door with his phone and not a gun, not knowing what the hell was going on.
	It's a deliberate trigger.
	Whatever they did at Mar-a-Lago, again, you know, but for the grace of God, didn't go.
	They were hoping for escalation.
	They were seeking escalation in order to rationalize an extreme crackdown.
	Anybody who doesn't see that is deaf, dumb, and blind, or is so deferential and defensive of the national security state.
	I would think people like Steve Baker, who got treated to standard operating protocol in an undesirable way, would be a little bit more alert to that.
	No, look, he says the government's bad, but, you know, and that's the problem.
	On the right, there's this deference to law enforcement, deference to authority, and it's how often do you, how long or how frequently do you get smacked in the face before you realize this is not legitimate authority?
	This is not constitutional authority.
	And we got to start seeing the Constitution as the authority, not just because somebody's in a robe, they got a white lab coat on, they got a nice little badge on, they got a little gavel in their hands.
	That isn't legitimate authority.
	The Constitution is legitimate authority.
	Ginger Ninja has corrected me.
	I keep saying box cutters.
	It was bolt cutters.
	Small and large bolt cutters.
	Giant steel padlock cutters often used by criminals.
	So it's even worse.
	I'm underselling how bad it was.
	And then we get to what's going on in New York where the judge is going to give a jury instruction that says even if you don't agree on what crime he committed, you can convict him.
	I saw a parody of that, and it says, you decide what the crime was.
	And I was like, holy cow!
	It's literally going to be his instruction.
	That's literally, you don't even have to agree what the crime was.
	If you agree that he did something bad, maybe, you're good to go.
	That's how rigged the trial is.
	And Courthouse News should be ashamed of itself for citing legal experts and judges covering for this corrupt...
	Rogue judge who doesn't need to be in a black robe.
	He needs to be in a prison uniform.
	Because he's violating, he's weaponizing his office for the violation of every constitutional right President Trump could have.
	We're going to get back to the Trump, but I want to know, like, Merrick Garland, back in the day, admitted that he authorized the raid.
	He authorized the warrant, or whatever it is, the documents.
	Oh, yes.
	He should be held legally accountable.
	Oh, yeah.
	This goes all the way back.
	I mean, his corruption goes back to Oklahoma City.
	People should look at who covered up what took place at Oklahoma City.
	Who was specially assigned and who started getting promoted right up through the ranks after he took care of that little business?
	Merrick Garland, a teacher.
	Is it Merrick Garland?
	Exactly.
	So, no question.
	But, I mean, the jury instruction is nuts.
	So, then we have the, you know, but we can, closing arguments are going to be this week.
	I believe, I think tomorrow, he may have already interviewed, Trump is on with Tim Pool.
	Yes, they did the interview.
	I think they're going to play the interview tomorrow.
	I don't know if it's a five-minute or a 30-minute or an hour, but good for Tim.
	I mean, that's fantastic.
	Yeah, it's a huge, huge land.
	So he got Robert Kennedy, I think, on Friday, and he gets Trump on Memorial Day.
	So a good combo there for Timbo.
	Rob, they're going to have closing arguments.
	They call them summation.
	I think they start Wednesday.
	When are we going to get to see the jury instructions?
	Have we seen the final version of them yet or not yet?
	No, and apparently the judge is not going to give the full instructions to the jury until after closing arguments.
	But he was already prohibiting the defense from presenting a bunch of arguments that they could even make in closing.
	How does that make sense?
	You're going to have the jury listening to closing arguments, not knowing how to digest the information for the purposes of their duty.
	Okay, I rigged this here.
	I'm going to rig this over here.
	I'm going to rig this over there.
	I mean, it's obvious what the dude is doing.
	It's been obvious from day one.
	While his daughter just rakes in the cash.
	Was it last week or the week before where their motion for directed verdict, whatever the criminal equivalent is, and the judge says, well, you know, a jury of 12 scrupulous, insightful New Yorkers, they won't fall for the lies.
	Has he not a jury?
	He's already going to be doing a press statement.
	So as he's signaling to the judge, I guarantee you, Biden is not doing a national statement.
	Because he thinks Trump is going to get acquitted.
	He's sending the message, make sure he's convicted, so I can go out to everybody and say, oh, well, we can't have a felon running for our presidency.
	And this will be coming from one of the biggest felons in the history of man in Joe Biden.
	Again, Joe Biden, LBJ, but retarded.
	That's who he is.
	The scope and scale of criminality is still there.
	But in preview of the closing arguments, the government doesn't have a closing argument beyond Trump ad.
	That's it.
	If you look at what the defense closing argument is, they get to take it apart.
	Dershowitz was like, this is easy.
	First of all, did Trump order, was the bookkeeping entry false?
	No.
	The bookkeeping, a lawyer submitted an invoice.
	The lawyer was paid.
	When you're doing internal bookkeeping, that's called which category you go to?
	Oh, legal services.
	It doesn't matter if the legal services were for reimbursement or anything else.
	It's payment to a lawyer in response to a legal invoice.
	And the person who entered that bookkeeping item admitted they never talked to Trump about it.
	They never talked to them about it.
	It's even worse than that.
	Michael Cohen says, yeah, Trump instructed me on that payment, that $420,000.
	He instructed me for the Stormy Daniels payment.
	Oh, and I also stole $60,000 from it.
	I'm sure he instructed me to steal from his own payment to me.
	It was $30,000, but $60,000 after taxes.
	Oh, no, it's a scam on scam on scam.
	So, I mean, the second problem is they got to show that Trump intended for that bookkeeping entry to be made and knew it was false at the time it was made.
	For the purpose of covering up another crime.
	And they have none of that because they don't even have Trump intending that the item be listed that way.
	There's absolutely no testimony that Trump had anything to do with the bookkeeping of the item.
	None.
	They could produce zero.
	That's why a directed verdict should have been issued under New York law.
	Is it beyond the point for a directed verdict?
	Or is the judge going to say, I'm going to wait to see if they convict or acquit.
	And if they convict, then I'll come in with a directed verdict potentially.
	Not this judge.
	I think he's already denied it, but theoretically they always have that option, but there's no way this judge does that.
	He's rigged this entire trial to secure a conviction to destroy Trump in the court of public opinion.
	It's not working because the case is garbage.
	Then you go to the third issue, which first you've got to prove that Trump issued a false bookkeeping item.
	Even though, again, he's not a publicly traded company, so this is purely for internal consumption, which also makes it absurd at a whole other level.
	Defrauding the state, Robert, and the voters.
	That's what it was.
	Right.
	By how?
	By what?
	And then the second problem is that Trump didn't even know about the bookkeeping item.
	But the third one is, even if you can get beyond reasonable doubt to either one of those two, you have to convince the jury that he was doing all of this to commit another crime, and they can't even identify what the crime is.
	There's been no evidence.
	Of any tax crime and tax implications whatsoever.
	There's no basis for that.
	There's no basis for any of the other potential crimes other than their supposed campaign fraud on the people of New York related to a campaign.
	How could a bookkeeping decision that's entirely internal defraud the people of New York?
	How could it cover up defrauding the people of New York?
	How?
	Nobody else is reading that.
	It's private.
	It's internal.
	It's not a public document.
	It's not a public information.
	It's not a publicly traded company.
	It's an asinine prosecution.
	If I was making a closing argument and say, we're only here because they assume you hate Donald Trump so much that you can't be impartial, that you can't do your job under the oath.
	You're going to tell the American people, DeMar, with your verdict, whether they're right or wrong.
	That's what this case is about because the facts are clear beyond dispute.
	And they're only witness that has anything bad to say about Donald Trump.
	Is a guy who admitted he lied to every time he's taken the oath, he lied.
	By his own admission.
	To Congress, to courts, to the public, to everybody.
	A guy who admitted he routinely and regularly violated his ethical duties to his clients.
	A guy who admitted he committed tax fraud.
	A guy who admitted he committed business fraud.
	A guy who admitted he lied to judges, juries, and Congress in the past.
	A guy who admitted he extorted President Trump, or was part of extorting President Trump, and admitted he embezzled from the President.
	No one reasonable could believe his testimony.
	They're just relying on your prejudice.
	They're just relying on you hating Donald Trump so much that you cannot enforce the Constitution of the United States in this courtroom.
	And that's the only issue in this case.
	Can you be a constitutional jury or not?
	Can you prove that you're above the prejudice they think you're guilty of?
	That's the only question.
	I'm snipping that portion, Robert.
	It started at one hour and 13 minutes, roughly.
	He's on the stand admitting to perjury for one, committing perjury for two, admitting to larceny for three, admitting to...
	I love it.
	I didn't pick up on it.
	I saw your comment and I was like, oh, I didn't realize that the first time.
	Taking out exceeding or the limit of cash withdrawals daily.
	Routine money laundering and financial structuring.
	Because when you financially structure to hide the fact that you're committing the crime of embezzlement, There's a word for that, or phrase for that, it's called money laundering.
	He confessed to extortion, embezzlement, money laundering, perjury, business fraud, and tax fraud.
	But he also committed new crimes in real time, so whatever the statute of limitations would have been on the 2016-2017, he could and should be prosecuted currently, or at least charged.
	Oh, and that's why it's their incentive to make up stories.
	Like his 90-second, 86-second phone call to Trump's security guy that just...
	Coincidentally, he was connected to him wanting to get the Secret Service sicked on the guy, the little 14-year-old having fun pranking him on a routine basis.
	And as Dershowitz pointed out, anybody who knows Trump knows that there's absolutely no chance that there's an 86-second phone call with Trump on the phone.
	That's why people in the chat have been saying it'd be interesting to see Trump and Tim Pool.
	It'd be like Trump and Alex Jones.
	You know, who interrupts the other the most?
	Dershowitz pointed this out.
	I mean, I've been on the phone with Trump, but I think I got in eight words.
	He thinks by externalizing, by verbalizing.
	He's one of those people that follows his thoughts by verbalizing them first.
	And so the...
	I mean, everybody knows that supposed phone call is made up.
	It's fictional.
	The bottom line is what he told his lawyer.
	Who testified at the trial, despite the judge trying to strike it and trying to deny it and trying to restrict it, is that Trump never knew about the Stormy Daniels payoff.
	Never knew about it.
	So he couldn't have been conspiring to cover up a crime he never committed, nor could have committed.
	Fantastic.
	I'm getting ready to hit a tweet because Bette Midler just thanked the libertarians for the moment of joy that they brought her.
	All right.
	That's Trump.
	That's...
	We got...
	Okay, so we got Florida.
	We've got D.C. We got SCOTUS now.
	Oh, okay.
	So these are...
	You'll have to...
	Tell me which one you want to start with.
	Well, the natural bridge is clearly some good decisions are coming down.
	Probably a big one on Trump immunity because you've got a fake Alito scandal.
	Did his wife raise a flag about going to heaven or not and did it have this significance or that significance?
	You got other judges making personal political attacks on them.
	They're nonsense.
	And you got Sotomayor about to cry when she goes and does a speech about that.
	I think she confessed that she cries sometimes when she sees the conservative judges.
	This is their opinion.
	And she hinted that there are some more coming.
	So there's going to be some wokester.
	I don't know.
	You remember that woman that was at the scry?
	The scream thing during the Trump inauguration where all these crazy wackos got together and screamed.
	It was one of the funniest memeable moments in the history of man.
	But there's going to be a lot of that because there's clearly some good Supreme Court cases coming down.
	This last set of cases have been kind of mediocre, but hopefully they get better, and Sotomayor seems to suggest it's coming, and the fake Alito scandal strongly suggests it's coming.
	Robert, I'm going to play it, and we'll see if this stream gets copyclaimed, but I think we need to go back and revisit this.
	And I'm going to shed some words of wisdom about this that Jordan Peterson remarked.
	The left purports to be not agnostic, but atheist, godless.
	They don't have any routines, rituals.
	This woman is literally screaming to the heavens, literally looking up to God and saying, why have you forsaken me?
	Donald J. Trump is now president of the United States.
	President of the United States.
	He's the ex-president of the United States.
	Look it up to the heavens!
	They don't believe in God.
	I would love to know where she is right now.
	Jordan Peterson, in one of his podcasts, he's like, can you imagine a greater level of narcissism than screaming because you disagree with democracy?
	Looking to the heavens.
	Robert, so the scandal is that Alito allegedly flew the American flag...
	His wife.
	It's at his house.
	I just hope he's not throwing his wife under the bus to try to buy some good grace.
	They flew the flag upside down at their house.
	And there was another flag of protest at another house.
	What was the second flag of protest?
	Something to heaven, and I have no idea what the flag means.
	I'm going to go find it.
	And now people are saying they can't express any...
	I guess they chalk it up to support for the Jan Sixers.
	I don't know what flying the flag upside down really means.
	It means you're unhappy with...
	Appeal to heaven, that's the name of the flag.
	But I have no idea what it means.
	Okay, Alito, appeal to heaven.
	Let me just pull it up.
	What is your take on this?
	Oh, it's that the word has got out, that Sotomayor confirmed in her little commencement speech somewhere, that some big decisions are coming down, and that the left is not going to like those decisions.
	God, Robert, you're smarter than me.
	That means Chevron doctrine, presidential immunity.
	Some big cases coming down that are going to reinforce the constitutional side of government in the next several weeks.
	Because remember, they usually issue, finalize their decisions this coming month.
	And this month is usually when all the decisions come down, the next several weeks.
	That's why I feel so stupid.
	How did I not put that together?
	They've got to come up with the persuasion, astroturfing...
	Smear them before the decision comes down so that when it comes down, they only render that decision because they're a bunch of political hacks that are indebted to or aligned with the Jan Sixers.
	So, amazing.
	All of the decisions have to be in by, what, the 21st of June or the end of June?
	It's loosely that way, yeah.
	Okay.
	Before they go on vacation.
	I didn't even bring up the evolution of the Appeal to Heaven flag.
	In a legal controversy, it has evolved from its...
	Revolutionary War symbol to a banner of the far...
	Oh my good God, Robert!
	Sorry to take the Lord's name and...
	It's an American Revolutionary symbol that now...
	It must be a far right symbol.
	Well, of course, because apparently...
	Yeah, if you're 41776, you must be part of the far right.
	It's how nuts these people are.
	Okay, and so at least we know that Alito's wife is based and smart, so good for her.
	Yeah, well, like Thomas's wife.
	What...
	What do we get into?
	So what the SCOTUS, the sequence, they issued a quartet of decisions the last two weeks.
	One is on federal, well, we discussed two of them last week.
	The four for this week is the apportionment clause case, the crypto arbitration, racial redistricting and sentencing for pot.
	So it was the less politically hot cases.
	Came out the past two weeks.
	The big ones are about to come down.
	And I think these are mostly okay decisions.
	I'm not a fan of several of them.
	The crypto arbitration was the...
	You have an arbitration clause in the main agreement and then you had a jurisdiction clause in the sweepstake or...
	I think it's a sweepstake.
	In a separate agreement, yeah.
	And then the question was which one Trump switched.
	Look, Robert, whenever you send me a redistricting case, I'm not reading it.
	I get it.
	It's like, oh, what's this?
	Redistricting?
	Check out.
	I do not understand redistricting.
	Okay, we'll start with one.
	The crypto.
	Easiest one to understand.
	They have in their standard terms and agreements, arbitration clause.
	They had a sweepstakes.
	I don't know what it was, some sort of a sweepstake.
	And in that, they had a choice of jurisdiction clause, which necessarily precludes arbitration.
	And then the question is, there's a dispute.
	We don't know who gets to even adjudicate as to who has competence, because typically, when there's an arbitration clause, the arbitrators decide their own, they determine their own competence, their own jurisdiction.
	In this case, you had a choice of jurisdiction, so the question is, who decides what?
	I don't care about the outcome.
	I prefer things to be done in court.
	I appreciate that arbitration clauses have been read, what's the word, favorably or broadly, that anything...
	If it says arbitration, it goes to an arbitrator.
	They adjudicate their own jurisdiction.
	This says, no, if there's competing cases or competing jurisdictions, the court decides if the court has jurisdiction when there's two overriding or conflicting contracts.
	What's the broader import of this decision?
	Well, really, they at least finally restrained some of the excesses of sending things to arbitration.
	Because what Coinbase did was have a general agreement that said, any dispute between us, Whether or not it's subject to arbitration also has to be decided by the arbitrator.
	So they essentially tried to delegate that.
	But then the sweepstakes contract said, we're going to go to the courts of California.
	And what they're trying to say is, hey, because we have any contractual language that ever says the arbitrator decides what's arbitratable or not, then we should always be able to exempt courts and be able to go to arbitration.
	And the court's like, if you have any contract that talks about going to court, then it's up to the courts to first interpret whether or not you go to arbitration to decide that.
	And unfortunately, the Supreme Court unanimously decided, no, the courts still have a role for this.
	The problem, because arbitration is consuming, private arbitration is taking away your right to a public trial, taking away your right to trial by jury, taking your right to an appeal, taking away your right...
	To a judge who's been constitutionally appointed or elected, and sometimes eviscerating your rights of privilege and discovery, often which are not respected in arbitration.
	And I'm a fan of restricting arbitration, not expanding it.
	And this was a good decision, restricting it rather than extending it, using basic contract principles to get there.
	Okay.
	Well, I also like the idea that they said, well, you've created two jurisdictions.
	One, the courts, the other, the arbitrators.
	And we're not going to give the arbitrators more power than the courts.
	It's the other way around.
	Gerrymandering or these things, Robert, whenever you send it to me, I tune out immediately.
	I still don't understand it.
	I appreciate that, as the decision said, it's intertwined politics with law when you want to craft the areas for voting.
	I don't know how it works anymore.
	I still don't know how it works, but tell us, bottom line, what is going on in this gerrymandering case?
	Yeah, so what's happening is Democrats are trying to force Democratic districting on Republican legislators and governors.
	And the way they're doing so is misuse and abuse of the Voting Rights Act, just like they're trying to basically incentivize and institutionalize election fraud by misuse and abuse of the Voting Rights Act.
	They're doing the same with redistricting.
	So where they lack political power, they're going to their judicial allies and having them force a different map to help and favor Democrats on Republican legislators and governors.
	And the Supreme Court has been starting to push back on this over the last decade.
	And this was another decision pushing back on this.
	They said you have to rule out politics being a factor.
	If you can't rule out politics being a factor, then you cannot conclude impermissible race motivations in the district.
	How would you ever rule out politics being a factor?
	It seems that it's necessarily a political, inherently political.
	Exactly.
	So it means they're gutting the ability of federal judges to oversee, to redraw maps that legislators have written.
	The voters pick legislators to draw those maps.
	Judges to draw those maps.
	And the federal courts are finally putting an end to it under this scam and charade that this is racial motivated redistricting when it's always been politics motivated redistricting.
	What is the rationale?
	Set politics aside.
	What is the rationale behind redistricting in the first place?
	Oh, get as many of your people in and as few of their people in.
	So is this something, hypothetically, that could be apolitically resolved by an AI algorithm?
	What is the ideal non-political solution to redistricting or the non-political objective to redistricting?
	The best way you could do that, in my view, is to have...
	Some degree of statewide voting.
	And if you got a certain percentage of the vote, then your party can get so many seats in the House or the Senate.
	That's the only way to avoid politically motivated redistricting.
	Otherwise, they say in these independent commissions and all this other jazz, it's always going to be politically motivated at some level.
	The only way you would avoid that...
	Is to make maps irrelevant.
	The only way you make maps irrelevant is if you did apportionment based on a certain percentage of the vote statewide.
	Okay.
	So those are two of the four.
	What are the other two Supreme Court decisions that we're covering?
	Sentencing for pot and federal funding.
	Briefly on the sentencing.
	So the federal, here's again, I've been predicting this for a while and we've seen multiple examples of it this year, is that watch for Gorsuch and Jackson.
	To often align on criminal cases, on areas where his libertarian instincts and her criminal defendant sympathies will align for, in my opinion, better constitutional decisions than you'll get from the institutional conservatives on the court and the institutional liberals on the court.
	This is an example.
	They dissented from the decision.
	Federal law basically says you have a 15-year mandatory minimum.
	If all that happens is you're found with a gun under certain circumstances.
	I got problems with that to begin with.
	But the key factor of what triggers the mandatory minimum is whether you have a serious history of criminality.
	The question was, what happens when somebody's criminal former drug convictions are marijuana-based?
	And given that now that marijuana is being removed from being a serious conviction under...
	And so they're like, clearly this person didn't commit serious felonies under our current situation.
	The U.S. government's position was, well, that doesn't matter.
	All that matters is, was it serious at the time of the conviction?
	So you can't have retroactive convictions or retroactive criminal law, but you also are not going to have retroactive exonerations if...
	Things evolve in the future.
	That seems bizarre and antithetical to the reason for not having retroactive criminal law.
	If something is evolving in the opposite direction.
	So bottom line, these people who were convicted...
	So the majority said, yeah, they said, screw you.
	You get mandatory minimums and you're treated as a serious conviction even if we all now recognize that was not a serious conviction under current legal standards.
	And that's what Gorsuch and Jackson were like.
	That eviscerates the point and purpose of the statute.
	So it was a bad decision, in my view, but it's where there's a strong institutional bias on the Supreme Court with both the neoliberals, Kagan and Sotomayor, and the neoconservatives, Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett especially.
	And often, unfortunately, Alito and Thomas have kind of a hostility to criminal defendants in ways that bleeds through in some of these kind of cases, in my opinion.
	At the risk of asking the stupid question, but I'll ask it anyhow, is there a way for legislation to be clear and unequivocal or even permit?
	Congress can fix this problem.
	Okay, fine.
	So they're highlighting or at least ratifying a problem that can be resolved through legislation.
	They'll just say, now anyone convicted under this will be exonerated or have their...
	And really, they should get rid of a lot of these mandatory minimums.
	These mandatory minimums, in my opinion, were excessive in a lot of contexts.
	Mandatory minimums make sense to me with people that are high risk of imminent danger in the future to other people.
	Violence is it, bottom line.
	Yeah, and certain CP, certain children-related issues.
	All violence.
	Yeah, and certain kinds of sexual assault, right?
	Some of these, they have a high...
	Unless you're a Biden appointee, and then what you do if you're a Biden appointee...
	You pick the judge who was involved in some other corrupt cases, by the way.
	You decide to elevate her after she overruled even Biden's own little special trans committee and put a serial rapist, serial abuser, as a man in a woman's prison because he decided he was a woman.
	I mean, can you imagine?
	I mean, that's the kind of insanity that's taking place.
	But that's who we should reserve.
	Our most severe penalties and punishment for, in my opinion, not just a gun charge or a drug charge.
	So I think that's part of the problem to begin with.
	All right.
	And the fourth of the Supreme Court decisions is...
	You got the notes.
	What is it?
	Ah, so this is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
	The question was, what does the appropriations clause mean?
	So the Appropriations Clause says Congress has the exclusive power of the purse.
	Does that mean they have to continue to exercise control over that on an annual basis in order for any agency to spend any money?
	Because what they did with this special bureau is they said, we're not going to appropriate money directly for you.
	We're going to tell you if the Federal Reserve has some extra cash sitting around, You can get it from the Fed to fund yourself.
	The concern at the time they passed the laws was that the appropriations would be subject to ongoing lobbying, and they would effectively eviscerate this agency that was meant to regulate certain credit and lending groups out there would effectively eviscerate their efficacy by using the appropriations power.
	The argument of many groups that brought the suit That's the point of the appropriations power, that it be subject to continuous annual democratic review that people can have influence over an executive branch using the power of the purse to do it.
	Now, ultimately, Gorsuch dissented, but Thomas actually wrote the opinion, and they drastically limited the power of the appropriations branch.
	The neoliberals and neoconservatives all signed up on the same side and said, That as long as Congress makes clear the source and purpose of the appropriation, they need to impose no further limitation or restraint for that executive branch agency to continually fund itself from some independent third-party source because Congress legislatively authorized it.
	And Gorsuch's point is this eviscerates the democratic check of Congress using the appropriations clause as its tool.
	I agree with the dissent.
	But, you know, that's yet to sail.
	At this point, Congress can basically say, hey, agency so-and-so, you can constantly self-fund yourself without any further legislative control using the appropriations power to do so.
	Now, that doesn't preclude Congress from coming back in and changing that in the future.
	But what it does is it creates another example where Congress is, in my view, derogating their duty by delegating it to the executive branch.
	Robert, I'm going to read some rumble rants because if I don't, we're going to get too far behind and it looks like we've got some good questions here.
	Hey, Viva and Barnes.
	This is from Desperado98.
	I'm trying to get in contact with 1776 Law for representation in Harris County.
	Still, I can't seem to get through by phone.
	Can I get some help?
	Email or text.
	Send to info or whatever the info is at 1776.
	Robert, what's the website?
	1776.com?
	1776lawcenter.com.
	Morse Apple machines cannot be held responsible for decisions, therefore should not be asking them.
	AI to redistrict would be terrible.
	Gold folds, upside-down flag.
	The signal was formally allowed as one of several methods of distress signaling authorized or recommended by the International Maritime Code.
	I'm just wondering how a regular flag, because the joke was AOC says, where can I get these upside-down flags?
	Any flag can be flown upside down, right?
	Or do they have to have a stitching?
	I just got that joke.
	It took me an extra second to get that joke.
	Which one?
	The AOC joke.
	I thought they had to have stitching.
	There's a fly in this room, but I'm going to kill it.
	I feel like I'm in the episode of Breaking Bad.
	Sad Wings Raging says, upside down flag means you're in distress.
	Boaters should have a flag just for that reason.
	PRdesigner02, I don't know what the big deal is about the upside-down flag.
	It's a sign of distress or protest.
	There's nothing wrong with protest either.
	All of a sudden, the upside-down flag is the end of protest, but burning down cities is fine.
	Take it easy, Barnes.
	We want to see you reach your 51st birthday.
	He's cool, man.
	Salty Sarge2021, love Barnes, silver surfer tie.
	Only use your powers for good.
	Happy birthday, Viva.
	Mine is now happy birthday.
	Randy Edward, just look at the reclusive millionaire Don Scott, a property owner murdered by law enforcement during a drug raid of his Malibu property.
	Robert, I'm reading Chaos now.
	Or listening to it on Audible.
	The Charles Manson killing.
	I knew where it was going before I got to Chapter 4. Holy hell is it mind-blowing.
	Merrick Garland was also in charge of the FBI investigation of Ruby Ridge in Waco, Texas in Oklahoma City.
	Ginger Ninja.
	I got the Baker one.
	Okay, so hold on a second.
	There's a lot here.
	Outspoken critic of yours, Barnes, but finally someone speaking what I'm feeling about Nick.
	God bless you and shame on the rest of the law tube for not getting here first.
	Pinochet's helicopters.
	One may say Jack Smith requesting Trump be further gagged is a prelude to a false flag against the feds to justify crackdown and election.
	Also, hurricane authority is scarier than lethal force.
	My wife and I were just talking about hurricanes.
	Warnings for Florida.
	FBI from Michigan.
	Governor Fedknapping.
	Never let the truth get in the way of a good narrative.
	Robert, I'm trying to look up the word for international court.
	I'm going to kill this fly.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	You saw Trump.
	He was up in Minnesota.
	And one was like the platform was like this.
	And he was talking about whoever designed that need to be fired.
	But the other thing was there was a fly that was bothering him.
	The same thing.
	He was like, I'm going to get this fly.
	Well, I'm reluctant.
	I don't even like killing flies.
	Trump is still best when he goes off script.
	Some people are criticizing him on going to the Libertarian Party.
	He embraced crypto, which I thought was very smart.
	Ross Ulbricht?
	Yeah, Ross Ulbricht, which was great.
	And he was fun and engaging, and he was reaching out to an audience that he hasn't...
	You know, explicitly reached out to like that before.
	And the thing with the Libertarian Party folks, they were never going to put either him or Kennedy on the ticket because anybody who's part of the Libertarian Party to such a degree they're a delegate to the convention is hardcore committed to third party options.
	They don't believe in two parties at all whatsoever for any reason or an independent for that matter.
	They want their own candidate.
	But I thought that was credit to him.
	But he's still best when he just riffs.
	Like when he was riffing in Minneapolis about the platform and riffing about the...
	He used to do that all the time in 2016.
	And he did some at the Bronx.
	You know, I mean, you saw something like...
	There was some really cool merch they had of Trump stuff.
	They had cool chains.
	I guess you could get a grill with Trump in it.
	There was some golden grill stuff.
	I was like, wow, that was some cool.
	Another successful appearance, which is why the judge is so obsessed with getting a conviction this coming week.
	Well, I'm going to find the tweet because it's amazing how the Democrats or capital P progressives are not shy.
	to show their racism when they when they really want to hold like oh yeah look at this look at this there you go there's more uh I think I can bring this one up I just want to accidentally bring up mine look at this it's amazing like all that they're doing is showing um Well, this guy's pants are a little too low on the top left.
	Then you got MAGA tattoos.
	I don't think those are real.
	And then you got the Latinos for Trump.
	If you've ever been to the Bronx, it's not a surprise.
	Well, all that I'm saying, now all of a sudden, the party of tolerance and inclusion is judging minorities for their physical appearance and tats.
	Which only makes it worse.
	Speaking of issues with the campaign, you know, Biden...
	May not be on the ballot in the state of Ohio.
	Okay, so I'm going to kill this flight.
	I don't want to kill anything that's a living creature in real time, but I will smack this with...
	I missed it.
	Damn it.
	Okay, I'll get it.
	Just don't think I'm crazy.
	What the hell is going on?
	I missed this entire story.
	So what it is, is Biden made certain decisions when he was busy trying to screw Kennedy, make sure Kennedy couldn't take votes for him in the Democratic presidential...
	Politically speaking, Kennedy's not his type for actual screwing.
	I'm sorry.
	No, you need to be 14 or under.
	But because of that, he right now won't be on the ballot in Ohio.
	For what?
	For the primaries?
	There'd be no Joe Biden on the ballot come November in Ohio because of his own decisions.
	And what's likely going to happen is Ohio will create a legislative remedy.
	Well, they'll get the Democrats to go along with certain things they want to improve the integrity of the 2024 election and leverage this in exchange for letting Biden on the ballot.
	I mean, Biden just made his own mistakes that led to this issue.
	If he weren't on the ballot in Ohio, then that may hurt Democrats' down ballot.
	Even though I think Republicans are going to sweep the statewide offices there, given the dynamics of what's taking place.
	He could file suit, but a lot of it's his own issues, his own problems, his own decisions.
	Busy trying to screw Kennedy that he screwed himself, in part.
	But it will probably be solved by a legislative solution.
	That will, on the upside, Republicans will effectively leverage, it appears, to improve election integrity in Ohio.
	Robert, I saw one chat that says, can you read my chat from the beginning?
	Because you missed it.
	Hold on, I will.
	And not only will I read it, I will bring it up.
	Because I'm sorry.
	These are not only...
	Did you see the meme in the chat with the source of your fly?
	No, but...
	I'm afraid I'm going to go look at it in a second.
	I'm going to kill that little bastard when it gets close enough.
	Viva, is it possible you can get good logic on Tim Pool's show talking about his un-gagging of Trump or things I tried but Tim doesn't read?
	My Super Chats, I just kicked a dog in the face.
	Sorry, dog.
	I'll do my best.
	I'll do my best.
	Let me screen grab that.
	But if you tag Tim Pool on Twitter, he's typically responsive, but I'll DM him.
	We're on that.
	I've mentioned good logic on Sky News.
	The Australia station, as I was discussing the Trump case this week.
	Matt Walsh included GoodLogic's breakdown of the insanity of the Michael Cohen testimony as part of his Daily Wire broadcast.
	So it's been good seeing more and more people give public coverage to his very good efforts to expose the unconstitutionality of the gag order.
	They denied a moral argument this week that was supposed to happen.
	It's clear the court's trying to...
	Drag it out until after the trial is over so they can pretend it's moot.
	That's an indictment of the New York Court of Appeals and the New York Court process is who that's an indictment of.
	Robert, look, I'm not going to get the word that I'm looking for for the International Criminal Court, but let's just get to it because this is the other wonderful topic that whenever you talk about Israel, Palestine, you get called Jewish and I get called a Zionist or an anti-Semite.
	It turns out we watched as part of our Saturday night movie was Spaceballs.
	And, you know, it turns out maybe we're just Druish.
	We're Druish.
	Can you imagine?
	That's classic Mel Brooks.
	Oh, no, it was just like, oh, she's Druish.
	That movie is a classic.
	It's racially, religiously, and ethnically impermissible today, where they're combing the desert.
	And, okay, if no one's ever seen the movie, it's an absolute classic.
	But, Robert, okay, the International Criminal Court.
	Has issued a warrant for the arrest of Netanyahu, I don't know if there's anyone else from Israel, and the leaders of Hamas.
	I think the defense secretary as well.
	What's his name?
	He might actually be the defense or former secretary.
	It might be the real excitable guy that was trying to pull a gun on protesters the other day in Israel.
	Well, they both might deserve it.
	The only issue is, like, I watched Dershowitz's analysis of this, and he says, you know, this is how they create a political false equivalence.
	Well, we're biased.
	We're not biased, sorry.
	We're neutral.
	We are issuing arrest warrants or criminal warrants for Hamas and Netanyahu and whoever that dude is.
	I'll get his name in a second.
	Dershowitz made the argument that the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction because there's a term in the International Criminal Court, whatever the provision, the Rome Treaty.
	It's called...
	I don't want to say Comornati because it sounds like Comornati, but it's the idea that you don't have jurisdiction over a state that has...
	Investigative authority over its own people.
	And so to the extent that the state can or might, what's the word though?
	If anyone in the chat can get it.
	It's kind of like concurrent, but it's like concurrent and reciprocal.
	Put those two together and you get that word.
	Anyone in the chat, get it quickly because I looked it up and I just forget the word.
	But when Dershowitz said, you don't have jurisdiction if the state can investigate its own, and Dershowitz's argument as well, Israel has...
	Investigate its own.
	It's even put its own in jail every now and again.
	But when I read the provision of the ICC, it said if they have a pending, if they are investigating, not if they choose not to, or if they do not, or if there's no pending investigation.
	So what is, in your opinion, the jurisdiction of the ICC to even issue these warrants in the first place?
	And where can they execute them to the extent any state or any country will recognize them as being valid?
	Well, the problem is anybody that's a signatory to the ICC has said they will enforce this, and this is a case of the West creating its own problem.
	The West used the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, and they're all proud about it, tried to force-feed it on every country in the world, and now all of a sudden the same court decides to use it against Israel, and all of a sudden...
	Lindsey Graham is, you know, crying buckets of tears.
	Well, don't endorse it when they're doing it to Putin on bogus ground.
	So the International Criminal Court is itself made up of a bunch of criminals, a bunch of political hacks.
	Jack Smith came from the International Criminal Court.
	The U.S. has previously rejected its authority.
	It should stick with that position.
	It was supposed to be the Nuremberg Court for the future.
	It's a political court.
	We discussed it on the Duran.
	With the Alex's, and they agreed it's just such a political court, it's incredulous in terms of any true peace or freedom or liberty-loving individual.
	So it was interesting.
	People who were very anti the ICC when they issued their Putin arrest warrant because they're anti-Israel were suddenly on board with the Netanyahu warrant.
	And I'm like, I'm against both of them because I don't respect this court at all.
	Go back to the nonsense of how they mishandled the Balkan prosecutions.
	They're just a politically motivated court.
	But practically speaking, I mean, part of the issue is Israel has played ball and appeared before this court, so they've given it credence.
	So the court went further and issued an injunction, effectively, against their operation in Gaza.
	Problem on Israel.
	You want to pretend these international institutions have some degree of credence and credibility and respectability, and they don't.
	And the only way you should handle it like Putin did, which is basically, you know, like that.
	But you see that in how they completely mangled the Ecuadorian embassy issue, where, you know, this is Ecuador that allowed their embassy to be invaded so that Julian Assange could be illegally arrested, subject to ongoing extradition proceedings, credit to the high court, which stopped the extradition from going forward.
	And granting him a right to appeal, whether or not he has a robust First Amendment defense or not, he doesn't, under American law, that he can get additional American lawyers to sow a pine, that, in fact, they will not allow him to assert the First Amendment as a defense in that prosecution or initiative of Virginia, and thereby, under the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory, his extradition should be denied.
	And he should be released.
	But the same Ecuadorian government is busy criminally prosecuting all their prior political adversaries.
	And one of those people decided to seek asylum from the Mexican embassy, went over to the Mexican embassy, and the Ecuadorian government said, we're not going to recognize this asylum, but don't worry, Mexico, we're not going to violate.
	Under the Vienna Convention, your consular immunity.
	And then they immediately violated their consular immunity and raided another embassy, which normally this would be massive news, but the Western press doesn't want to cover it.
	So it went to the International Criminal Court.
	International Criminal Court said, yeah, it sounds like a violation, but nothing we can do about it now because they already stole the guy and locked him up and already violated all the rights.
	And because nobody powerful is on the side of Mexico in this dispute.
	And it just shows the continuous uselessness and political corruptibility of the International Criminal Court.
	This is not the Nuremberg Court, nor will it ever be.
	It's a court we should discard and disregard for the lack of competence, capability, and incorruptibility it has proven to be.
	I just got an email from a longtime contributor who has my email address.
	I will not quote the name.
	It says, The ICC, on its best day, is as useful as a broken phallus in a house of ill repute.
	The term is complementarity.
	So hold on a second.
	This is why I don't disagree with Dershowitz because I defer to his wisdom, which I know is better than mine.
	Hold on.
	He had a very interesting debate, by the way, with Glenn Greenwald on the...
	On the issue of whether or not there should be bombing of Iran.
	I sided with Greenwald on that.
	Yeah, me too, by the way.
	But a very good debate.
	And credit to Dershowitz.
	He's one of the very few people that's willing to debate pretty much anybody anywhere on these kind of issues.
	Dude, Dershowitz is older than Biden.
	He's sharp as a frickin' tact and smart as a whip.
	Complimentarity.
	So the concept of complementarity, however, allows for the ICC, the International Criminal Court jurisdiction, in situations when the state is unable or unwilling to proceed with an investigation or where the state investigation is conducted in bad faith.
	When I read it, to the extent that the state has not initiated or rejected a criminal proceeding, I don't see complementarity excluding the ability of the ICC to indict when they haven't.
	Israel, for example, has not indicted Netanyahu.
	I happen to believe Netanyahu should be investigated and maybe even indicted because I do not believe his hands are clean as relates to the debacle of October 7th, personally.
	And call me whatever the names you want.
	But the question is whether or not the ICC has jurisdiction.
	Complementarity seems to suggest There just has to be the absence or not initiation yet.
	And if Israel wants to get out of the ICC jurisdiction, initiate an investigation, and then later on say we have or decided not to.
	And if the ICC says you did it in bad faith, then we can still go for it.
	So I guess you would have to go to any country that's a signatory to the Treaty of Rome.
	Oh yeah.
	Germany has already said they'll arrest him.
	Well, it doesn't matter.
	I don't trust any government, so I have no special favors for Netanyahu over Biden.
	It's funny that you're the same U.S. politicians going nuts over the arrest warrant issued for Netanyahu when they were praising it to the nth degree when it concerned Putin.
	Somebody in the chat pointed out that technically the Mexico-Ecuador issue is actually the International Court of Justice, which is on the United Nations, as opposed to the International Criminal Court.
	I have respect for neither one, to be clear.
	And, you know, it's more evidence.
	Now, credit to the people pushing back on the WHO treaty.
	We did discuss the possible reasons for all these assassination attempts and assassinations on the Duran with the Alex's.
	They had some very interesting information in that regard about, you know, both the Slovakia and Iran and Saudi situation.
	But one of the common denominators in some of these governments was opposition to the WHO treaty, because we can see from the ICC and the ICJ what an utter failure international institutions are, and the European Union.
	These institutions are useless.
	We need fewer of them, not more of them.
	Power needs to be delegated downward, not upward.
	And it needs to be less, needs to be diffused, not concentrated.
	And the evidence of this is...
	Substantiated by what we've seen over the last quarter century.
	Robert, what do we move on to now?
	We got five cases left.
	We'll see which ones we save for the after-party at bebabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We got...
	And again, we'll answer all the...
	$5 plus tips at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	So if you want to put a question in there, that's where you can guarantee a response.
	But we got Gruden's NFL, another arbitration abuse.
	We got vaccine denials concerning necessary medical treatment, including transplants.
	We got Ticketmaster, When the Cookie Crumbles, and the White Pill of the Week, Ian Smith.
	Maybe we have to end with the white pill on YouTube so that people can have some encouragement going forward.
	It's Memorial Day tomorrow in America.
	What is it?
	Victoria Day in Canada?
	Something in Canada.
	Let's do the white pill, Robert.
	What's the Ian Smith white pill?
	Do you have a Memorial Day in Canada?
	Is this a history of being kind of useless?
	When has Canada contributed to winning a war anywhere?
	Not to insult the entire country of Canada.
	No, I would say Vimy, the Battle of Vimy.
	World War I, Canada contributed greatly to a specific determinant.
	I forget, I'll have to pull it up in a second.
	What's the Ian Smith white pill, Robert?
	That's the, remember the gym owner in New Jersey?
	Oh yeah, of course.
	So they kept their gym open.
	I just need the trigger words to make my synapses click together.
	They were the ones who kept their gym open during the COVID lockdowns.
	Healthy people, doing whatever the hell the experts at the time said, which is all bullshit.
	And then they got smashed, hammered, tens of thousands of dollars of fines.
	Which court has ratified the proper conduct of their behavior?
	In New Jersey, all of the fines have been found to have not been legally imposed and all erased from the record.
	So that's somebody that kept standing up despite all the opposition, despite all the resistance, despite the efforts of the state government and the local government to utterly crush him and destroy him.
	And he refused to fold.
	Defended himself in both the court of law and the court of public opinion.
	And ultimately vindicated.
	Ultimately found to not be subject to those excessive fines.
	And not to have his business forfeited and stolen from him.
	So credit to him.
	Credit to all those who rallied to his cause.
	That helped raise funds for his legal defense.
	That helped support his ongoing business operation.
	And credit to all the others out there that did the same.
	That we're able to defend all the rest of our rights and liberties in the process.
	And it's still an ongoing set of issues.
	There's a range of cases where this is still being litigated, still being adjudicated across the nation concerning COVID and what happened during the lockdowns.
	And so hopefully we'll continue to see similar and comparable legal relief and remedy that will hopefully preclude and prohibit this from reoccurring in the future.
	Robert, it was the Battle of Vimy Ridge.
	This is going back to my minor.
	The Battle of Vimy Ridge was part of the Battle of Arras in the Pas-de-Calais Department of France during the First World War.
	The main combatants were four divisions of the Canadian Corps in the First Army against three divisions of German Sixth Army.
	The battle occurred on the 9th of April to the 12th of April, 1917, marking the commencement of the Battle of Arras and serving as the inaugural assault on the Naival Offensive.
	I wish I remembered my history classes.
	The objective was to draw German reserves away from the French forces, preparing for a crucial offensive along the Aine River.
	It was the most costly from a Canadian perspective.
	I'll have to find the casualties.
	Maybe if we go down.
	Artillery.
	This is from Wikipedia.
	Take it for what it's worth, people.
	It's one of the biggest Canadian contributions to World War I. Robert?
	The gym.
	After they've seen all the fines dropped, how much did it cost them in terms of legal fees and whatever?
	Are they still in business?
	To my knowledge, they are.
	It's a white pill of sorts, except in the world of injustice, the mere cessation of the injustice is the justice itself.
	We have time for one more on Rumble before we go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Let me pick it, because I know the one that you're very interested in, Robert, is Gruden NFL.
	I didn't follow it.
	I'm not interested in football.
	I know the guy was done dirty, and I know that you talked about it.
	And he was done dirty.
	They started leaking emails.
	I don't know the details, but I know the overall story.
	Started leaking private emails of him to make him look like an ass.
	He had to resign or was basically excluded.
	I don't know what his political import was.
	And then, bottom line, afterwards, he sued the NFL.
	And there was a jurisdictional dispute as to who gets to hear the claim, give or take.
	Robert, fill in my stupidity.
	So the NFL's defense to all their illegality was that the commissioner of the NFL is the target of the suit.
	The argument is that he conspired to run a smear campaign against John Gruden based on selective leaks because Gruden had been a critic of him.
	And effectively caused his termination, but also caused a lot of libel to be spread about him in the process.
	So the Gruden filed suit against the NFL and Goodell, related thereto, and they argued that he has to be bound by an arbitration clause that he never signed.
	And this arbitration clause was not to an independent arbitrator, but to Goodell himself.
	So if you want to sue the commissioner, You have to ask the commissioner to be the judge.
	That's the NFL's position.
	The argument was this arbitration clause wasn't in his actual agreement, number one.
	It was only in a NFL constitution that could be regularly and routinely changed without notice or consent of any other party, which is not the typical definition of a binding contract.
	That's called an illusory contract.
	Without consideration, even.
	And not only that, that the dispute arose concerning Gruden's conduct that occurred while he was not an employee of the NFL.
	It concerned things he had said in emails decades before while he was not an employee of the NFL.
	And the allegations concerned the impact on Gruden for things that happened after he was no longer an employee of the NFL.
	And nothing in even the NFL Constitution's arbitration agreement said anything about someone who was not an employee at the time of the issue or not an employee at the time of the legal dispute.
	It did not explicitly and expressly say it governed any and all conduct if there was any issue that happened at any point while somebody was an NFL employee.
	And so there was issues of whether the arbitration clause could apply.
	If it did apply...
	Wasn't it an illusory contract that made it unenforceable in this instance?
	Did it apply to conduct that happened pre- and post-employment?
	And then last but not least, didn't it violate substantive unconscionability, an unconscionable agreement, because it gives to the person you're suing the power to decide your dispute?
	I mean, that's just a joke.
	Imagine an arbitration clause that said, you agree that if you have a dispute with us, We get to adjudicate whether or not your dispute is any good.
	I mean, that's the classic definition of substantive inconstitability.
	The Nevada District Court agreed with Gruden, said the suit needed to go forward.
	Gruden wasn't interested in money.
	He was interested in exposing the big scandal that is the woke leadership of the NFL.
	And they were terrified of what the public impact could be of these disclosures.
	So they were obsessed with keeping this secret.
	By having it placed in arbitration and getting to basically rig the outcome because they get to decide the outcome in the arbitration.
	But anybody who has any familiarity with the Nevada courts knows there's a lot of interesting decisions that come out of the Nevada courts when certain powerful people are in play.
	Powerful institutions are in play.
	And we got another one of those because they said, yeah, this is totally enforceable.
	Oh, yeah, of course.
	Yeah, it kind of looks bad that the commissioner can decide his own fate.
	And that is your kind of classic definition of substantive unconscionability.
	And yeah, the arbitration clause is not actually agreed to by Gruden.
	And yeah, it's kind of your definition of an illusory contract that can just change any time you want.
	But we're going to enforce it out of anyway.
	Because the right people line the right pockets here in Nevada.
	And so Gruden got screwed.
	He's not completely screwed, though.
	Because what can happen is after the arbitration, he can challenge post-arbitration everything that happened in arbitration.
	And if you're smart and sophisticated about how you do it, you can get a lot of those same facts out publicly that you suspected were true all along if you get them through the arbitration process.
	For example, if they...
	Either produce a discovery in arbitration, then he can cite it as part of the record later on.
	Or if they deny him discovery, he can cite that as an example of the unconscionability of the arbitration process and violations in terms of enforcing the Federal Arbitration Act.
	But it's also another example of how insane arbitration enforcement has got.
	Denying people a public trial, denying the rest of us the benefit of that public trial, denying the right of a jury trial, denying the right of a constitutionally elected or appointed jurist, actually force-feeding the case to the very person you're suing to decide your case, the utter absurdity of that, applying an arbitration clause even when you didn't sign an arbitration clause, even when it concerns conduct that's not even subject to the arbitration under its own explicit express agreement, shows how nuts.
	Arbitration, it's gone way too far.
	Arbitration, it's basically eviscerating our constitutional rights.
	No better example than what happened to John Gruden.
	It's usurping the powers of the courts.
	Robert, I'm going to read two emails that I just got, but without mentioning the names.
	Victoria Day in Canada was last Monday.
	It is always the first Monday before May 25th.
	I know this because it's my birthday, but I just forgot that.
	As for victories, Canada has contributed to D-Day, Juneau, and Gold Beach, Vimy Rib, and the two big ones.
	All right, and then we got...
	For Barnes, World War I and II, at the end of World War II, Canada had the fourth largest navy in the world.
	He needs to read in Flanders Fields.
	Canada does not have an American Memorial Day, as Memorial Day began here as Decoration Day, a day to decorate the graves of Union soldiers who died during the War of Southern Intransigence, a.k.a.
	the Civil War.
	Robert, before we head over to Rumble, locals want to make sure to get the Rumble chats, or at least the ones that came in at the top.
	I donated twice to Smith, New Jersey gym owner.
	He is awesome.
	Almanac, I love Nierman, but good God, his 45-minute long rants ruin his flow.
	45-minute is a flow itself.
	Screw the ICC and the UN and any New World Order globalist government organization.
	That's from PrimusFan92.
	The other one was from Almanac.
	Og in here.
	Can you read my rant from before I read it?
	Og Nehexney.
	Thank you.
	Desperado98.
	Hey, Viva and Barnes, I'm trying to get...
	Okay, I got that.
	Upside down flag.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Okay, I think I got the rest of this.
	If I miss your rumble rants, Miss Scoozies, and we'll get it...
	We won't get it later, but Miss Scoozies.
	I'll do a couple of tips before we move over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	We've got...
	John Allen, $10.
	Did you catch Robert Gouveia's coverage of the legal transcript of Hunter's text messages, my favorite crack client?
	It's absolutely disgusting how he lives his life.
	Haven't?
	Have no doubt how bad it really is.
	And last one before we go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	David and Robert, thank you for another informative and awesome show.
	Have an amazing rest of the weekend and kill that fly.
	I don't know where it is now.
	I think it might have been scared away.
	By the way, ignore the previous donut for one bucks.
	Locals Learning Curve for the new app.
	Yeah, Locals did an upgrade and people are confused.
	Robert, we're going to go over all of the tips on vivabarneslaw.locals.com with our exclusive afterparty.
	What are you doing this week, Robert?
	You still have a regular job, right?
	Yeah, we'll cover the vaccine denials for transplant seekers, the Ticketmaster case, and...
	When the cookie crumbles, that crumbled class action that's currently pending, either Monday or Tuesday, 2 p.m. Eastern Time, with Richard Barris, a special edition of What Are the Odds?
	People's Pundit Daily.
	We're going to be breaking down a special nationwide survey poll, scientifically valid poll, that was paid for by 1776lawcenter.com.
	I'm going to ask...
	Let me ask the indiscreet question.
	What does a poll like that cost to run in terms of investment?
	Five figures.
	Okay.
	So it'll be eight.
	Now, Barris was great, so he gave us a discount, but that's the norm.
	How popular is food freedom?
	Turns out real popular.
	I've had interest from state legislators asking for the data.
	We're going to be doing a full report at 1776lawcenter.com, breaking it down.
	Members of Congress have been asking about it.
	Members of the press have been asking about it.
	People that are deeply involved in these issues have been asking about it.
	Well, it turns out Americans overwhelmingly support food freedom, the right to buy food directly from the farmer without any government permission or restriction.
	It also turns out that they overwhelmingly support holding drug companies liable if their vaccines cause injury.
	Maybe a solution for President Trump.
	As he navigates that terrain in the upcoming election is to embrace having drug companies have the same responsibility and legal liability as everybody else when their products cause injury with no special exception or exemption for vaccines.
	People might be surprised who is actually most reporting vaccine injuries.
	Knowing people who have been severely injured or died from vaccines.
	The demographics of that may surprise some people.
	It will relate in part to one of the legal problems with denying medical services, including transplants, based on not being vaccinated by the COVID-19 vaccine.
	Teacher, I'm going to predict there's a racially disparate impact to that.
	Indeed.
	There may be a reason for a lot of people at the Bronx.
	It may relate.
	Much more than people have realized beyond the economics of the Biden administration and its bad impact on working-class minority communities, the bad impact of immigration on working-class minority communities, it turns out another key factor driving it is very negative response to COVID-19 vaccines.
	And the sky high rates of those people reporting, they have either been injured or know someone very close to them that's been injured or been killed by the vaccine.
	Highest rate of injury or death and the lowest rate of say, And that is the only time any survey has ever found a majority of the country finding any vaccine is not safe in effect.
	But overwhelmingly, the sub-demographics of the skeptics are Democratic core constituencies.
	Robert, I'm just going to say, I have this grimace wrinkle here, and I'm adding two more.
	Those right there, right above my eyebrows.
	It's terrible.
	I have an idea.
	I'm curious to know the methodology of Barris, but I'll maybe tune in and ask my questions.
	He does it by the highest standards out there.
	And it's proven by he has the highest predictive success rate of his surveys for more than a decade across the country in terms of election outcomes.
	All right.
	We're going to end it on Rumble.
	Come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and we're going to talk a few more stuff.
	I'm going to read some of the chats and the tips and ending on Rumble.
	For my part, tomorrow I might go silent.
	Kids are off school.
	And then I'm live.
	I could do like a barbecue.
	I could do an American-style Memorial Day.
	Get your All-American.
	You got your, you know, your birthday shoes, your shirt, your shorts.
	Get the kids all dressed up.
	Hold on, Robert.
	We might.
	Oh, yeah, baby.
	Look, I can't even get my lady.
	Yes, sirree, Bob.
	We'll see.
	We're going to do something good.
	But we'll be live and stay tuned.
	Right now, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'm going to end this on Rumble.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Enjoy the week.
	And come on over.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com Bam.
	Robert, let me read the chat here because there's a lot.
	I'm going to scroll all the way back up.
	Doug Leaf fan.
	I was listening to Dan Bongino and he said any secret service protection detail is outside the DOJ jurisdiction.
	Does that make the raid illegal?
	Also, can I get a birthday shout out for a fellow Gemini?
	Doug Leaf fan.
	You can get it.

▲