Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 28, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

01:26:30

Trump Trial Closing Arguments! E. Jean Carroll to Sue AGAIN? Libertarian BABIES! & MORE! Viva Frei

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	To the coolest thing that's ever happened in the history of the Libertarian Party.
	And I will, if I'm being completely honest, as Donald Trump was speaking last night, if I had control of how everybody acted, my plan was kind of like, be respectful till he says something.
	Like, don't boo him before he even gets to the mic, and just wait till he says something really bad, which he will, and then boo that.
	But I gotta say, it worked out pretty good because...
	I woke up this morning to reports in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, the Associated Press, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and the BBC, and they all said different versions of the exact same title.
	Donald Trump tries to appeal to libertarians and they hate his fucking guts.
	Bra!
	Period.
	Yay!
	All right, people.
	That's where it ends in?
	Yes, that's where it ends.
	And I think that's pretty cool.
	And I think that's pretty cool because I've said this before.
	I think libertarians are actually liberals in disguise, which is fitting because now we can call them both libs.
	I got into a bit of a fight with Dave Smith.
	He told me to fuck off on Twitter, which I don't care, actually.
	I didn't read that as like a go fuck off.
	I read it as a playful.
	Oh, fuck off, Viva, because you edited something together and I didn't like the way you edited it.
	That's one that's not unedited because it's only a portion of his speech which was before the libertarians based on the...
	What's that woman in the background with the...
	What's going on right here with this Statue of Liberty woman?
	Either way, that's one clip.
	I'm going to play the other clip because I've been accused of misrepresenting or creatively splicing to misrepresent.
	Okay, hold on.
	That was one clip.
	Where's the second clip?
	Here we go.
	My remarks on...
	You know what?
	Okay, listen.
	There's broadly speaking, I think, two groups of people here.
	This is after Trump spoke from...
	Okay?
	No, but I'm serious.
	There are...
	Okay, there are members of the Libertarian Party, and there are people who came here to support Donald Trump.
	Get the sound meter from the decibelometer, because that's much louder.
	I want...
	I have a message for both of you individually.
	I hear you.
	To the members of the Libertarian Party, which I am also one.
	Guys, guys, guys, listen.
	Here's my message to the Libertarians here.
	The former president of the United States of America and the current frontrunner to be the next president is here to talk to you.
	We...
	We are not a bunch of college leftist sissies.
	We believe in free speech.
	So be respectful.
	I'm not telling you you have to agree with him, and I'm not telling you you have to cheer for him.
	But we're not having a Jordan Peterson at Berkeley event here, and the message we're sending to the world is not that we can't handle ideas that we disagree with.
	All right, now he talks about a message to the Trumpers as well, and I'll leave that because it's irrelevant for the purposes of this video.
	That was his message the night of, and the one where he said, Trump came to the Libertarian Party and they made it clear they hate his fucking guts, and he was citing all of the most reputable news outlets with pride.
	And then he says, and I think that's pretty cool.
	All right, well, I spliced it together because, and I was forgiving.
	I wasn't even, I looked, I was like...
	I said, this seems pretty duplicitous.
	I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
	Hold on.
	But I have difficulty reconciling these two diametrically opposing messages.
	And I won't play you the whole thing.
	I'll play you a portion so you get the idea.
	I woke up this morning to the coolest thing that's ever happened in the history of the Libertarian Party.
	The Libertarian Party needs to get out more.
	Well, if I'm being completely honest, as Donald Trump was speaking last night, if I had control of how everybody acted, my plan was kind of like, guys!
	Listen, here's my message to the libertarians here.
	The former president of the United States of America and the current frontrunner to be the next president is here to talk to you.
	We...
	We are not a bunch of college leftist sissies.
	We believe in free speech.
	So be respectful.
	I will, if I'm being completely honest, as Donald Trump was speaking last night...
	If I had control of how everybody acted, my plan was kind of like, be respectful till he says something.
	We are not a bunch of college leftist sissies.
	We believe in free speech.
	So be respectful.
	Like, don't boo him before he even gets to the mic and just wait till he says something really bad, which he will, and then boo that.
	So be respectful.
	But I gotta say, it worked out pretty good because...
	I woke up this morning and they all said different versions of the exact same title.
	Donald Trump tries to appeal to libertarians and they hate his fucking guts.
	We are not a bunch of college leftist sissies and they hate his fucking guts.
	We can stop it there.
	You get the idea.
	I gotta tell you, like, saying you hate someone's fucking guts is quite literally high school sissy stuff.
	All right.
	Someone says, love you, Viva, gotta go.
	I hope I didn't scare someone off with a little...
	So then, I get a bit of a...
	Oh, Viva, fuck off.
	Here, oh, here it is.
	And I don't take it personally.
	Oh, fuck off, Viva.
	If you actually listen to both speeches, instead of splicing them in this dishonest way, that's where I sort of took a little more offense.
	It's obvious that there's no contradiction.
	Duplicitness?
	This is garbage dishonesty.
	That's two accusations of dishonesty above and beyond the being told to fuck off, which I don't mind.
	But I don't think there's anything dishonest or inaccurate about it.
	And never did I think I'd be getting rage-tweeted by the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire.
	I like Rubin.
	I like Dave Smith.
	They're both Daves.
	But that seems duplicitous.
	That seems like speaking out of both sides of your mouth, depending on what crowd you're speaking to.
	And it's also a monumental mess-up, Smith.
	You had the president there.
	A lot of people are saying, great, way to blow getting a Libertarian in as a cabinet position.
	And I tend to agree with that.
	Now, in the backdrop, I happen to see Biggity Barnes with 1776 Law Center in his title, which is a great, great way to segue into the sponsor of today, which is 1775 Coffee People.
	It's good damn coffee!
	1775 coffee is the year before 1776, the 1776 moment, and the coffee is delicious.
	Are you a sleepy Joe who has zero cognitive performance, scared of walking upstairs without being worried you're going to fall down or fall up because Joe Biden is the only person to fall upstairs as far as I know?
	Do you struggle to muster focus and brainpower for basic things in life such as eating ice cream or riding a bike?
	You need to stop drinking woke liberal coffee and start your day by drinking Rumble's very own 1775 coffee.
	Never mind that it will be the best tasting coffee you have ever had in your life, as in it's seriously good and will put hair on your chest, except for me.
	No hair on my chest.
	I consider that to be a sign of evolution.
	It's actually ethically sourced from a family farm at a high altitude and bullet.
	So instead of waking up tomorrow morning and drinking your mold-infested big corporation-owned woke ideology coffee that's probably making you sick with all the pesticides they spray on it, try Rumble's own 1775 coffee, support freedom of speech, and build the parallel economy that we all know we need to have.
	1775coffee.com.
	Go there right now.
	Use the promo code VIVA.
	10% off your first order, so make it a big one.
	And then they got medium dark pea berry.
	I like the dark roast, obviously, because I like to taste my coffee when I drink it.
	You won't regret it for a moment.
	Level up your morning routine with a bag of 1775 coffee and sleep well at night, knowing that you and your hard-earned dollars are going towards a company that loves freedom, loves the creators, and loves your business.
	And it's good.
	I had some this morning.
	It's delicious.
	Now, guys, I don't want to talk about this.
	I don't want to talk about it.
	I don't know why.
	It's too close.
	It's a member of our community.
	I don't want to talk about it.
	When you do talk about it, you get accused of being a grifter.
	You get accused of being a drama queen.
	When you don't talk about it, you get accused of being controlled opposition, covering for a friend.
	And so it's a lose-lose situation, but we have to talk about it.
	The Ricada affidavit, or the probable cause in support of the application for the warrant, has been released.
	And I've seen some analysis.
	I've seen Barnes' tweet, and Barnes messaged me and says, you're going live, we might have to pop on and talk about it.
	So, Barnes, get ready.
	Sir, sir, how goes the battle?
	I feel weird seeing you on a weekday.
	Yeah, indeed.
	A special edition, Viva and Barnes.
	It's time for the OG of LawTube to educate the rest of LawTube.
	Which is apparently proving that more than a few of them are constitutionally illiterate.
	And some of them apparently are reading the Constitution with their one bad eye.
	Some others that look like something out of a Jabba the Hutt movie are educating other people about their health conditions and confusing the criminal law in the process.
	A lot of people in LawTube have been responding to the Sunday show.
	And making complete retards of themselves, revealing the degree to which how many of them are just completely illiterate about the Constitution.
	And I think your point is right.
	People in LawTube, especially, or those concerned about the Constitution, just remove the name of the person here.
	Forget who the person is here.
	It's George Jones.
	It's Jack Brown.
	It's whomever.
	Because people are so caught up in the emotions of the individual involved that they're not just applying basic constitutional law principles.
	And then more than a few people are just grifting, you know, like potentially criminal Sean.
	The only thing accurate about his name is probably the criminal part.
	Barnes is unleashing now.
	This is a guy that the world only knows about because of Nick Ricada.
	And he's making basically...
	Just ridiculous statements about probable cause in the Fourth Amendment.
	And this goes back, because we'll also bridge into reviewing the Trump closing arguments, which are happening as we speak.
	We can't, unfortunately, broadcast them because the corrupt judge won't let the world see them.
	But we can follow some of the really good Twitter commentators out there that are reporting it, like Inner City Press, Matthew Lee.
	And we got a huge...
	Huge ruling out of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that's so big, I wanted to talk about it right away rather than wait for the Sunday show on religiously discriminatory vaccine mandates.
	For those that don't know, this is a case everybody in the legal community concerning these issues has been watching because this case was going to dictate the entire future of being able to bring religious discrimination claims in general and against vaccine mandates in particular.
	Massive win.
	By the way, guess where my Tyson appeal is going in front of?
	Oh, yes, it's the same 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
	So Tyson's got a little special Viva-style birthday gift coming to them.
	Speaking of gift, I gotta keep my phone on because my birthday gift to myself required a signature for delivery and I missed it and they're coming four days later.
	Robert, with the Rakata thing, there's a number of issues going on, but I think the toughest thing is people separating what they personally believe based on their own observations of Rakata's behavior from the complaint.
	And they're infusing things in the complaint that actually aren't in there.
	Infusing things in the...
	I mean, a bunch of LawTube owes me an apology, quite frankly.
	I don't know how many people are like, Barnes is just speculating on the search warrant.
	He can't possibly know what's in the search warrant.
	Well, folks, when you have a criminal complaint and a probable cause affidavit in support of detention, and you can use something called common sense, and you can use something called lived experience, which, granted, I probably have a lot more of in the law in criminal and constitutional cases than all of LawTube combined, but...
	It's not speculation anymore.
	And guess what?
	We got the search warrant today, folks.
	And it's as big of a crock and a joke as I said it was from day one.
	I'm going to preface this, because people...
	First of all, I'm going to bring up one...
	Did someone say, why are you guys simping for Rakeda?
	We are talking about the well-being of five...
	No, I'm simping for the Constitution of the United States, and some of us don't violate our constitutional oaths or our commitment to the Constitution because we like or don't like who it's being applied to.
	But I'm going to...
	I defended the Eighth Amendment when Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein and Sam Bankman-Fried's rights were being violated.
	And I'm not a fan of any of those three people.
	Well, and I'll say this for my own self.
	Criminal charges or not, I personally believe that Rakeda desperately needs help, period.
	So starting with that, my own personal opinion, I'm not reading to absolve Rakeda from this affidavit, but I am reading this affidavit as though, let's just take for granted that anybody who dislikes a public figure who knows details about their lives, how they could weaponize that in order to go after them.
	I think Rakeda, Criminal charges or not, and if he manages to find a legal way to get out of this legal conundrum, I personally believe he needs help.
	I think, you know, legal charges or not, he should be checking himself into rehab.
	I think, especially given the criminal charges, strategically, he should be checking himself into rehab, if only for, if and if he doesn't think he needs the help for the public appearance of the trial, for the courts, and for public perception.
	That's what I think.
	And I go read this affidavit, and I'm like, I hear people saying, The kids were the ones who reported the behavior.
	And I was like, I'm reading.
	I was like, where does it say that?
	And Lombold, it doesn't, and people don't know how to read, or they're infusing what they believe they know of Raketa's life situation into the affidavit.
	Robert, Rob, I'm not going to bring up the affidavit because it's got his address in it, and I didn't redact it, and I'm nervous about it.
	I'll read it, I'll read it, but I'm not bringing it up because I haven't redacted it.
	Well, I can do the summation.
	I do have further breakdown at Viva Barnes Law.
	.locals.com as part of the Barnes Law School edition of how to read a search warrant affidavit.
	Using the Ricada case as an example, as an opportunity for constitutional education about your rights.
	And that's what people should be focused on.
	Not what they think or don't think about Nick Ricada, the individual.
	Obviously he has a bunch of haters and trolls because they keep paraging.
	Not in fairness to them, but in fairness to Ricada.
	Remember back in the day, you were a little bit more critical of the individual that Ricada was going after.
	I'm not going to mention the name because I don't want to rehash it, but Ricada's gone after people very personally, very vitriolically, who you would expect no sympathy from.
	But even back in the day then, I didn't like this.
	We're dealing with real humans at the end of the day, and whether or not they've done stupid things in their past, I don't believe in rehashing those things, humiliating them to the point where bad things can happen.
	And at a minimum, you can never use the Facts of the case that infuse moral or political judgment to allow you to debauch the Constitution of the United States.
	That's my only true loyalty, is to the Constitution of the United States.
	If Nick Mercado was the one violating it, I'd be calling him out for violating it.
	I care about the Constitution of the United States, and that's what a lot of law to, is either too emotionally compromised.
	Or, legally illiterate, to do.
	Because this affidavit is a joke.
	Well, first of all, I'm going to make a joke, actually, because it says, State of Minnesota, County of Kandy-U-Hi.
	Has anybody made that joke yet?
	Like, the county is literally called Kandy-U-Hi.
	K-A-N-D-I.
	It's not spelled the same way.
	Y-O-H-I.
	If nobody's made that joke yet, well, I'm the first one to coin it.
	People are infusing their observations of what they believe to be a downfall, an addiction problem.
	And I can steal men's.
	You're dealing with an adult who does stupid things on his streams, gets drunk, clearly intoxicated, thinks that his wife will take care of the kids in the morning.
	It doesn't mean that there's neglect because he's behaving like a degenerate.
	But someone sees this and says, well, this is an easy target.
	I can now make all sorts of accusations.
	I don't like his politics, so I can make sort of accusations.
	He'll be a very, very easy target because I've seen what he's done online.
	And I want to address one thing.
	The video where Nick allegedly comes back from a 45-minute pee break and, as many people on the internet are saying, has white powder on his nose, I went to watch it.
	This is not for the sake of defending Nick for the reasons I won't repeat.
	I don't see that as definitively as I thought I would have needed to see that in order for people to make that claim.
	I didn't see it.
	And that's another sign of what's missing from the warrant.
	So the warrant basically violates all the rules of warrants.
	First, you need to have probable cause of a crime.
	Second, you need to disclose information that would be material to the judge's decision.
	You can't omit that set of information.
	And thus, you cannot submit.
	A fraudulent affidavit by omitting material information, if you know it.
	And so some of the, like an honest conscientious judge would have never signed this search warrant based on this affidavit, which further suggests that my hypothesis on Sunday that there's political corruption and personal motivation and First Amendment violating retaliatory animus involved in this case is further substantiated.
	Because, so to give you an idea what the search warrant is...
	I'll read it as you go along, Robert.
	I'll read it in certain passages.
	And I inferred this from the get-go.
	That, you know, because...
	And how do you infer that?
	Like, apparently, like, Nate the lawyer and some folks that are on Legal Mindset Show, you know, like, how could you possibly guess what's in the search warrant?
	Well, you take the criminal complaint that's already been filed that alleges the charges that usually gets into some detail.
	And you take the probable cause affidavit for the detention, and that would give you a roadmap to what's likely in the search warrant.
	Turns out it's even weaker than I thought.
	So the search warrant is a combination of three sources of information.
	I should say two sources of information, but three different subsources, if you will.
	So the first source of information is that a pastor came in and reported the statements of other people who were in turn reporting...
	The statements of other people.
	So we'll get to that category.
	Second category is, turns out the cop is a psychology expert, doctor.
	He can prescribe, he can diagnose from online social media.
	Because that's the second source, is the cop's own extraordinary expertise to know whether someone has been using drugs or not by watching a video of them.
	Not a video of them using drugs, to be clear.
	Just a video of them.
	A video of the behavior.
	Including just like a minute's worth.
	And then the underlying video.
	Which, by the way, one of the things you point out is there's actually not clear evidence of any white powder on his nose.
	I looked closely because everyone said it and I had seen the clip and I was like, oh, that can't be the clip because I don't see...
	I could maybe see glare if I wanted to be really, really meticulous.
	What's the giveaway that the cop, that a judge would flag right away, that the cop knows his statement isn't supported?
	There's no photo in the search warrant affidavit.
	There's no inclusion of the video in the search warrant affidavit.
	In other words, the cop knows an independent judge or independent person looking at this.
	Won't draw the same conclusion.
	It's a form of material omission.
	Let me stop you there.
	An independent judge, this judge who signed off on the warrant is indeed Jennifer Fisher.
	And I'm just awaiting confirmation that this is in fact the judge who's dealing with Reketa's civil claim, where he has been making public statements not so favorable of the judge.
	I'm not sure about that.
	He's called out the judge is incompetent and corrupt.
	And what is that judge doing involved in this case?
	Was that judge the one who signed the search warrant?
	The third source, the first source, a pastor coming in, telling him what other people have told him.
	Second source, the cop interpreting videos, social media, online videos, but very limited what videos he's looked at.
	And the third is another social media blogger making statements that he infers have certain meanings.
	Not that these statements...
	Because this person has later on made new statements, but not at the time of the search warrant affidavit.
	People are tending to confuse the two.
	It's like, that's not what's in the search warrant affidavit.
	It is not worth ignoring or omitting that the person that you're talking about is the disgruntled ex-spouse of the woman who's living at the house.
	Exactly.
	So literally, it's church gossip, social media gossip.
	And a cop pretending he's an expert based on a single body language interpretation of a video and comparing two photos.
	I mean, none of which has anything to do with drugs.
	It's just an inference.
	This is a crock.
	I mean, Nate, the lawyer was like, oh, I think this is completely fine.
	I was like, okay, Nate, find one comparable case in the country that found probable cause, Nate.
	Get out there and actually do a little legal research this time.
	Let me, let me, let me.
	There's going to be a beef between Nate and Barnes after this.
	Come Sunday, if the legal analysis doesn't improve, everybody who does crap analysis is going to get individually called out for crap analysis.
	Because some of these people, I'm not saying this about Nate, but some of these people are clearly just grifting off of...
	Some of them were made famous and successful because of Nick.
	And they're just grifting off of it.
	And they know that there's easy plaudits.
	That they bash Nick.
	And they're doing horrendous constitutional law analysis.
	And why do I care about that?
	You could care or not care about Nick.
	I care about the Constitution.
	And I care about LawTube lying about the Constitution.
	Misleading people about the Constitution.
	That's a problem.
	I don't put any weight in the loyalty argument for celebrity status.
	So I don't care that if he made them famous, fine.
	But if it turned out, and I was saying this internally.
	Alleged neglect because of drug addiction is terrible.
	And I'll say this something that might be shocking, but it's not as bad as physical abuse or sexual abuse.
	I said, if it were to come out, if it were to come out that there was physical abuse or sexual abuse...
	Which is none, by the way.
	None, none.
	No allegations.
	And we'll get to what the specific allegations are and how they're forth-hand hearsay and all the other problems.
	They come from a biased witness and they're not independently confirmed.
	We'll get to all of that.
	As we go through this.
	But the other thing to think of in terms of a probable cause for the search warrant affidavit, there was some other idiot lawyer troll on the internet.
	Oh, Barnes doesn't know what he's talking about.
	Hey, Barnes, what about this case?
	Well, the case supports my exact argument.
	The guy apparently didn't know how to read a case.
	That's how bad a lawyer he was.
	So Minnesota, like pretty much everywhere.
	Now, why might the Fourth Amendment standards be uniform, everybody?
	Why might they be the same in pretty much every state in America?
	Why might they be the same in all the federal courts across the jurisdiction?
	Oh, I don't know.
	Because it's the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
	The supreme law of the land.
	Yeah.
	I mean, come on, law two.
	Lord, have mercy.
	But they're like, oh, maybe there's something specific about Minnesota.
	Well, let me ask you the one thing, because we're going to get to it.
	I like the fact that you broke it down to three, because you've got your hearsay element, which is what it is.
	Then you've got your analysis element, which is what it is.
	It's not just hearsay.
	I'll get there.
	We'll explain to people there's different kinds of hearsay.
	But now the question is this.
	As a question of principle, is not hearsay admissible for probable cause in a purest form or ideal sense?
	So here's how what they do.
	They say, here's when you can take into consideration hearsay.
	First of all, it depends on what kind of hearsay it is.
	In other words, is it just single hearsay?
	George told me this.
	Or is it what's called secondhand hearsay?
	Jack told George told me this?
	Or is it third-hand, or what somebody's told fourth-hand hearsay?
	Julie told Jack, told George, told Joe this.
	This is the old game of phone, you know, that, you know, used to play, or rumor, you know, when you, I don't know, these kids, you know, sit around and you whisper something, and by the time it goes around the room, it's completely been butchered from the beginning of the room to the end of the room, what took place.
	So it depends on how much hearsay it is.
	This is true of rules of evidence for admission at trial.
	Certain kinds of hearsay is admissible, but the more versions of hearsay it is, the more it's secondhand, thirdhand, or fourthhand, the more it's completely unreliable and thrown out, no matter what the basis of the exception is.
	Let's get to it right away.
	I'm going to read.
	I'm not bringing up the affidavit because I haven't blacked it.
	I'll just tell everybody that.
	The address is in multiple places.
	The affiant, you have the application for search warrant.
	Okay.
	The Affian says, I believe the following described property and things, namely controlled substances, including methamphetamine, cocaine, and other controlled substances prohibited by law and paraphernalia commonly associated and used of those substances, items that would show controlled substance use that would not qualify as legal drug paraphernalia at the premises.
	You get Nick.
	He's applying for the warrant on the following grounds.
	Two bullets.
	Bullet points.
	The possession of the property of the things above described.
	The property or things above described constitutes evidence which tends to show a crime has been committed or tends to show that a particular person has committed a crime.
	Then we get into the facts of this.
	And the facts, by the way, the first one, two, three.
	Four paragraphs are describing the expertise of the affiant.
	Your affiant is Detective QP.
	I used to be a former small-town police chief.
	I've taken drug training classes, people.
	I'm a super-duper expert when it comes to all this.
	Now, know what else he notes in his affidavit?
	But by the way, he has no medical expertise, psychology expertise, forensic body language expertise, any real expertise.
	This is near those cops.
	I can smell marijuana 10 miles away.
	That's why I arrested you and pulled you over, son.
	Since 2018, your affiant has been assigned to the detective division on a full-time basis.
	That's six years.
	Focusing on felony-level crimes, but not limited to criminal sexual conduct, homicide, death investigations, missing persons, yada, yada.
	This is what I got nervous.
	In other words, he's not a drug expert.
	In other words, he's the local small-town cop that handles whatever comes through.
	But notice what else he notes.
	He notes he's familiar with Rakeda.
	Hmm.
	Kind of maybe he follows Rakeda.
	He admits he's familiar and the police department is familiar because they previously, unconstitutionally, swatted Nick Rakeda based on false accusations against Rakeda.
	They admit that it's like, hmm, shouldn't you detail the history of the false accusations against Rakeda in the search warrant affidavit, given that it's, again, based on third-party, fourth-hand information?
	And when you did that before, you violated his constitutional rights by taking inadequate information to try to spot somebody?
	What do you think?
	But the other thing is, so why does he watch and read and review?
	Let me read it, because I want to make sure.
	He seems to leave that out, doesn't he?
	Okay, so this is paragraph two of the case background.
	First, paragraph one says, on May 16, 2024, someone received a report regarding possible child neglect and controlled substance use.
	Then we talk about the kids, five children aged six to 16. The reporter indicated that four people from their church had gone to him reporting neglect of the children, possible controlled substance use, and a questionable relationship with an additional couple.
	I don't know what a questionable relationship...
	Well, I mean, listen to this.
	This is your classic church lady.
	Remember Saturday Night Live?
	Church lady?
	Well, isn't that special?
	Yes, exactly.
	This is church gossip.
	So the pastor comes in.
	By the way, there is a pastor petitioner privilege in Minnesota.
	So the pastor is prohibited under Minnesota law from disclosing anything that he ever received directly from Nick or his wife or the kids as part of any seeking spiritual guidance.
	And it's specifically noted that the child neglect reporting provision is not an exception to that privilege under Minnesota law, by the way.
	So it raises an issue whether he was hinting at or implying he knew anything else.
	But so what you have is a pastor saying, well, here's our church gossip for the week.
	We got four people that came in and say, that Ricada fella, he's walking out in the middle of sermons.
	And I think he might be having an effect.
	What does this have to do with a criminal warrant?
	Probable cause?
	That's not...
	You can walk out on a sermon.
	You can do what you want between consenting adults.
	Why is that even in the war?
	And people had said, oh my goodness, the four children reported him.
	And I was like, oh, I didn't see that.
	I'm going to read it again.
	The reporter indicated.
	So I don't know if the reporter is the pastor, but the reporter indicated.
	Yeah, we know that from the other affidavit.
	Okay, so the reporter says four people came to him reporting.
	Reporting neglect of the children, possible use of drugs, and a questionable relationship.
	So four people go to the pastor.
	The pastor then goes to this guy, QP, and this guy goes to a judge and then says this is the basis.
	Four people complained of potential neglect.
	By the way, remember folks, it's called probable cause of a crime.
	Not possibility of a crime.
	Not maybe, I think possibly, could have happened.
	Well, the problem is this, and people are going to say, look, I've watched Rakeda get stupid, sloppy, splurred speech drunk on stream.
	I've seen him done terrible things on the stream.
	Which is, by the way, also not illegal.
	To be drunk at home is not illegal.
	To be drunk during the time, there's no evidence that that had any impact on the children.
	So that by itself, he mentions this, and it's like, that's not evidence of criminality.
	We'll get there, but listen to this.
	Your affiant knows personally of these personalities, talking about the Rakeda and the Steel Toe Morning Show.
	How does he know these people?
	What does that tell you about this cop?
	That maybe what I said on Sunday, that the way this cop wrote that probable cause detention warrant suggested bias.
	And here he is saying, oh, I personally know these people.
	How do you personally know them?
	I never heard of Steeltoe.
	I don't know if they're left or right.
	A total loser dude that sort of grifted his way into the Ricada world.
	And then his wife, he believes his wife left him for Ricada.
	And he's had almost no success in the social media world until Ricada.
	And now he's grifted mad on Ricada.
	He's doing like, by the way, the idiot is admitting crimes on a daily basis.
	Because he's too dimwitted to understand the nature of the law.
	While he's out there attacking, he was siccing his audience on me and other people.
	Saying, LawTube is just defending Nick Ricana.
	Pal, you're as bad at social media as you are at law.
	Stick in your lane.
	And you should probably take your own advice.
	He's telling Nick, keep your mouth shut.
	Pal, you probably should too.
	Don't admit crimes on a daily basis.
	I mean, this guy doesn't realize what he's doing.
	I'm going to read this so that it'll quell people's concerns.
	Your affiant knows personally these are personalities of the Steel Toe Morning Show.
	Ah, cripe, what's going on?
	Sorry, something just came up.
	He knows that these are...
	Personalities of the Steel Toe Morning Show, which used to be Insane Cloud, Minnesota Radio.
	However, as of recent years, the show has been a social media entertainment show, strictly online-based.
	It was reported that the Imholts may have been staying with the Rakatas, and the home was in disarray and cluttered.
	It was reported from...
	Cluttered?
	Guess what else, Nate the lawyer?
	That, too, is not probable cause of a crime.
	No, it's like, and look, I've said this before, like, I can imagine, I'll steel man Raketa justifying what I believe is addiction.
	He'll say, look, I'm doing it at a time when the kids are sleeping.
	We've got a second, my wife can take care of the kids if I'm dysfunctional, and I can drink and do what I want because that's what the crowd wants.
	I can understand that.
	To say in the, it's in disarray and cluttered.
	And that's not like the kids are sleeping in shit.
	Not like the diapers haven't been changed, although the kids are not in diapers.
	It's in disarray and cluttered.
	The nexus that's required to allege a crime of child endangerment.
	For constitutional reasons, this is the Fifth Amendment.
	God bless legally mindset and people on this crew.
	They struggle to understand all the Constitution, but the Fifth Amendment one they particularly didn't understand.
	Fifth Amendment is your fundamental right.
	It's the most fundamental right recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court to care, custody, and control of your child.
	Why does that matter?
	That limits what laws the state can pass to invade that relationship, including what conduct they can criminalize.
	What's fascinating to me about all of this is how completely out of touch a large number of these people in law tube are.
	Now, I happen to do a cross-section of these areas of law for a quarter century, so I admit I may have a distinct familiarity with this.
	The first time I ever mentioned the Constitution?
	Family Court.
	I was like, Judge, there's constitutional issues in the Family Court.
	I said, Constitution?
	Constitution?
	What does the Constitution have to do with it?
	I was like, that was my introduction to Family Court.
	It's the core aspect that defines the limits of all law, civil and criminal, because it concerns the fundamental right of parents to control care and custody of their children.
	So that means in order for the state to criminalize some behavior of a parent with a child, there must be a nexus to harm to the child.
	And usually it's substantial harm of an emotional or physical kind that is sufficient to criminally punish and prosecute someone for how they engage in care, custody, and control the child.
	You have to constantly have that nexus.
	You can't have their doing something over here that you disapprove of.
	If you don't show it directly causing emotional and physical harm to the child.
	And that needs to be alleged in the affidavit to meet probable cause.
	I see a lot of people in the chat talking about things they know outside of the affidavit.
	That doesn't matter.
	It's what's in the affidavit.
	And I'll get to what many people are...
	Arguing is the crux of it.
	This is at page two.
	It was reported from a church preschool teacher that the children had complained of being hungry, not fed, and wearing the same clothes for three to four days at a time and would start to smell.
	Now listen to that, by the way.
	Let's take that statement apart, which is being misconstrued broadly on the social media.
	It was reported from a church preschool teacher.
	We don't know if that's their...
	What's the first problem with that?
	What's your highlight to you?
	So we know two facts.
	From the search point affidavit.
	One, the kids are aged 6 to 16. Second, they say this is a church preschool teacher.
	Well, so that's the question I had, is that this preschool teacher might not even be the kids' teachers, but they're homeschooling, so there might be some, I don't know, familiarity.
	That's not included in the affidavit of note.
	Why isn't that included in the affidavit?
	Maybe it's not because...
	Because it would raise questions about the church preschool teacher as a source, right?
	And here again, the actual source is not the children.
	The actual source is not the teacher.
	The actual source is not even the pastor.
	The actual source is the cop reporting what he says the pastor said about what he says the church preschool teacher said about what they say the kids said.
	But it's not identified when they said it, the context they said it.
	Where they said it?
	Was it all of them?
	Were all five children, 6 to 16, sitting in preschool together at the same time?
	And Robert, like, again, this is...
	There's a clue here, by the way, to all of this.
	But we'll get to it in a second.
	Well, no, and I'm going to play not devil's advocate, but just the advocate.
	A lawyer is going to come in here and say, look, I was talking about this with my wife.
	20% of Canadian children report going hungry.
	So, let's just say that they have financial problems.
	I think that your kids are.
	Who knows?
	I mean, everybody's ever had kids that said that they're hungry.
	How many times have they been on their clothes?
	Hungry and dirty.
	Hungry and dirty.
	Like, if you have kids...
	No, here's the second part.
	Listen to that.
	So, they complained about smelly clothes because they hadn't changed 6 to 16 years of age.
	So, are 16-year-olds incapable of changing their own clothes?
	We don't know.
	Let's assume the worst.
	If you take apart that statement, that statement doesn't really make any sense.
	It's implied to make a judge reading it quickly without thinking it through and doing a cross-check of there's three and four-year-olds going to a preschool who are starving and have no clothes.
	The problem is you can't apply here because all the kids are six or older, and it doesn't even make sense when you just apply logic to it.
	How can it be?
	16-year-olds can change themselves, and they routinely do.
	So here's my guess.
	My guess is this is a statement.
	Notice also he separates that statement, right?
	He doesn't put it right up next to where the pastor is talking.
	He removes it.
	My guess is this is something that's years old.
	This could be a statement made from six years ago, ten years ago.
	I was just about to say it, is that it's also temporally not specified.
	It was reported from a church pre-choose teacher that the children had complained of being hungry, not fed, and weren't.
	When?
	It was reported.
	All of a sudden, authorship is gone.
	It's the passage.
	It just happened.
	It was reported.
	Who did it?
	And maybe the pastor told him this, or maybe the pastor didn't even tell him this.
	Right?
	In other words, that you see he's sticking in there, okay, how can I get something that sounds scary to a judge, right?
	I'll have him have the image of three-year-olds starving and without clothes and without basic hair.
	And I'll put this statement in knowing that some judges are too lazy or like a lot of people on social media.
	Run with that statement without putting any logic to it or common sense.
	It's not temporally specified.
	They had reported in the past.
	Even the authorship is not specified.
	And it doesn't make sense on its face.
	People are saying, oh, their teacher reported.
	Really?
	The 16-year-old was in preschool?
	The 16-year-old was in preschool?
	The 14-year-old was in preschool?
	Even the 6-year-old ain't in preschool.
	So preschool is for 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds.
	So this is a giveaway that this statement doesn't even really make sense.
	So, on its face.
	Well, and this is the statement that people are running with to say the four complainants were the kids, or the four reporters were the kids.
	It was reported from a school teacher that the children had previously complained about being hungry and not fed, and that was relayed to either directly to the affiant or through the pastor to the affiant.
	Okay, that's as bad as it gets.
	Even if it were toe, it is not sufficient.
	For example, this has been litigated.
	Apparently, Nate, the lawyer, hasn't spent any time researching it, nor has any of these other people done it.
	So the Pennsylvania Supreme Court some years ago, I've had reason to be researching Pennsylvania cases of late.
	The Pennsylvania Supreme Court made a probable cause determination because here's what happens.
	It's such a scandal.
	This is also people that don't understand child welfare and how they abuse power all over the place.
	They're missing the context.
	They're so obsessed with Nick.
	They're utterly ignoring the much bigger threat to the world.
	Government abuse of constitutional power, and especially how rogue child welfare agencies are.
	In New York, it was so bad that it led to massive federal civil rights lawsuits and the rest.
	But here's what happened in Pennsylvania.
	Someone were called in, so it was a firsthand hearsay.
	Second, it was based on firsthand observation.
	Saw a kid hadn't been fed all day, and the parent they complained about was a parent that had a documented Record of child neglect.
	And based on that, they did a search warrant.
	Well, first they went to the House, they refused entry, and then got a search warrant.
	Guess what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said?
	No way that meets Fourth Amendment standards.
	Not a chance.
	And there you had firsthand observation, criminal record, and they at least attempted a first intervention for further investigation.
	So what the Minnesota Supreme Court, like everywhere else, for hearsay to matter, it needs to be firsthand observation.
	Okay, you saw something that was criminal or is clear evidence of criminality, the person reporting it.
	Second, that the person testifying has reasons for you to rely on them, right?
	So usually in the CI context, confidential informant context, they'll say this person has a long history, a long record of being reliable and trustworthy, things like that.
	Or like the case, the Minnesota Supreme Court case.
	The people were testifying against their own criminal interests.
	So they're like, okay, that's evidence of reliability.
	There's a bunch of these tools here.
	And you have to exclude evidence of bias that might make them unreliable.
	The third thing that's still not sufficient for probable cause, you still have to have independent corroborating evidence to support it.
	Otherwise, they don't do it.
	Let me explain to you why that is.
	Two reasons.
	In Minnesota, by law, they're required upon a report to first do an investigation.
	Before anything else happens.
	Here, it's clear.
	That means an independent investigation involving child welfare and the relevant authorities.
	By the admission of the search warrant affidavit, by what's omitted, that never happened here.
	He violated Minnesota law and the whole process he went about.
	But here's why that is.
	In New York, they did a study.
	Guess what percentage of child neglect and abuse reports turned out to be true?
	What would you guess the percentage was?
	15%.
	4%.
	4%.
	Anybody familiar with this world knows the first way you get payback at somebody is you report neglect.
	You report abuse.
	Oh, I'm pretty sure they're abused.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	I saw it at the start.
	Oh, no.
	I want to bring this up.
	Like, it's wild.
	Listen to this.
	Mike Pierce, children at church saying they are hungry didn't say when they last ate.
	They could simply mean they didn't eat before coming to church and will eat later.
	Oh, okay.
	Sorry.
	I thought that was just...
	First of all, none of that's in the afternoon.
	I'm hungry?
	That's not malnourishment?
	That doesn't reach the stage of malnourishment.
	These details aren't even in there that they...
	The details...
	I thought that was saying...
	Presupposing that as a matter of fact.
	First of all, everybody who's had kids know they will skip breakfast or they won't eat it because they don't like scrambled eggs.
	And then an hour later, they complain about being hungry.
	And this is, I'm telling you, this is not to pass off or pardon or excuse what I have observed of Nick's behavior.
	I'll say it every day of the week.
	I think he needs help and I think he should, whether or not he thinks he needs help, he should be checking in for help regardless because it will help in all respects of this case.
	But we're looking at the affidavit without infusing what we think or what we know of Rakeda extracurricularly.
	Robert, another one here.
	That's how you read an affidavit.
	You don't read an affidavit.
	I mean, here's some of the other genius legal advice from the nitwits on social media and Twitter.
	Well, but Barnes, they found drugs.
	Hello, everybody.
	If the Fourth Amendment could be routinely and regularly violated any time you found evidence of a crime, there would be no Fourth Amendment.
	All search warrant challenges.
	Guess what?
	Guess what context they happen in?
	In criminal cases.
	They happen in criminal cases because they found something.
	So the fact you don't get to retroactively justify a warrant because, hey, turns out my suspicion was right.
	That's not how the Fourth Amendment works.
	I was about to say something else about this.
	Oh, yes.
	And not to equate cocaine and methamphetamine or whatever, ketamine, to marijuana.
	But once upon a time, marijuana was illegal and in a class, whatever the felony was, and you get busted with that, you're damn right you're going to try to question the warrant that allowed them to go find marijuana in your place.
	And then I did have the secondary thought, look, people say Nick is on some sort of prescription medication.
	I don't know this.
	I have no personal knowledge of this.
	If it's true, one could imagine that potentially for the purposes of...
	I don't know if people crush up prescription meds for whatever the reason.
	If it accidentally includes prescription meds, fine, he's in possession.
	Say it again?
	There was a good criminal law commentator on legal mindset.
	That pointed out that in some jurisdictions, it has to only be the illegal substance, and often the illegal substance is mixed with other substances that are not illegal.
	And that would reduce it.
	And for those that don't know, the difference is 25 grams makes it, more than 25 grams makes it, puts a whole different level.
	25 year maximum versus whatever under 25. Five and a half year sentence for a first time offender.
	Less than 25, you're in a totally different territory.
	So, by the way, that was a sign to me when I read that.
	It was like, okay, this is a biased cop who's out to get somebody.
	He's manufacturing a false charge based on inflating, trying to pretend that the packaging includes a weight for illegal substance.
	But basically, the big statement everybody's focused on is...
	Yeah, it's fourth-hand hearsay, has no temporal relevance, isn't connected up to anything, didn't come directly from the kids, didn't correctly come from a teacher, couldn't have come from their teacher because it's a preschool teacher, and all of them are outside of preschool.
	And even if it was taken as true, it doesn't constitute child abuse or neglect on its face.
	So we already have...
	The pastor's church gossip doesn't add up to anything.
	Now we get category two and category three of evidence, which is the social media troll and the...
	I mean, that's his persona, by the way.
	That's kind of what he does.
	And then the cop's psychoanalysis on the video.
	Before we get there, I want to finish the paragraph because the allegations of the child neglect are the serious ones, and that's what they are, but then the rest are, I would say, funny, but it's tragic.
	This is reading from the first paragraph of page three.
	Nicholas was reported to being lethargic and appeared high or drugged driving a car around.
	Reported.
	By whom?
	I don't know.
	Another individual advised the reported, I presume that means the reporter, there's a typo.
	Another individual advised the reporter that Nicholas will walk out randomly during sermons at church and have noticed behavioral changes in him.
	This could be good for an intervention.
	Not necessarily for a search warrant.
	It was recently alleged...
	He's walking out of your sermons!
	Listen to this, Robert!
	We know there's something wrong now.
	Let's raid the house!
	He's walking out of your sermons, Pastor!
	It was alleged Kayla looks anorexic and Nicholas has lost a substantial amount of weight recently.
	Oh, hope you haven't been using a Zipic, everybody out there!
	Bam!
	They're going to be knocking down your door.
	Well, I can tell you one thing.
	I mean, I've been eating a healthy Amos Miller product.
	Remember, I think Barnes owns cocaine.
	Look at all that energy he gets after he drinks Amos Miller's milk.
	I guess according to these legal geniuses online, they should be raiding my house tomorrow.
	I got to read this, Robert, because it's actually amazing.
	They look like they lost weight.
	One individual described Nicholas of having injection or track marks on his arms.
	Okay.
	The reporter reiterated concerns for possible neglect and or controlled substance use within the home.
	This is where I hadn't made the distinction.
	And or.
	No, it's the or.
	That's the classic definition of not probable cause.
	Well, is it not a legal argument?
	It says possible cause.
	I mean, you said it, but like probable, not possible.
	That's problem number one.
	Problem number two is it's or.
	It's or.
	Boo.
	What you have is a corrupt cop.
	Writing a fake warrant.
	That he's throwing things in together in ways that are temporally disconnected, authorship-wise disconnected, to create a false impression of something that's actually not even factually alleged by anybody who's specified.
	And everybody who's been watching Riqueta or the recent Meltdown streams, whether or not they think it's acting, will say, oh, well, this fits with what I already believe, therefore...
	That's not the definition.
	That's not how we approach a search warrant.
	We look at the four corners of the warrant.
	What is alleged in it?
	Is it independently confirmed?
	Is it based on firsthand observation?
	Is it based on reliable testimony?
	And here you have a guy that's throwing together hodgepods of church gossip.
	And then next he goes, well, don't worry.
	If you don't like the church gossip, I got social media gossip to go with it.
	The Affiant, your Affiant states that Rakeda and Imholtz started to review Rakeda and Imholtz social media blogs.
	The blogs are commonly related to legal issues, high-profile cases.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay, listen to this.
	Nicholas is a licensed attorney.
	Nicholas is known to drink alcoholic beverages excessively on these video blogs.
	I immediately noted that Nicholas's appearance in recent months has changed.
	I don't know that anybody can say that definitively, but to set that aside, in videos from January compared to May, Nicholas appeared to have lost weight, appears tired, and overall appears, quote, strung out, end quote, and it's in quotes in the affidavit.
	If you appear tired, and you appear lethargic, and you lose weight, probable cause to rape your ass, according to Nate the lawyer.
	It's in quotes in the affidavit.
	He appears, quote, strung out, common with controlled substance uses.
	The bottom line, Robert, I might agree with this.
	I might agree with it, that he doesn't look well, and I think he needs help.
	But this is the affidavit of the...
	And some people are going to say...
	There's no grounds for you to raid your neighbor's house that, you know, ticked you off last week.
	Well, no, but...
	Hey, by the way, officer, peers kind of high.
	Peers very...
	Peers high.
	Appears strung out.
	Listen to this!
	Listen to this!
	Nicholas has been the victim.
	He has his studio in his basement.
	Okay, fine.
	Nicholas has been the victim of swatting phone calls and is known to your affiant and the county sheriff because of these calls.
	When the county sheriff responded to these calls, they were at his address.
	So this guy's responded to me.
	What's he omitting?
	That he was one of the cops that was there, possibly?
	Not only that, what else is he omitting?
	That they were all false.
	That they were all false.
	I didn't pick that up, damn it.
	Right?
	Yeah, because you can only know it by what's missing from the affidavit.
	Now, a competent judge would have found this.
	That suggests the judge who issued this warrant is compromised in some manner because that's what is there.
	It's astounding to me that people that are otherwise skeptical of law enforcement in a wide range of settings are just discarding.
	All of their law enforcement skepticism because of what they personally feel about Nick Ricardo.
	Yeah, well, what they personally believe they know.
	Or what they personally know.
	But the bottom...
	But that's not in the one.
	And it says, it should be noted that in the recent videos of April, she also appears tired, lethargic, and strung out as well.
	Then we go into the Ricardo's.
	They're in the same room.
	In the background, they seem to be the same.
	At one point during Imhold's video, Nicholas walks into the background and grabs an item, which...
	Would show that the background is not a backdrop and a curtain lays out the actual room.
	Oh, whoopee frickin' do.
	On May 22nd, in a video blog, Nicholas talked about Nicholas and insinuated controlled substances use and also referred to a video blog that Nicholas put online.
	They're talking about what they talk about.
	So his second big source of information is some other rando on the internet who insinuated.
	Insinuated?
	What did he say?
	Why isn't that in the affidavit?
	Oh, because he never actually said anything.
	He said he personally used drugs, illegal drugs.
	That's what this guy did.
	He didn't say Nick Ricada did.
	But they're talking about a controlled substance.
	Insinuated.
	Well, you're right.
	It's just controlled substance.
	Insinuated some sort of controlled substance.
	So you got a rando on the internet spreading social media gossip who only talks about his own use.
	And that's supposed to be probable cause to raid somebody's house?
	You gotta be kidding me.
	Here they're talking about the basement studio.
	He appears in the video to be, this is talking about Nick, the last one that was the bad one.
	He appears to be drinking alcoholic beverages and eventually appears under the influence of a substance or substance.
	The entire blog is four hours, four minutes long, approximately two hours and 46 minutes into the video.
	He leads to go to the restroom.
	When he returns at 2.50, he appears to be making an excited look and has a white powdery substance on his nose.
	I didn't see that.
	Your affiant believes...
	He knows what's missing.
	The picture.
	Why isn't there a picture?
	Why isn't there expert photographic evidence?
	Why isn't there...
	Why isn't the video included?
	Because he knows if he does any of those three, he might get exposed for making up his own version of what he saw.
	And so, consequently, I mean, this warrant screams bogus warrant by corrupt cop.
	That's what the Riketa warrant screams.
	Fogus warrant by a corrupt cop.
	I guess the lawyer and some others are former cops, so they like to defend cops.
	But the rest of the law, too, that doesn't have that pro-cop leaning should look at this objectively.
	Take the name Riketa out.
	I often do this to show people motivated reasoning.
	I'm like, okay, political accusation.
	Somebody you don't like.
	So let's see if you would still believe the facts if I put in somebody you do like.
	Right?
	So if you say, Biden did da-da-da-da-da.
	So Biden haters will be like, absolutely.
	Here's the factual basis for it, or the legal basis for it.
	But you change it to Trump or vice versa, and you'll suddenly see reversal.
	So that's a way to train your mind to do good legal analysis.
	Take the name of Nick or Kate out.
	Make this rando case anywhere in the world.
	Put in the same set of facts.
	Is that probable cause?
	Find one case in the country.
	Well, listen to this.
	Your affiant believes his behavior is indicative of central nervous system stimulants.
	Do I know how many times have people accused me?
	It's a local rando cop.
	Small town cop is now an expert on the central nervous system.
	Not just that, like how many times have an issue of the central nervous system and what products could create and produce that?
	What a cop!
	How many times have people on the internet accused me of being on ADHD, too much caffeine, cocaine?
	I get people in the chat right now accusing me of being high!
	But Robert, the bottom line is...
	But everybody might have their personal knowledge of Nick's...
	What he talks about, what they know of him.
	That's their complaining.
	Gotta throw that out.
	You got a rando cop.
	If this is probable cause, folks, everybody's house can get raided tomorrow.
	Because people out there can say, okay, I'm a cop.
	I think your behavior is consistent with illegal controlled substance use.
	Gotta raid your house!
	Your affiant believes, based on training and experience, as well as the behavior of Nicholas, that he ingested this white powdery substance through his nasal cavity while off camera.
	This is reading like a joke the more you read through it.
	Your affiant knows...
	He believes that he snorted it through the nose.
	A wise statement from our locals chat.
	That's the real smart people, folks.
	The bogus warrant by corrupt cop...
	Signed off by a vengeful judge.
	Exactly.
	Well, of a vulnerable target who talks about his improper behavior loudly and vocally and misbehaves on the internet.
	So it makes him an easy target.
	And he's the biggest political critic of the local corruption in the small town.
	Listen to this, okay, that he took the white powder off camera.
	Your affiant knows through training and experience that ingesting controlled substances through a nasal cavity is a common among controlled substance users and is often referred to as, quote, snorting.
	Your affiant also noted that throughout the video, Nicholas is so...
	You're trying to pretend that is some form of expertise.
	Let me explain the expertise of how people ingest certain forms of drugs.
	They do this little thing where they roll things up, you see, and then they put the powder down like this.
	And I only know this because I'm an expert.
	You're asking.
	And they call it snorting, you see.
	I'm an expert.
	I mean, when you read that, it's not funny because there's ultimately this.
	Including Nick the lawyer, this is clearly probable cause.
	Nick, go back to the constitutional law class.
	Your affiant also noted that throughout the video, Nicholas is so under the influence of a substance to the point he has to close one eye to read his screen, rambles and slurs his speech.
	Close one eye.
	Is being blackout drunk to me, but not on coke.
	I don't know.
	I've never done coke in my entire life because I'm sure I'll die the first time.
	If I close my one eye, I slur anything, and I look a little tired, now you can raid my house!
	Listen to this, Robert.
	Holy shit.
	Okay, he's unable to read the screen.
	He's so under the influence.
	He's closing one eye, rambles, and slurs a speech.
	Nicholas would obviously not be able to care for his children in this state of intoxication.
	Listen to that!
	So he's saying that his child...
	No, first of all, there's no connection.
	Okay, so now you're saying anybody who ever is, for any reason...
	On video, being drunk off their asses on the internet.
	I can name a few names.
	Intoxicated, or whatever, or too sleepy, lethargic, because he considers that a criminal act, or evidence of probable cause for crime, is now grounds to take your kids away and raid your house.
	Hello, people.
	Can you not realize how dangerous it would be to allow this to establish precedent anywhere, anyplace, anytime?
	Wow.
	Well, that's it for the relevant part.
	Let me see here if I missed anything.
	So that's the embarrassment joke crack of a corrupt case against Nick Ricada in the state of Minnesota.
	Well, it's also like anybody...
	Anybody shit-faced at a bar, at a Christmas party, at New Year's Eve in their house.
	By the way, it's at four in the morning, from what I understand.
	And there's two other adults in the house, allegedly, even by the affidavit.
	I should know all the things that are omitted.
	Potential bias of the preacher.
	So if this guy watches, and he watched that particular Nick video, but he says he's been watching Nick's videos, according to the cop, then he would know that Nick has been particularly critical of this preacher.
	That would give the preacher potential bias in his reporting.
	At a minimum, there's nothing about the preacher's test reporting that makes it have evidence of reliability under the probable cause standard.
	That's things against penal interest, against self-interest.
	That's just not here.
	So the way to think of it, when you're trying to think of reliability, what are the courts using?
	They're using the terminology from hearsay.
	That sometimes a certain kind of statement, even though it's hearsay, will say is reliable because it's a statement against interest.
	It's a statement in a moment of excitement.
	There's all of the excited utterance.
	There's all of these exceptions where we say, well, you know what?
	We normally wouldn't trust an out-of-court statement.
	But in this case, we will because of something about the nature of that out-of-court statement or the nature of the individual giving.
	Ep didn't.
	EP didn't in Rumble.
	Nose covered in powder for the world to see on a recorded live stream.
	Ep didn't.
	Please post that picture.
	And I'm not saying this to make fun of.
	Because the cop didn't.
	The cop didn't post it.
	I haven't seen it.
	And the video that people see...
	Remember, from a judge's perspective, you're just reading that warrant.
	You'd be wondering, okay, why is it there any follow-up investigation?
	Why wasn't there an initial investigation?
	Why isn't child welfare involved?
	This is the other question I had.
	Because some people are going to say, if that's not probable cause, what would be probable cause?
	In the inventory of evidence...
	Probable cause?
	That's what would be probable cause.
	What's not probable cause doesn't become probable cause because you want it to be.
	Probable cause would be...
	Independent initiative.
	Here's how it's supposed to work.
	You get that first inquiry.
	You follow up.
	You talk to those four individuals.
	You talk to the teacher.
	You talk to other people with direct knowledge of the kids.
	You talk to others that might have direct information.
	You think this social media blogger person is reliable?
	You go get a statement from that social media blogger person.
	You bring in actual experts to analyze any forensic evidence, whether video or otherwise.
	Then, usually, you do a wellness check.
	You follow up with a child welfare official coming by the house, asking to talk to folks, asking to take a check in, asking to do things.
	These are done every day in America.
	This is protocol.
	He breached all of it.
	Why did he breach all of it?
	Why did he exclude the fact that he breached all of it?
	So there's the affirmative material omissions, leaving out the pastor's bias.
	Leaving out the bias of any other church witnesses.
	Leaving out the cop's own potential bias.
	Leaving out that a judge reviewing the warrant might have a bias.
	Leaving out that the social media blogger has a screaming bias.
	The guy thinks Reketa stole his wife and caused his divorce.
	And it's his only way of making money is talking crap about Reketa.
	That's the kind of information that is material to issuance of a probable cause warrant in evaluating the reliability of any individual's statement.
	And yet, so that's material omissions.
	That by itself is grounds to find the probable cause warrant was secured with material omissions, effectively perjury, and fraud upon the court.
	That also leads to suppression of all evidence and an illegal, unlawful search warrant.
	But then you get to the separate thing of all the rules he violated.
	And ask yourself why.
	Why is he?
	It's because he's obsessed with getting Nick.
	And he's scared.
	That if anybody else is involved, they won't agree with him.
	He's scared that if anybody else is involved, they won't confirm these rumors and gossip.
	He's scared that if anybody else is involved, Nick will get tipped off before he gets to raid the house.
	You've got a corrupt cop looking, a vengeful, vindictive cop looking to get Nick Ricada, and he's willing to break the law and violate the Constitution to do it.
	And apparently some folks in LawTube and the social media world are just fine with that as long as the target is the right one in their view.
	I'm going to bring this up just because I spotted it before.
	Legal mindset.
	If this is true that legal mindset is even suggesting this, it's a stupid thing to suggest.
	Legal mindset?
	Yeah, all these people should be smart if any of these people are saying this.
	He invited me on the show yesterday.
	I didn't go on because I had a lot of work.
	It was Memorial Day.
	We're filing an opposition today in a...
	An Amos Miller opposition brief that is due to the end of the business day.
	But any of these people that are just going out, yep, look, you take pot shots at me, have at it, no problem.
	Defame the Constitution of the United States and I got a problem.
	And I'll start calling people out by individual.
	Some of these people are just flat out grifting knowing that, hey, even though Nick made them famous, they're like, oh, I can bash Nick now.
	And make a bunch of money on YouTube.
	I can make a bunch of money in these other places.
	I have no contractual obligation or relationship.
	I don't even understand.
	I don't have a contractual relationship with Rumble.
	I don't have a contractual relationship with Nick Ricada.
	We drafted the terms, but first of all, I don't know.
	That was years ago.
	I have no ongoing contract.
	Will we help?
	They designed their terms to maximize free speech on Rumble.
	And we did it in an extreme discount level.
	Barnes may have a contraction.
	We care about free speech.
	Yeah, but I'm trying to understand this.
	To defend Nick due to Rumble Association, first of all, it's not true.
	Second of all, I don't even know what Nick's...
	Look, I'm smarter than almost all these people, just to put it bluntly.
	And so if you're going to come at me, you better be well-informed, you better be well-educated, you better not lie unliable, and you better stand up for the Constitution.
	You can have a different opinion of the Constitution.
	That's fine.
	But you better stand up for it.
	Now, if it's as bad as Nate the lawyer's opinion is, I'm going to show you why it's as bad.
	I'm not going to question Nate's ethics or motivation.
	I'm going to say his legal analysis is crap.
	But some of these people, like potentially Sean, I mean, we're seeing it all over the Internet.
	We're seeing people that, I mean, to me, I take objective.
	If somebody helped you get prominent.
	And then, because of that, you have a lot of his old audience, and you turn around and attack him so that you can boost yourself on social media.
	I don't respect you.
	If he deserves it, Robert.
	If he deserved it, or deserves it.
	And if it turned out that in that probable cause warrant, or application for warrant, there were allegations of or findings of child abuse.
	There's allegations of neglect.
	They're in there.
	Also, Robert, if they had gone in and seen...
	But they're crap!
	They're utter crap!
	They don't rise to probable cause at all!
	In the inventory of evidence, if they had seen evidence of child neglect, would that have found its way in the evidence sheet there?
	What is it?
	The property inventory sheet?
	Of course.
	I told people from day one, with this cop having an obvious bias that you can reasonably infer from the detention warrant, that if he had any really bad facts, it would be in the detention warrant because he's out to get Rakeda.
	And it would be in the criminal complaint.
	And when it wasn't there, I was like, guess what, folks?
	It ain't going to be in the probable cause affidavit.
	But even I have to admit, this is one of the worst probable cause affidavits I've ever read.
	This is a joke.
	This is an embarrassment.
	This is a crap.
	Just so we don't get mad with no shade or undue shade.
	It was posed as a question.
	Be good, little mindset.
	I don't know what it's like.
	Don't go along with any of the grifters out there wanting to make false accusations in order to enrich themselves.
	Especially to defame the Constitution.
	Hold on a second.
	We're going to go over after we're done with this to rumble and talk about the other stuff of the day.
	We've got Trump's closing arguments.
	We've got a vaccine mandate win.
	This is from Jim Telsey.
	The biggest red flag with this warrant is the judge who signed off on the probable cause was the very judge he has been trashing on his streams.
	This warrant stinks and does not comport with the U.S. Supreme Court of Illinois versus Gates for specificity.
	And I'll say the bottom line.
	If Nick squeaks out of this, if he manages to get all of this quashed and tossed, I still think he needs to really get help and just be...
	I think it is.
	On the drinking part, because I think I said this going back a long time, you know, getting too drunk and saying stupid things is a sign of a problem.
	You might be functional in other respects, and it might be part of the show, and you think people want to see it.
	But getting drunk, saying stupid things, getting sued, getting strikes, that's an indication of a problem.
	But there's problems, and then if this is true, child neglect and endangerment, there's problems.
	There's real problems when the cops and the courts are drunk on abusing our Constitution.
	That's the problem.
	Whatever Nick's issues are, Nick's issues are Nick's.
	Nick's and his family.
	Violating the Constitution impacts all of us and endangers all of us.
	That's not just child endangerment.
	That's America endangerment.
	And that's the kind of crime I take very seriously.
	And that's what it appears here.
	As was well said in our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com live chat.
	If you want to read the warrant, if you want to see my breakdown of it, It's there as part of the Barnes Law School section, and you can get there.
	But as well said in the locals' chat, this is a bogus warrant by a corrupt cop issued by a vengeful judge, and it's being apologized for by conflicted people on social media in the LawTube community who should be embarrassed that they have disgraced the protecting our Constitution as badly as they have over the last several days.
	Am I wrong, or should they have...
	Blacked out the address when releasing that probable cause.
	There's an argument for that.
	Generally, courts don't.
	They generally only redact information like social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank accounts, things of that nature.
	I just thought it was particularly malicious to remind everyone, hey, he's been swatted, and here's the address if you want to do it again.
	You're right.
	That's a very good point.
	And that's clearly what this cop is.
	It was back-to-back sentences.
	Normally they get away with this because in small towns, some local guy who's only got a local lawyer doesn't want to upset the system.
	The one downside to going after somebody like Rakeda is that he has a certain national notoriety and he will have smart, intelligent, legal, constitutional, caring allies on his side.
	And so corrupt cops.
	Should have probably thought of that before they went this route, but their ego got ahead of them, or they're just so accustomed to doing it, like the FBI's defense when they went after Trump, that they just thought they could get away with it.
	But that's a nice transition.
	We can either transition the 8th Circuit race or the Trump closing arguments.
	Well, first of all, what we're going to do is I'm going to end this and make sure I didn't miss any rumble rants.
	Or do we have any tips?
	We have a lot of tips here.
	Hold on, let's do the tips before we end on YouTube.
	Abraham P says, my niece and nephews complain about being hungry when they can't have junk food and they won't want to eat a real meal since kids complain.
	Makes no difference.
	Ru Stank says, one, interweb trolls and grifters bashing Reketa when he's struggling.
	Two, Barnes points out the gross inaccuracies and missing info in the Reketa affidavit.
	Three, interweb trolls and grifters I will do.
	I only got it a few minutes before the stream, and I did not want to accidentally fail to omit to redact the address.
	Just because I'm not contributing to that.
	The...
	Oh, still there even?
	Yep.
	Oh, am I still there?
	Yeah.
	Did I freeze?
	I just momentarily froze.
	Yeah, my internet now.
	I'm down to two bars.
	I'm going to...
	We're going to end this on YouTube.
	We're going to talk Trump and the other decision.
	Big COVID vaccine mandate decision.
	Employer discrimination out of the Eighth Circuit.
	Big decision that everybody was watching.
	EEOC got involved in it.
	I've also posted a highlighted version of the decision.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com where you can digest it for yourself or comment on it.
	Same with the Ricada arrest warrant and my comments on it.
	There's an ongoing discussion there in the reply thread.
	I'll respond to them.
	I routinely do read pretty much everything posted at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	And then we got Trump closing arguments today.
	Let's see how good they are.
	We're halfway through.
	Okay, so we're ending it on YouTube.
	We're going to stay live on Rumble and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Ending on YouTube now.
	Boom.
	Okay, Robert.
	Look, I haven't been able to...
	Right.
	I got to grab something real quick.
	Don't come back with powder on your nose, Robert.
	Too soon.
	Too soon.
	I've been watching the...
	Well, hold on.
	Let me see.
	I had one thing here.
	I'll take Barnes out until he comes back.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Cancel this.
	Remove.
	I'll bring him back when I see him come back.
	I've been watching the closing arguments.
	Yeah, let's talk about E.G. Carroll.
	Okay.
	Before Barnes gets back, I have to pee.
	I'll sort of have to break in a second when Barnes gets back.
	E.G. Carroll threatening to sue Trump again, or at least suggesting that it's on the table because she didn't like what he has to say.
	It's like E.G. Carroll sitting there looking at like...
	She's playing Lotto.
	I don't even know what the analogy is.
	She got her cash cow with this Kaplan judge and the Kaplan lawyer and the bullcrap case.
	Close this here.
	Roberta Kaplan, an attorney for the writer, E. Jean Carroll, reportedly said all options are on the table after former President Trump once again disparaged her client.
	How dare he disparage the batshit crazy lady who fabricated a 30-plus-year-old story of rape named Cat Vagina T Fireball, says rape is sexy.
	How dare he disparage her, she who I believe cannot be disparaged?
	Okay.
	Trump on Monday used his true social platform to rant about the damages he has been ordered to pay Carroll in recent months.
	He also claimed he'd, quote, never met her.
	I probably believe that.
	Oh, no, he did, because there's a picture of them.
	Has no memory of remembering her.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	So the threat is the two again.
	I had to go find the post to see just how bad the disparagement was, and we're going to read it together right now.
	The disparagement came by way of True Social Post.
	Is this it right here?
	This is it.
	Let's see.
	I'll be objective in terms of critical.
	Okay, I'll use the cookies.
	Donald Trump, happy Memorial Day to all, including the human scum that is working so hard to destroy our once great country.
	And to the radical left, Trump hating federal, I thought that said feral judge, which might have been more accurate, federal judge in New York that presided over, get this, two separate trials that awarded a woman who I have never, it should be whom I have never met, Donald.
	Who I never met before.
	A quick handshake at a celebrity event 25 years ago.
	Doesn't count.
	$91 million for defamation.
	In fairness, Donald, $65 million punitive.
	$11 million, what is it?
	A defamation rehabilitation program.
	She didn't know when the so-called event took place sometime in the 90s.
	Never filed a police report.
	Didn't have to produce the dress, which didn't exist apparently, that she threatened me with.
	It showed negative.
	I don't get that.
	And sung my praises in the first half of her CNN interview with Alison Cooper, but changed her tune.
	In the second half, gee, I wonder why, under appeal, the rape charge was dropped by a jury, or Arthur Engron...
	Oh, no, we got to...
	Well, the rape charge was dropped by a jury, but brought back by that corrupt Judge Kaplan, who says, yeah, even though the jury found him not liable for rape, still rape, so you get to say it.
	people and idiots run with it.
	Or Arthur Angron, New York nipple judge, the state huacko judge who fined me almost $500 million under appeal for doing nothing wrong.
	Used a statute that has never been used before, I agree with that statement.
	Is Barnes not back yet?
	Barnes is not back yet.
	So she can assume again.
	Okay.
	Third defamation case.
	$100 billion.
	It should be $1 billion for defamation this time around, right?
	What was the original finding?
	It was $5 million, $85 million, $850 million.
	That's what it has to be.
	Barnes, I'm bringing you back.
	Sir, are you drinking Diet Monster?
	Of course.
	Zero Monster.
	Monster Zero.
	Zero sugar.
	How many milligrams of caffeine are in that entire bottle?
	I'm drinking a lot.
	I'll tell you one thing.
	Those big cans, when they are sugar-full, when they do not have no sugar, they have over 100% of your daily intake of sugar.
	Not that you shouldn't, but also the chemicals in that, Robert, can't be good.
	Okay, closing arguments.
	I've been trying to keep up, but I got distracted by the Rakeda affidavit or whatever it is, the affidavit for probable cause.
	Whatever the term is for that thing.
	From what I've seen, Robert, I felt they were getting a little bit...
	The defense is going first and the prosecution ends.
	Is that normal?
	I thought that was weird.
	No, I mean, unless, you know, I haven't gone to trial.
	I've done New York criminal cases, but I've never gone all the way down to the trial.
	I got good resolutions before the trial.
	And so the, by the way, that's like someone in Ricada's position.
	You raise all the constitutional issues, you show how robust they are.
	That's how you usually get a deal for diversion, do rehab for two years, etc., by the way, for people out there.
	Wondering about how that would work tactically or strategically.
	Most of my constitutional issues never reach court because the government recognizes their risk.
	Now, not all cases, like the Amos Miller case.
	They just are obsessed with violating the Constitution.
	But in Pennsylvania, that case that the judge ordered me to trial on on 24 hours notice after getting the case.
	This is the woman who recorded the court hearing herself to expose corruption and then was...
	Criminally charged.
	Exactly.
	For exposing court corruption.
	Kind of the recated treatment, sounds like what we're getting on the search warrant.
	But in that case, there was the only case I'd ever been in.
	So typically in America, prosecutor goes first, defense goes second, and then prosecutor goes last.
	The reason why prosecutor goes last in that scenario is prosecutor has the burden, and so they go last because they have the burden of proof.
	In a civil case, it's typically just plaintiff to defend it, but then again, depending on which state you're in, then the plaintiff gets a rebuttal, and the plaintiff's rebuttal is based on, again, the plaintiff bearing the burden of proof.
	In Pennsylvania, the first time I discovered the judge was going to have me go first is when he said, Mr. Barnes, you're up.
	I mean, I had planned on using the prosecution to prepare my closing.
	Or, you know, to finally map it out.
	And I was like, oh, I gotta do this live.
	And you could kind of tell the judge kind of got a kick at it.
	Ha-ha, you probably didn't know that was coming, did you, Bart?
	But did just fine.
	Had several jurors hold out, you know, against, despite the judge not allowing any evidence in that helps me pretty much, helps my client, not allowing cross-examination on the key areas of impeachment, and instructing the jury in a way that...
	Usually secure guaranteed conviction with a jury pool that was already a lynching jury pool to begin with.
	I still almost got at least a misdrow.
	But so yeah, maybe that's New York and I don't know.
	I thought that was weird, the defense going for it.
	They get the last word.
	Yeah, plus you don't, as a defense lawyer, you don't know what the prosecutor is going to say.
	So you're stuck in a situation of having to anticipate.
	Well, it's a matter of equity.
	Innocence until proven guilty should, in theory, give you the right to the last word when it comes to closing arguments.
	The judge did not yet issue a ruling or will not dismiss.
	I'm not sure if he...
	The headlines say skirted around rendering a decision on the motion to dismiss or the directed verdict, the criminal equivalent.
	I don't know if he skirted around it or said no and is not coming back on that, but no decision on that.
	It's usually a no, but they can always revisit it after the verdict.
	Yeah, well, he's going to let them come down with a guilty verdict and then say, I'm overturning it, but yeah, you can run with your headlines because he got convicted, even though he shouldn't have.
	That's not going to happen.
	It was in the Bihan Rafikian case, the Michael Flynn case, where Bihan Rafikian got convicted for Farah violations.
	Farah or Nara?
	It's one or the other.
	It's Farah, foreign agent.
	And then the judge...
	Reversed it after the fact, and then people accuse me of being biased because I say, I like it when he does that, but I don't like it when Angeron uses the directed verdict.
	But some of these cases are bullcrap.
	You've got to take them on their face.
	I mean, we can only follow this through inner-city press.
	To me, it seems that the opening or the closing arguments for Trump are, I don't know, you feel like you have to address all of the rubbish, but maybe less is more?
	What's your take?
	My strategy would be, and I say this universally, If you're talking about what the other side is talking about, then chances are you've already kind of lost.
	It's what Trump really believes himself, is what my brother taught me when I was a kid.
	He who defines the terms wins the debate.
	So don't let the other side define the terms.
	And so I wouldn't let the other side frame the issue.
	I would just...
	Go through and give the narrative, and you need a moral narrative to go with the legal narrative to go with the factual narrative.
	And it looked like they were doing decent, maybe not spectacular, which I think has been the defense in general.
	I thought it's been decent, maybe not spectacular.
	Difficult circumstances, clearly, with a rogue judge in a hostile jury pool and corrupt, perjuring witnesses.
	But I think they're going to hammer.
	It appeared they were hammering.
	I guess we can pull up inner-city press to see what he said.
	I only saw a bit of what was being reported.
	But what I saw was they were hammering away that this whole case hinges on Cohen, and Cohen lies about everything.
	He lied to you right in front of you during the trial.
	That's how bad a liar he is.
	How in the world can you convict beyond a reasonable doubt?
	When you have to believe Cohen to believe the entry was fraudulent, to believe that Trump knew the entry was fraudulent, and to believe that the fraud involved defrauding the voters of New York.
	All of that depends entirely solely exclusively on Michael Cohen, believing Michael Cohen beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Robert, I'm going to bring this up because this is back to Rakeda just for a moment because someone in the chat on Rumble said, in case I missed it, this is the alleged video showing what some are...
	Arguing is clear white powder on his nose.
	I'm just going to play it.
	What's up, guys?
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	That's not clear white powder on the nose.
	I'll stop with that.
	If that's the best of it, I mean, I can see how someone makes the argument, but I can also see that someone's going to say, what the hell are you seeing?
	Exactly.
	And why didn't the cop include the photo or the video?
	Because the cop knows somebody would look at it and go, Or have an independent forensic examiner review it.
	Because they would have concluded otherwise.
	Oh, by the way, we got some potential future merch with some of our cool memes.
	They got a meme of you, Viva.
	Hold on.
	I want to do a poll because I can't do the poll.
	I don't think Rumble has polls yet.
	We can do one in Locals, but I don't want to do it.
	That feels dirty, but...
	If we were to do a poll, I think it would be 50-50 at best.
	Maybe someone can do it on Twitter.
	Hold on.
	Lord, give me the surrender.
	That's a good one, isn't it?
	Oh, yes.
	Hold on.
	Save image as.
	As part of 1776 Law Center, we're building out some merch.
	I ran into some trouble with our initial merch, so we're still getting out the first round.
	So I decided to solve the problem.
	I want American clothes.
	I want made in America.
	Turned out that's really hard at t-shirt companies.
	And so I'm getting my own printer.
	So I'm going to buy American t-shirts.
	And I'm going to do my own...
	I've got a bunch of nephews and nieces running around.
	So they're going to learn how to make t-shirts.
	So we might have that Lord Give Me Serenity one as one of our future merch.
	Or VivaFry.com!
	Future merch.
	Ah, yes.
	And I'm working on Robert's silver dollar one-ounce coins.
	They're just a lot more expensive than I thought they'd be, given even the price of silver per ounce is a lot, but then the custom stuff makes it even more, and then we're working on it, but I actually have to get back to it.
	It's been two weeks.
	Okay, let me pull up InnerCityPress.
	This is where I get totally...
	Paranoid, because I don't want to accidentally open up my messages.
	Not for anything illegal, but for disclosing private information, so I've got to make sure it's closed.
	It is.
	Okay, we're going to go up to...
	We'll scroll down and just do some of this, because you can't do the threads when you're not in incognito, but I could open up my VivaBurner account.
	Or do they...
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Let's say the...
	So far, good logic did the best reading of the transcripts.
	And Robert Gouvet has done the best reading of Inner City Press.
	Inner City Press should hire Gouvet to do his audiobook.
	Well, that would be fantastic, but there should be...
	Inner City Press should do his own reading at the end of the day.
	It would be totally time-consuming.
	I wish I bookmarked some of them, but Trump's lawyer Blanche, it was booked as a legal expense as they did with anything submitted by the lawyer.
	There's no other way to categorize it because they're arguing that It's absurd.

▲