Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 9, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

01:52:53

Ep. 214: Trump Juror SCANDAL? Hunter Trial MADNESS! Covid Win? Alex Jones DOWN? & MORE Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Bike riding on the Everglades here.
	And if you look in the distance, you see something that kind of looks like smoke.
	That's not smoke.
	Those are gnats.
	Clouds of gnats.
	All of these things on my arm, gnats.
	Look at this.
	I'm going to puke.
	They're in my eyeballs.
	They're in my eyeball.
	They're in my eyes.
	Everywhere.
	I thought it was smoke.
	You see that?
	Let me zoom in all the way.
	Those are clouds of gnats.
	That is not smoke.
	And I feel sick.
	This was a bad idea.
	Oh my goodness.
	Look at my legs.
	Look at my legs.
	Oh.
	Okay, well, unfortunately, I gotta go back through it to go home.
	Look at that.
	That's biblical.
	That's...
	Pillars of smoke!
	Except they're gnats.
	I'm going down.
	Except they're gnats.
	It's beautiful, though.
	It gets worse.
	Many of you have seen this already, but I'll explain why I'm starting the show with this.
	Good evening.
	Started ten minutes early as well.
	People are panicking.
	Get to the internet!
	I'll just take myself out.
	I think you can still hear me.
	It was at that moment that Viva knew he screwed up.
	Nats.
	Microscopic.
	Nats.
	I had the joke "Nasty" but I accidentally said "Natsy" in my own...
	"Natsy" like, you know, they're "Nats" and they're...
	Okay.
	Watch, watch, watch the face.
	Brr!
	Brr!
	I've learned a valuable lesson.
	Take the camera.
	Are those bugs?
	Yes, they are, Marion.
	I still found Nats in the bed this morning.
	Each and every one of them.
	Let me make sure that we're live across platforms while this plays.
	I just like that in his black face.
	Yes.
	Saucy Mary.
	Clouds.
	It was biblical.
	It was clouds.
	Why didn't you stop?
	Come home.
	You didn't have to go anywhere.
	What?
	What?
	What happened?
	It's just dirt.
	Look.
	The bugs?
	The bugs.
	The kid has problems digesting this information.
	Why?
	What happened?
	You weren't biking.
	I went biking through the Bible, apparently.
	Look.
	No whale?
	Look.
	Did you get all the way to left to hatching?
	No.
	I'll have to see where I got them.
	Do you want to hose me down?
	They're little ants?
	No, they're gnats.
	Do you want to hose me down?
	Okay, I'm good.
	No, you want to hose me down?
	Nope.
	I don't want to hose myself down.
	Who doesn't want to hose you?
	What kind of boy is that?
	After a nice Florida rainfall, the gnats come out.
	Look at this.
	It was, it was, it was glorious.
	Oh my goodness.
	They're alive on your helmet.
	Look at this.
	They're still alive.
	Oh my gosh.
	They're gonna be in your hair.
	Look at the animals.
	Look at the gnats.
	They're gonna be in your hair.
	You're mean.
	Oh my gosh.
	Oh my...
	It's on my face.
	I thought I need to take a shower.
	While everyone trickles in.
	Oh my gosh.
	Are you watching me get denatified?
	Oh my god, you're nuts.
	Look at this.
	Oh, they went down.
	Oh my god, it's going to be everywhere.
	Woohoo, there's a nat.
	Everybody, good evening.
	I'm going to make sure I'm using Rumble Studio tonight.
	Because I want to do a couple of tests.
	They're still taking my feedback in terms of improvements that can be made to Rumble Studio.
	And I'm going to test something out tonight.
	And it's going to be mind-blowing.
	We started a little early because Barnes, I think, has a hard out at 8 o 'clock.
	A hard out, eh?
	To catch a flight.
	And I figure I'll start early.
	Let everyone trickle in.
	Start with that video so that I can also tinker with what needs to be tinkered with while using the Rumble Studio, which is amazing.
	Some things that I need to remind myself to do, it doesn't create a YouTube landing live page so you can't turn on monetization and you can't check that little box that says the stream contains a paid promotion.
	And I want to make sure that I'm able to do that.
	So before we run the sponsored ad, because I'm neurotic and I don't want anyone accusing me of like, eh, he ran a sponsored ad and didn't check the box on YouTube.
	Wojcicki, I don't know who the CEO of...
	Of YouTubers anymore.
	So that's what happened yesterday, people.
	I decided to go for a bike ride to try to give my legs and my glutamous maximus a rest.
	And I went biking along one of the canals trying to get to the fishing spot where they have these points of entry by, you know, there's a bike path.
	It's a bike path.
	And I'm into biking and I get like some, you know, clouds of gnats in my face, which has happened before.
	It happened the first summer I got here.
	It always happens after a rainfall.
	But I'm biking.
	I was like, oh, there must be a forest fire in the distance because there's a massive plume of smoke.
	They were gnats.
	And yeah, can I bring this up?
	Oh, I can.
	Look at this.
	Can I pin?
	Oh, hold on.
	This is from locals.
	I don't know that I can pin a picture.
	Yeah, it doesn't let me pin a picture of a comment, but I can see the picture.
	It was traumatizing.
	I learned a very valuable lesson.
	When, you know, after a nice rainstorm in Florida, is it not the best time to go for a bike ride?
	Good Sunday evening, everybody.
	As everyone trickles in, because I started early, and I think people are going to be shocked and appalled, we've got a hell of a show tonight.
	Barnes will come in and we'll talk about what's on the menu tonight, but obviously we're talking the Trump trial jury debacle.
	We're talking about the Hunter Biden trial debacle.
	We're talking about the news in the Alex Jones situation, where I had on Chase Geyser on Friday.
	Man, the news is apparently Alex is liquidating his interest in Infowars.
	We're going to talk about it with Barnes when he gets in here.
	But I wanted to start with that humor, and then I wanted to play something which I was going to start with as the intro.
	Now, I'm getting re-familiarized with Rumble Studio.
	It's amazing.
	But to make sure that I don't screw things up here, I wanted to start with this, which was...
	A shout-out to my boy, Vinny O'Shanna.
	Now, let me make sure that we're seeing this, because the...
	Let me see here.
	Good, okay, I see it.
	Now, I'm going to put this up here.
	This is frickin' hilarious.
	Vinny has got a thing going, and I love it.
	Vinny O'Shanna, Vincent O'Shanna, the Unusual Suspects host.
	He works with Patrick Bet-David at Value Attainment, and he's a stand-up comic, and he's frickin' hilarious.
	Listen to this.
	Your junkie son, Hunter, was begging his dead brother's wife and he got her addicted to crack.
	What do you have to say about that?
	What was that?
	Hunter!
	Crack!
	Cocaine!
	He's a degenerate!
	Is he ever going to change?
	I don't think so.
	He's trying to work out his serious following acts.
	You're the worst father in the history of fathers.
	I hope you're proud of yourself, Joseph.
	Joseph, come back here!
	Joseph!
	Sorry, it's that squeal that video does, which is fantastic.
	So now I know how to share a screen, and I'm going to re-familiarize myself with that.
	Rumble Studio has a wonderful thing where you can put a comment up on a timer.
	This one's up for a minute, and in a minute it's going to automatically disappear, and I love it.
	It's beautiful.
	How goes the battle, everybody?
	Can we believe the world in which we are living?
	It's one thing after another.
	And I don't even know where to...
	I want to see when this...
	Okay, 18 seconds.
	I can see it.
	Funny, funny she up.
	We are live across all the platforms.
	For those of you who don't know who I am, Viva Frye, David Frye, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida rumbler.
	Sunday night is our Sunday night law extravaganza with Robert Barnes.
	We have an amazing community at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And after a minute, it just disappears.
	We start off on four platforms while using Rumble Studio.
	YouTube.
	Commitube, as I like to call it.
	Twitter.
	I will not call Twitter commitwitter because it's good, but it's not as good as.
	Rumble.
	Platform number three.
	And vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And we are live on all four of them.
	What we end up doing is when we get to a certain point in the stream, we vote with our feet, we vote with our eyeballs, we vote with our dollar, and we end on YouTube.
	And Twitter.
	We're going to end on YouTube and Twitter.
	And then we go over to Rumble, Viva Fry on Rumble, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Wrong mic.
	There we go.
	That's fine.
	I didn't get too far into the show.
	Thank you.
	And I clicked it twice, and I know that I did.
	And so we go to Rumble and then vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	At the end of the show, we end on Rumble.
	Now something, it's a bit of a quirk.
	When using Studio, when you end on Rumble, it goes to vivabarneslaw.locals.com supporters only.
	That's different than when I use StreamYard, and it's the way it's built.
	And so the after party, this time around, we'll see how it works and if it upsets too many people.
	But if it doesn't and it works, we'll have the exclusive after party.
	It's going to be for supporters only on Rumble.
	He never listens about the mic.
	What do you mean, Rock?
	I always listen about the mic.
	It just keeps screwing up.
	I know that I clicked it.
	And so I think when I bump myself from the screen, it might reset it.
	Whatever.
	I'm going to make an excuse for myself.
	All right.
	Now that I've checked off the box that this stream contains a paid promotion, because it does, we're going to bring up the paid promotion.
	I was going to start with this, but I don't want anybody saying, oh, viva.
	He started with the paid promotion and didn't give credit.
	By the way...
	This is our sponsor of the evening.
	It's Morning Kick.
	Do you guys know how old Chuck Norris is?
	It's not a joke.
	I'm going to play a bit of this video.
	I'm not going to play the whole thing because you're going to go check it out.
	It's in the pinned comment.
	Chuck Norris is 80 years old and still kicking butt and working out and staying active.
	What's even more shocking is he's stronger, can work out longer, and even has plenty of energy left over for his grandkids.
	He did this by making one change.
	I'm going to show you a bit of the video.
	He says it still makes him feel like he's in his 50s.
	His wife even started doing this one thing too, and she's never felt better.
	She says she feels 10 years younger, her body looks leaner, and she has energy all day.
	And no, people, it doesn't come from eating involuntarily a lot of gnats.
	Chuck has made a special video that explains everything.
	Make sure you watch it by going to chuckdefense.com forward slash viva.
	because I have a bit of a lisp and because in Canada, we spell defense differently than in America.
	ChuckDefense, E-N-S-E.com forward slash Viva, or by clicking the link in the video below.
	It will change the way you think about your health.
	Once again, ChuckDefense.com.
	I'm not going to play the whole thing, but I'm going to play a touch of it.
	I believe in always being prepared for the unexpected.
	That could mean a natural disaster or even a threat to your loved ones.
	But what if the unexpected danger wasn't something outside your door, but inside your own body?
	Achy joints, digestive issues, weight gain, and fatigue.
	We're told these are normal signs of aging, but in my experience, it could mean something much worse.
	And I will leave the suspense there.
	Just a reminder, the legendary Chuck Norris is whopping 81 years old and has more energy than a lot of us.
	He discovered he could create dramatic changes to his health simply by focusing on three things that sabotage our body as we age.
	Watch his method by clicking on the link in the description below, chuckdefense.com.
	Forward slash Viva.
	I'm going to stop this here.
	I'm going to go back down.
	One thing they're going to improve in, Chuck Norris is a close friend with the Clintons.
	Michael...
	Death is afraid of Chuck Norris.
	All right, let me give everybody the link.
	It's in the pinned comment anyhow.
	And there you go.
	Link.
	Boom shakalaka.
	All right.
	Let me see one thing here.
	We're good on all of this.
	Thanks.
	I have to also make sure that I sent Barnes the link.
	Copy.
	And I'm going to send Barnes the link.
	I'm going to get smoother with a guest on StreamYard.
	Robert Barnes.
	Link.
	Boom.
	Send.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	And I'll see.
	There's no permission required.
	Good.
	All right.
	What else do I have on the backdrop as the intro videos of the evening, people?
	Holy cow.
	Okay.
	No, no, no.
	Look.
	It was the segue.
	By the way.
	Go check it out.
	I gotta show you this.
	If this is what they do in front of the cameras, imagine what he did behind the cameras.
	This is a video posted by Joe Biden himself.
	I'll keep fighting to strengthen the Affordable Care Act so grandparents can be around longer for their grandkids.
	You look at this video and you tell me if you think this looks normal, that this is something that someone should...
	post to celebrate themselves as opposed to someone else posting it to make fun of them.
	How are you?
	What's your name?
	Phoenix.
	I want to thank you for being here.
	Unfortunately, I was here.
	I looked at the payment.
	Nine miles that came equal to $7,500.
	40 miles of radiation was $1,200.
	If it wasn't for you guys, I would be here.
	Thank you.
	It's probably 800 bucks for you too.
	I'm here to take care of my grandkids.
	Look at...
	Look at this.
	I'll pause it, people.
	Call me whatever names you want.
	Hi, how are you?
	Look where his hand is.
	Look how close he gets to her.
	And look at this face of pure...
	Whatever you want to call it.
	What's your name?
	This is weird.
	Can I zoom in?
	Nope.
	This is weird.
	What's your name?
	Phoenix.
	Oh, Phoenix!
	It's like, oh my god, they discovered gold, people.
	He just figured out the formula of the universe.
	He discovered, look at that face.
	Oh, it's so bizarre and a little bit uncomfortable.
	I'm not sure I can read some of these comments in here, but yeah.
	Sniff, says Honor234.
	Oh, that was one video also.
	It's not normal.
	It's never been normal.
	And you got the likes of Anthony Scaramucci is now coming out and praising, singing Biden's praises?
	You cannot believe this.
	I don't know what the hell's going on.
	I don't know what's going on, but you got to listen to what Scaramucci...
	I guess at one point he was pro-Trump, but at this point I strongly suspect they've got something on Scaramucci because there's boot-licking, then there's butt-licking, and Scaramucci is so far off the deep end for...
	Biden boot butt licking that I say they've got something on him.
	President Biden, Anthony Scaramucci says, is in better shape than most people think.
	And there's obviously a lot of distorted video here on X that makes him look older than he actually looks and feels in person.
	When he cleans Trump's clock during the debate, it'll be interesting to see how MAGA handles that.
	Can you imagine anybody being that?
	Freaking delusional.
	And I posted the tweet as a joke, but as a needle.
	I mean, there's loyal.
	I don't know why he would ever be loyal to Biden.
	Maybe he chose to.
	Who knows?
	Hey, there's Barnes!
	See, now this is it.
	I had it set up.
	I have to figure out how to not bring you in involuntarily.
	There's loyalty, and then there is they've got black male materiality.
	Now, maybe I've just been listening to The Great Awakening, Alex Jones' new book, and it's fantastic.
	Too much.
	But that's what I think.
	Barnes, I'm sorry.
	I didn't mean to bring you in like that.
	It's on the default presentation mode.
	Sir, how goes the battle, and whose basement are you in?
	I'm in Denver, Colorado.
	Can you hear me okay?
	Yeah, you're good.
	It's a little muffled.
	I'll see what Locals has to say.
	Are you in the cellar room?
	Yeah.
	Well, the connection is good.
	Let me hear what they have to say about the audio.
	Audio, good.
	What are you doing in Colorado?
	I'm here for the Freedom Council Conference with Warner Mendenhall, Mary Holland, a bunch of folks working together on the vaccine mandate context, other aspects of personal freedom, but particularly medical freedom-related issues.
	Okay, very nice.
	Okay, I will not make jokes about the...
	I've done streams from the bathroom barns.
	Who the hell am I to make jokes?
	And you're heading back home this evening?
	No, I've got to go to Orange County to make sure a trial gets delayed.
	The trial is supposed to start Monday, but it's now supposed to be continued.
	But the judges previously denied continuances, so I've got to be there to make sure it gets continued.
	Some of the comments say, where is he?
	Looks like he's in an HVAC room.
	People said, can I bump up your audio?
	Now, let me see how I can do that.
	Audio?
	See, I'm not going to take a chance, but I'll see if that's that function there because I don't even know how to do it.
	Robert, I know that you have to leave.
	Well, you have a heart out at eight.
	Maybe I can take over the after party a little bit longer afterwards.
	Let's get started right away.
	Okay, so you give us the menu because we've got some very, very big ones and some big cases and some controversy or controversy.
	Tell us what's on the menu for tonight.
	No doubt.
	We got a big win against vaccine mandates that has a broader impact for health and medical freedom across the country.
	We've got Minnesota trying to impose vaccine mandates on your six-month-old in case they go to daycare.
	We have some polling data on COVID vaccines because I still see some idiots out there that think that there's no political impact of the vaccines on the 2024 election.
	We've got Supreme Court.
	We've got Owen Troyer.
	We've got the CHD petition being scheduled.
	We've got three decisions on bankruptcy standing that might have some relevance to the Alex Jones discussion to come.
	Corporate taxes, all the different ways you can get screwed, which the Supreme Court added to this week.
	And on Indian tribe financing, a little bit interesting political divide there.
	We've got the number one issue on our board poll.
	The Trump trial rogue juror scandal.
	Where does it go next?
	And of course, the Trump Georgia case getting stayed, as predicted.
	We got a big and excellent Kansas Supreme Court decision on voter fraud as Mark Elias loses again.
	Remember everybody, Mark Elias, world famous criminal money launderer, in case you don't know who he is.
	We've got the Hunter Biden trial, and I'll add to my list and litany of trolls.
	Because I think the criminal prosecution of Hunter Biden violates the Second, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment.
	In case people thought that my constitutional defense related to Nick Ricada's case was specific to Ricada, it was not.
	It's Constitution first, Constitution forever.
	Then we got Alex Jones.
	They're going to try to shut him down.
	What's going on there?
	A new area that 1776 Law Center is getting involved in, and that is litigation concerning smart meters.
	Filed a petition with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on that.
	And last but not least, we have Steve Bannon going to prison during the election, plus some of the top questions asked by our board, the tipped questions that I have already cut and paste for us to cover as well tonight.
	Okay, and people are asking me to jack up your volume a little bit.
	I do not think that I'm able to do that, so that's going to be one of the modifications to ask.
	Hey, have you done any live ad reads?
	No, but we're doing one tonight, and I'm doing it because people need to understand what Rumble has created with Rumble Advertiser Center.
	It's amazing.
	We're going to do a live read because I want to be a little cynical.
	I want to run an ad at our max viewership and see how it works for everybody.
	And content creators are going to understand how amazing it is to be able to do a live auction ad read.
	Pick the one of your choice, whichever one offers the most sense per view, and run it live.
	And I know it's what we're doing because I like the company.
	We've already done...
	We do work with them.
	So I'll do it at some point before we end on YouTube because it's revolutionary and people need to understand this.
	While we're on YouTube, and let's piss off the YouTube overlords, let's deal with the Alex Jones situation.
	So this was the scandal, or this was the...
	Not the drama, but the...
	What the heck is the word I'm looking for?
	The incident last weekend.
	In which the CRO, the court restructuring officer, was apparently looking to padlock shutdown Infowars on Friday or Saturday.
	Alex Jones goes with an emergency broadcast, barricades himself in the place, and tells the world that they're trying to shut him down.
	What happens on Sunday is that the supplement company files an emergency order to the court on the Sunday after this occurs, demanding the dissolution as well, the liquidation of Infowars.
	And people were rightly noticing or observing because it was being reported in the reports that the supplement company is owned by Jones or controlled by Jones's father, which led people to question why would Jones's father through counsel be doing something that some people might think runs against Jones's interests or Infowars's interests.
	And I couldn't get a solid answer.
	I couldn't figure one out on my own.
	I do have questions about secured creditors versus litigious creditors and who takes...
	Who takes priority in the context of a liquidation?
	And so maybe it's strategic in that sense, and maybe there's going to be some lawsuits flying between rejected settlement offers of plaintiffs and their lawyers.
	I couldn't get a solid answer to that, but then throughout the week, at least on Friday, it was reported that Jones is liquidating his interest in InfoWars.
	Chase, who does a show on InfoWars on Sunday nights, was on talking about it.
	But Robert, I couldn't make sense of that strategy unless I've got it.
	And that's a question of secured creditors trying to make sure that they don't get bumped down the liquidation ladder in a liquidation and bankruptcy because it went from Chapter 11 restructuring to Chapter 7 liquidation.
	And you take it from here because you know more than me.
	So the core of the dispute is the Sandy Hook family's lawyers are refusing extraordinarily generous settlement offers.
	So a Chapter 11 bankruptcy is called Chapter 11 because that's the section of the bankruptcy laws that it's in.
	The Constitution of the United States gives to Congress the authority to pass laws governing bankruptcy to provide relief and remedy for debtors from creditors.
	One of those is that you can reorganize.
	Hence it's called, that's Chapter 11 reorganization on a corporate basis, sometimes Chapter 13 on an individual basis.
	Sometimes Chapter 12 for certain farming and fishing operations, if it's not too big of a debt.
	Otherwise, you are in Chapter 7, which is liquidation, where you sell off all your assets to pay off certain debts.
	Now, some debts are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
	The bankruptcy court has already ruled that Alex Jones cannot personally discharge a bunch of the debts related to the Sandy Hook litigation.
	But there, the limitation of the Sandy Hook litigation is a practical one concerning Infowars.
	So the Infowars proposed a reorganization plan that offered the Sandy Hook family lawyers, according to published information, $55 million, which would be one of the highest amounts of settlement for this kind of case in its history.
	The Sandy Hook lawyers refused it and rejected it.
	Were there terms on it?
	Like, I don't know what's public and what's not.
	Was it a lump sum or was it paid over installments?
	The nature of a reorganization would be that it would definitely be paid in installments.
	There was not enough assets to be available.
	So the issue that the Sandy Hook lawyers face is that the only recoverable source of money under the Texas laws and bankruptcy laws...
	Is ongoing revenue from Infowars.
	The ongoing revenue from Infowars is completely dependent on one man.
	So that, you know, remember that lunatic who testified in that joke of a proceeding, that so-called show trial in Austin, Texas, with that wacko judge who actually, remember we said they were making a movie in there?
	She showed up at the red carpet, walking on the red carpet.
	Look at me, I'm a judge, but really I'm an actress appearing for movies.
	That's what that fake phony and fraud is.
	What a disgrace.
	Because of Texas law, the Texas law provides for broad exemptions for an individual.
	So $100,000 for your family and all personal property.
	Vehicle exemptions for each person that's a licensed individual in the home.
	Your homestead, your home completely exempt.
	It can be over 200 acres, about 200 acres out in the country.
	Completely exempt.
	All of your retirement, completely exempt.
	All your current wages, completely exempt.
	What does that mean?
	It means nobody can collect it.
	They can't garnish it.
	They can't attach it.
	They can't take it.
	It's not an available asset.
	Life insurance proceeds, college savings accounts, all these things completely beyond the reach of any creditor.
	That means that, so what's left?
	You know, Jones had a ranch.
	He's selling the ranch and some other things.
	But there's not much money there.
	You aggregate that maybe four or five million.
	And then there's the secondary issue, which is that Jones's father, for those that don't know, came up with the supplement idea.
	It has a bigger lien on everything because basically the structure was done so that he advanced certain credit, if you will, capital to the company on the grounds that it would pay him back over time.
	That lien has what's called priority.
	So it is a secured lien with priority above the Sandy Hook family.
	What that means is the Sandy Hook, the real offer was $55 million or zero.
	That was the real offer on the table.
	I believe the Sandy Hook plaintiff's lawyers are committing legal malpractice.
	I believe that they are likely misleading, and it wouldn't surprise me.
	A lot of them, some of the plaintiff's lawyers are...
	Completely crazy.
	I mean, literally nut jobs.
	And then some of the other ones are, in my view, corrupt.
	They're political actors who are motivated, who are misusing these clients as tear-inducing fig leaves for an agenda to silence and suppress and censor the speech of Alex Jones.
	And here, they're going to end up recovering zero.
	Because what Jones has decided is like, okay, if this is the game you guys are playing, I'll just liquidate InfoWars.
	I'll liquidate my interest in InfoWars.
	And that will keep the proceeding in the bankruptcy court.
	And so let's say they sell InfoWars.
	What value does it have?
	It has almost no value unless Alex Jones is working for it.
	If he doesn't agree to work for it, the only value it has goes to the priority secured lenders.
	Which are in front of and ahead of all the Sandy Hook litigators.
	And not to oversimplify, but Infowars, other than Alex Jones as an asset or as the entity, has minimal assets.
	Maybe it's got a $10 million studio that if you disassemble it, it's worth 10 cents on the dollar.
	I mean, you're not going to rent it out or buy it out.
	And whatever is available has got to go to the secured lender that has priority, which is not the Sandy Hook families.
	They don't have, you know, a litigation judgment is not priority in this case.
	So they're going to get nothing.
	And it's all because, I mean, basically, they're on the clock.
	They got about a week to accept the deal.
	Jones was offering a very generous deal, saying, look, I'll keep working at InfoWars to pay this kind of crazy amount, in my opinion, to all these families just to move on from all of this.
	But I'm not going to work for the These plaintiff's lawyers who want to control what's going on.
	And I'm not going to go along with a charade that's intended to just shut me down.
	And so, I mean, 55 million over 10 years, that's ridiculous.
	I mean, that's basically all the profits of Infowars for 10 years.
	And that's what they turned down.
	That's what these lunatics turned down.
	I mean, people that shed all the tears for the Sandy Hook family litigants.
	Let's remember, 98% of the people who lost somebody at Sandy Hook have never blamed Alex Jones.
	They've never sued Alex Jones.
	These are the political actors.
	These are the people that want to take away your rights and use tragedy to do so.
	Suffering a tragedy does not entitle anybody to take away my rights or anybody else's rights.
	And now they're being exposed as the political actors they already were, always were.
	And I've got zero sympathy for them because they are misusing and abusing the trauma of what's happened to strip the constitutional liberties and rights of other people.
	And here they were given a very generous financial reward by a completely corrupted judicial process in Connecticut and Texas, and they're going to lose it.
	And they're going to lose it because their lawyers are incompetent or politically corrupt or conflicted.
	So I think at the end of the day, if they don't agree to the 55 million by June 14th, they're going to end up with nothing.
	And those that think Alex, I mean, so InfoWars might be off the air as InfoWars.
	Anybody who thinks Alex Jones is disappearing doesn't know Alex Jones.
	He will be back very quickly in some other form, in some other format, because he's not going to have his voice silenced or censored by these corrupt partisan political actors when he's gone out of his way.
	To be exceedingly generous to these people in the fraudulent show trial they engaged in to make them rich beyond any possible imagination for a bogus case, in my opinion, that they are now turning down.
	So he's like, look, I mean, they're not going to be able to censor.
	They're not going to be able to shut them down.
	InfoWars will come back in some other form.
	It just won't be InfoWars LLC.
	That's all that will happen.
	And so they'll have achieved nothing except cost their clients an opportunity.
	To have a very secure financial future.
	And I hope that some of those clients sue those Sandy Hook plaintiff's lawyers.
	Those plaintiff's lawyers are committing malpractice and those families should sue them into a blitz.
	Because you know where you can recover money?
	From that very rich law firm in Connecticut that brought this case.
	That shook down Remington Rifle and other people.
	You know who you can get money from?
	That Texas law firm that was dumb enough to fund this litigation.
	Those partners got plenty of cash.
	Those law firms got plenty of cash.
	So Sandy Hook families, you want to get your money back?
	Get it by suing your lawyers who are busy committing malpractice.
	And I might even know some lawyers who will help you out.
	I'll highlight a couple of things here that Alex Jones, you know, he could pull, you know, it could be like a Project Veritas type thing.
	Okay, it's no longer Project Veritas.
	It's James O 'Keefe and OMG.
	It'll be Alex Jones at whatever.
	And he doesn't have to make any meaningful money or exceeding that which would be seized in order to execute on this judgment because it's intentional infliction of emotional distress, which survives bankruptcy.
	The bottom line, though, Robert, let's just say they turn down this offer, tens of 50 some odd million dollars.
	Secured creditors take their piece of whatever's left over by priority.
	There's still the appeal.
	So hypothetically, Jones, you know, goes into a homestead and doesn't do anything, doesn't make any money.
	Pulls a Tucker Carlson.
	He's not living under a contract, but he'll speak for free.
	And this gets overturned on appeal.
	Then they lose absolutely everything.
	Like, this is still under appeal, although it's able to be executed pending the appeal.
	This could all get overturned if a judge says, yes, sorry, the default verdict was default liability.
	Wrong.
	The quantum?
	Insane.
	And it all gets overturned, and they turn down this whatever offers on the table.
	Exactly.
	And what I do think it highlights is Texas law should be changed.
	So that a verdict is not collectible until appeals have been exhausted.
	That is the case in Connecticut, interestingly enough.
	It's just not in Texas.
	And we're seeing the problem.
	Here, Jones has to go through all of this nonsense because he doesn't get a stay of the verdict.
	Penny Appeal.
	We just saw this problem in New York with Trump, where they're able to seize a bunch of his assets and him have to post a ridiculous cash bond just to get his right to appeal.
	So I believe in this in the criminal context, too.
	Eighth Amendment should be completed security, should be granted bail, pending appeal automatically.
	No sentence should be enforceable until an appellate remedy has been fully exhausted.
	And I think it highlights the need for legislative reform across the country, state and federal.
	So we will find out more.
	June 14 is the hearing during which the judge, who seems like he's been reasonable, is going to decide whether or not...
	This goes into liquidation, gets kicked back to the state where the state goes and executes on their judgment for whatever assets they can squeeze out of.
	That's difficult for that to happen now.
	So that's what Jones did.
	Jones made it very difficult for the state court to get involved because by Jones saying, I'm going to liquidate my interest on my individual bankruptcy.
	Now the judge really can't dismiss the reorganization very easily.
	Even if he does, his personal interest ties up the entity from any collection action occurring by the state court.
	So what he did was strategic.
	What he did was to prohibit the state court from coming in and shutting it down.
	And because it has to go through a sale process now to see who will buy it.
	And of course, he's been telling them all along, if I don't stay involved, you're not recovering anything.
	And the reality is, I suspect, the plaintiff's lawyers have been lying to their own clients.
	And they've been lying to them and saying, oh, no, no, this isn't about shutting them down.
	This whole lawsuit wasn't about First Amendment suppression.
	Now, I'm sure it was for some of the clients.
	Remember, FBI agents have sued Jones who knew no one who died at Sandy Hook and were rewarded over $100 million by that joke of a judge in Connecticut and that joke of a jury in Connecticut.
	Based on a rigged trial that you can now find on HBO and see the rigged trial.
	That's how rigged it was.
	It was made for movie, literally.
	Made for a script, literally.
	But the net effect of all this is that if they don't take it, they're going to be out every penny, nickel, diamond dollar, and Jones will be back in one way, shape, or form.
	Well, I mean, this is happening at the same time.
	Get another subject off the list as well, but it's related.
	This is happening at a time when Steve Bannon is going to be going to jail.
	I'm sure it's a coincidence, by the way.
	It's completely coincidental that this totally apolitical Sandy Hook lawsuit is seeking to shut down Alex Jones right on the eve of the election, at the same time that the court decided and the U.S. Justice Department decided they couldn't wait for Steve Bannon to go to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	He had to be locked up, oh, for four months.
	Oh, let's see, July, August, September, and October.
	Robert, I mean, it's a joke, but some people are going to say, look, it's a Trump appointee who's sending him to jail, so suck on it.
	Well, it's a reminder of how many mediocre federal judges were appointed by Trump.
	About half his appointees were good, and half of them stumped because of the Federalist Society types that got stuck on there, that were put in that, recycled in that list.
	And pretty, I mean, this judge has been okay on some other D.C. cases.
	But they're all bad in D.C. It's only how bad are they.
	And this judge should have extended bail to the Supreme Court.
	But this needs to be done legislatively because the courts are AWOL now on the right to appeal.
	You don't really have a right to appeal if you have to pay a judgment.
	While the appeal is pending that moots the benefit of an appeal.
	Like Trump's got to put up, what did he end up putting up?
	175 million.
	But he's got it.
	Nobody's above the law.
	That law is stupid.
	I couldn't understand how in Texas they were executing on a $1.5 billion judgment that itself is laughably insane if it weren't so tragic.
	While in Connecticut it was stayed pending appeal.
	That makes sense because the damage is done.
	And so now Bannon's going to go to jail for four months.
	While he appeals, although as far as anyone goes, Robert, I'm going to rely on your expertise, unlikely that if the Supreme Court hears it, they overturn it?
	Well, I mean, what he can do is he can challenge the denial of bail pending appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals, and if they deny it, challenge it to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	I think it will be probably a reach to get them involved.
	So they've deliberately schemed this, in my opinion.
	To remove Steve Bannon from the election equation during peak election season in July, August, September, and October.
	It shows how they'll never stop weaponizing every aspect of the justice system, whether it's the Sandy Hook people using the bankruptcy process to shut down Alex Jones and Infowars, or the Justice Department under the Biden administration and docile judges in D.C. Shutting down Steve Bannon throughout the election season.
	I had a question.
	I think I'm going to forget it now.
	Oh, Bannon goes to jail, obviously.
	I mean, I've been interviewing people from jail, Dexter Taylor, Jake Lang, but you're not allowed...
	It's much more difficult in the Federal Bureau of Prisons because jail, you have broader rights because of your pending trial.
	But once you're in a Bureau of Prison facility like Navarro, like Owen Troyer was, Much more difficult to be able to broadcast or get any information out there.
	Wow, so they're going to shut him up at a wonderfully convenient time as well.
	Robert, this might be a good moment.
	I'm looking at 1776 Law Center, and I'm going to go straight to the live ad read for 1775 Coffee.
	And everybody sees it.
	You see the QR code there.
	And this is a coffee that I drink that is delicious.
	That's already a sponsor.
	It's time to say goodbye to Starbucks and say hello to Rumble 1775 Coffee.
	Unlike other brands, this is a coffee that backs free speech and is unapologetic about it.
	Visit 1775.com.
	Use the promo code STUDIO40 to get 40% off any coffee subscription.
	The coffee comes in medium and dark roasts.
	It also comes in pea berry, which is similar to Kona coffee.
	Kona's in Hawaii, people.
	In other words, the stuff is premium.
	Click the link in the live chat.
	Or in the description, you can go directly to 1775coffee.com.
	Use the promo code STUDIO40 to get 40% off today and do it so that we can show how effective this type of advertising is and how absolutely revolutionary this Rumble Advertising Centre is.
	You have your campaigns in the side.
	I don't know what the limit is as to how many you can run in any given show or how many every 10 minutes.
	And you do it.
	You can pick the ones you want.
	To work with or you don't pick the ones you want to work with.
	And when you're done reading it, 1775.com.
	Promo code Studio40.
	Complete.
	You hit the button and the ad read is over.
	And it's revolutionary, people.
	It's magic.
	1775coffee.com, right?
	1775.
	Did I say 1776coffee.com?
	No, you're just saying 1775, but the.com.
	Yes, it's 1775coffee.com.
	Robert, let's do one.
	They should add tea.
	When was the Boston Tea Party?
	That's a question that's going to be on the...
	Maybe like 1773 or something, but I would like to do like a tea, like 1773 tea.
	That could be something worth it.
	1774.
	I'm blanking on what year it was.
	Let me see here.
	1773, December 16. On the night of December 16, 1773, dozens of distinguished men, some...
	Disguised men, not distinguished.
	Some dressed as indigenous Americans boarded three East Indian company ships and dumped 342 chests into the Boston Habit.
	Amazing.
	Oh, that was a good habit.
	That was a good Boston Habit.
	Yeah, I was watching the Good Will Hunting or at least clips the other day.
	Robert, let's do one more before we end on YouTube and go over to...
	Let's piss off YouTube while we're doing it proper.
	The big vaccine win.
	Is it the one coming out of the Ninth Circuit?
	Yeah.
	Okay, so this is amazing.
	I did a vlog on it yesterday.
	Some headlines were running with the headline that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal declares the COVID jab not a traditional vaccine.
	And I hope I fleshed it out properly in the stream because that's not exactly true.
	But what's true of this decision is even more impactful than had the court come out and said, no, this is not a traditional vaccine.
	They didn't.
	What this was was a Los Angeles United School District school board.
	That created a vaccine mandate policy, mandatory for all employees or teachers, and some teachers, I guess, didn't like it, and they sued.
	After the LAUSD got sued, they then issue a corrective memorandum or a clarifying memorandum saying, if you don't want to subject yourself to the jibby jab, well, you could just do testing and whatever, so therefore it's not mandatory anymore, and therefore the lawsuit was, you know, moot without object.
	I think they dismissed it, or they dropped the lawsuit, and immediately after they drop it, LAUSD goes right back to a mandatory vaccination policy.
	They then get sued again.
	They go into court for years.
	And like three weeks after oral arguments before the Court of Appeal, which I guess didn't go as well as they thought, they drop the mandate policy.
	And then they say, no issue, moot, you know, whatever, dismiss.
	And the lower court dismissed the case.
	And the Court of Appeals vacated the lower court's decision and said, no, this is not moot.
	The LAUSD has been behaving very, very badly, gaining the system to gain the litigation so they can avoid the lawsuit and tinker with the mandate, drop the mandate, whatever.
	And the Court of Appeals 2-1 said that we have to take for granted...
	The plaintiff's allegations, they're not alleging that this jab is a bona fide, legitimate, traditional vaccine as per the ruling in Jacobson.
	They're specifically alleging that it's not a traditional vaccine, that it doesn't prevent transmission or contracting the virus, and therefore it's more of a therapeutic, and therefore Jacobson doesn't apply.
	And the court said, not that we agree that it's not a traditional vaccine.
	They say, we have to take that allegation for granted.
	And the defendants haven't rebutted it or rebuffed it, rebutted it enough.
	By just relying on the CDC safe and effective, and to the extent that they allege it's not a traditional vaccine, then their suit cannot be dismissed based on Jacobson, which dealt with a smallpox vaccine, you know, one that actually worked.
	And so, in a way, it's even more impactful than had the court come out and just set it out, right?
	They're saying, if it's not a traditional vaccine, then Jacobson does not apply, and that is, unless it gets overturned, now Court of Appeal Ninth Circuit legal precedent?
	Yes, absolutely.
	And you note that the logic of their decision tracks the debate that we had with Alan Dershowitz at the very beginning of this, where Dershowitz admitted and acknowledged that you could not impose a mandate of a vaccine simply for someone's own benefit,
	that it had to benefit other people, which meant that in order for a vaccine mandate to be constitutional if issued by a government or state actor, It needed to prevent transmission.
	And the allegation of the complaint here was that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively prevent transmission.
	And the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said, well, if you're able to prove that, and some people thought that the Ninth Circuit concluded that that had been proven.
	That is not what the Ninth Circuit is saying.
	The Ninth Circuit is saying, if you're able to prove it, then you prevail.
	And since we're at the pleading stage of the case, where we presume you're able to prove it, then you get to go forward to the discovery stage of the case.
	And now I'm not shedding any tears for the fact that a lot of people think the court said it's not a real vaccine because it's not a real vaccine.
	But putting that aside, legally, all the court determined was if you allege this, that allegation is sufficient to get past the dismissal stage.
	And what it is, it basically says you shift from a Jacobson framework to a Crouson analysis, which is the Supreme Court case that said you have the right to bodily autonomy, right to privacy, that incorporates and includes the right to decline medical treatment.
	And that had not been consistently applied in the vaccine context.
	So it was huge that they said this applies to the vaccine mandates just as much as anything else.
	And that means if you can allege, by the way, little unknown fact, Jacobson did allege this about the smallpox vaccine.
	The courts lied about it going through the entire process.
	Sorry, clarify.
	Jacobson alleged what?
	The smallpox vaccine didn't work.
	Okay.
	Did they allege it, and was it proven that it did work?
	No, they would never let them prove it.
	But in the back, they go, officially, the Supreme Court just pretended that allegation wasn't before them.
	So because they did that, that limited the legal impact, the reach of their precedent.
	Now, I would point out, Jacobson never should have been cited by anybody.
	Jacobson is the foundation of the trilogy of infamy of American courts.
	It is the any judge citing Jacobson is citing one of the favorite cases that was utilized to establish Buck v.
	Bell and that is the horrendous eugenics case issued by the Supreme Court of the United States.
	And they're citing a case that was a favorite of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.
	So they should be embarrassed that they've ever cited Jacobson for anything because it was part of the Jacobson, Buck v.
	Bell, Korematsu.
	Trilogy of infamy that said you could eviscerate people's constitutional rights or liberties in the middle of an emergency.
	That was always nonsense.
	That was an embarrassing and humiliating decisions by the Supreme Court that showed their bigotry and prejudice and fear and cowardice.
	But putting that aside, at least now we have a Ninth Circuit that has said Jacobson can only apply in a context in which the vaccine is actually a vaccine.
	And must actually be safe and effective.
	And if it's not, then you can't force somebody to take it.
	And the reality is that will be, quite frankly, easily proven at trial in front of a jury.
	So this is the death nail of vaccine mandates across the country.
	Yeah, because I didn't appreciate it where the judge said, if it's not...
	A traditional vaccine that actually prevents the spread and transmission, or the transmission and contracting, then Jacobson doesn't apply.
	And that's, I mean, that's a high court ruling.
	And I thought that was even more impactful than what people had misunderstood it to say.
	Yes.
	Okay, phenomenal.
	And then they sent it back down for remand, and we'll see what happens there.
	You know, it's a big win, you know, thanks to Robert Kennedy and Children's Health Defense, who funded a lot of these cases.
	And all the other freedom lawyers that are out there working on this.
	I'm here at Denver at a conference with the Freedom Council, Warner Mendenhall and a group of others.
	We're co-counsel on the Brooke Jackson case.
	A couple of interesting ideas were coming out of this conference.
	I was unaware that the state of Minnesota is trying to secretly, effectively inject your kids with these vaccines by imposing it as a mandate on childcare and daycare centers.
	There's supposed to be a robust personal exemption right under Minnesota law from any vaccine mandate on children.
	But you're going to have to be cognizant and attentive to it.
	But the other thing is they're coming up with ideas about making criminal referrals related to...
	The PREP Act does not extend to criminal investigations, criminal indictments, restitution that might be issued under criminal indictments, to state key TAM claims as well as federal key TAM claims.
	There may be fraud connections to your local hospital or pension fund concerning this.
	So there may be a lot of ways.
	They were brainstorming at this conference ways to go after the vaccine makers for the harms that they've caused without being stuck in the Immunity Prep Act or Childhood Immunity List category.
	And so there's a lot of work being done by a lot of people across the country to try to find relief and remedy.
	For the vaccine injured, and for the idiots out there, including some in the Trump camp, that have deluded themselves into believing that nobody cares about the vaccine, that's not a big issue.
	You don't understand, Barnes.
	That's a non-issue.
	In fact, most normies, they love the vaccine, Barnes.
	These people are so up Trump's rear end that they can't see the light of day.
	So a 1776 law center surveyed the question.
	One out of five Americans Report that someone very close to them suffered a serious or severe injury or death from the vaccine.
	That is the highest rate ever reported of any drug in the history of America.
	If you think that one out of five Americans don't care about the vaccine, you're the one being delusional.
	You don't help Trump by saying, oh yeah, keep running towards that cliff.
	Good job.
	Good job, Mr. President.
	I want to be a cheerleader for Trump and watch him jump off that cliff and fall on his face.
	That's not helping Trump.
	You're hurting Trump.
	And by the way, another 10% of Americans suspect the vaccine caused serious and severe injury or death to someone very close to them.
	So this isn't somebody I saw somebody on the internet.
	This isn't I saw somebody on social media.
	These are close family members.
	That's who this is.
	One out of five, up to one out of three.
	And that number is only going to grow.
	And the same numbers say they know somebody that was discriminated against.
	Related to the vaccine.
	And either an educational or employment or other benefits.
	And if you look at who they are, it's disproportionately millennials and Zoomers and Hispanics and African Americans.
	Guess who is now the biggest swing voter group in America?
	The biggest group deciding whether to vote at all.
	Whether to vote Trump or Kennedy.
	It's that exact same working class, minority, millennial and Zoomer vote.
	And they have disproportionately experienced.
	Direct and deliberate harm by this vaccine.
	So anybody pretending that the vaccine has no political consequence are ignoring the realities of this.
	And I'll add one little component for those people out there, because I was here at this conference.
	You meet people who have been injured by the vaccine, hurt by the vaccine, know someone close to them that's injured and hurt by them.
	You look them in the eye and tell them it doesn't matter.
	So, you know, I mean, these people are in dangerous levels of delusion that endanger President Trump's campaign and presidency by saying, okay, I just want to pretend that President Trump is perfect and never made any mistakes in his life.
	Quit doing it.
	You're not helping Trump, you're not helping America, and you're ignoring the real pain of real people.
	This is a big issue, and you're starting to see it reflected and represented in the courts.
	The courts are cognizant of what's happening in the court of public opinion.
	That's why you're seeing these shifting, this Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that has historically been extraordinarily pro-employer, saying no more, all these lawsuits should be going forward for religious discrimination concerning employer vaccine mandates.
	Now you have the Ninth Circuit, which has been one of the more pro-vaccine courts in the country, saying, by the way, these vaccine mandates don't fly if this vaccine isn't in fact a vaccine and doesn't prevent transmission.
	And down deep, we all know it doesn't prevent transmission.
	So, yeah, the script has flipped, and things are going to continue to move in the right direction on vaccine liability and accountability.
	And anybody in politics that's smart, that's the side they will be on, not the side of denial and delusion and big food and big pharma.
	All right, amazing.
	Now, Robert, I pulled myself from the stream because I'm trying to figure things out.
	In terms of how we end on Rumble, and I don't want to refresh on studio because I don't want to kill the entire stream.
	I'm going to do one thing.
	Okay, I think we're going to go over to rumble and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	The link is in the pinned comment up in YouTube, and I think everybody's pretty much there anyhow.
	If you want to come directly to Locals, I'm going to bring it there.
	That's what I wanted to do.
	I wanted to read some of the chat first.
	Hold on.
	Locals here.
	Boom.
	Let me read some of the chat because it's not saving all of the donation chat, so I'm going to read it just straight from Viva Barnes Law.
	Ten bucks from JoeSap23.
	Robert, where did you eat in Denver?
	Lots of great restaurants.
	I hear they have lots of great steakers.
	Oh, they have a great cigar bar here at the Brown Palace.
	A bunch of us from the Freedom Conference crashed it last night.
	They let it stay there like two hours after closing.
	So we had some great cigars, so they have a great cognac list, great scotch list, and it was old school.
	Denver likes to pretend it's an old cowboy country kind of thing, frontier town.
	Most of them are soy boys who like to pretend to be surfers and skiers and whatever, skaters.
	But the old school Denver has a little bit here, and the Churchill Cigar Bar has cigars there too, a pretty good cigar list.
	It was fantastic.
	So that was great.
	Otherwise, I didn't get a chance, unfortunately, to get to experience the Denver dining scene, which does have some high accommodations and recommendations.
	Gantet $5 says, is there any hope for Alex Jones winning an appeal for these ridiculous rulings against him?
	We got to that one already.
	Yeah, he should.
	He should, but the appeals court in Austin is a joke.
	The Connecticut Court of Appeals is a joke.
	So we'll see whether he needs either the Texas Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court to step in.
	And maybe when they see what all this was about, what it was a complete scam just to shut them down, maybe they'll do the right thing and reinforce the First Amendment to the Constitution that they've abandoned in these cases.
	The Alex Jones cases violated the First Amendment, period.
	Will Rogers says, please look at the work of Marley Hornick and Harry Aurey.
	Of United Sovereign Americans.
	Viva Marley would be a great interview.
	The legal strategy brings federal civil rights lawsuits in a minimum of 11 states, 9 appeals courts, districts before the 24 election.
	The goal is to obtain temporary restraining orders against the continued illegal certification of non-certifiable elections.
	The expected different rulings would make it possible for an automatic writ of certiorari to SCOTUS.
	I've screen grabbed it.
	Is Looney Ludig worth a Hush Hush episode, Robert?
	Or have you already done one, says Ithaca 37 Cato?
	Not yet.
	I do want to get back to that.
	I've got one coming on the Titanic.
	Who or what really sunk it?
	I've got a Hush Hush coming on a bunch of topics.
	But Looney Ludig is probably worth his own one.
	I'm going to blast through some of these and rumble.
	Joe Crowell, would Barnes be Trump's district attorney and run the DOJ if asked?
	Robert, you would obviously say this.
	Oh, sure.
	There's a bunch of great people lining up.
	And Trump has great people in his camp and rogue actors in his camp.
	And there's a devil on one shoulder and a lot of angels on the other.
	And we want him to listen to the angels.
	Well, there could be no one better than you, Robert.
	We'll see.
	One can always hope.
	Oh, look at this.
	We got it right up at the top.
	King of Biltong.
	Good afternoon from Anton's Meat and Eat.
	10% off with code VIVA10 for your Biltong on www.biltongusa.com and www.antonusa.com.
	If your purchase already qualifies for free shipping, use this code.
	Grandpa's Place.
	Facebook Post Notice if they declare a mistrial with Double Jeopardy attached, then the Democrats get to say Trump is a convicted felon who got off on a technicality.
	We're going to talk about that in a second.
	In April 1775, British soldiers fired on colonists, which resulted in several declarations of independence being written.
	May 1775, the Mecklenburg, June the Lancaster, July New Hampshire.
	V6 Neon 1773T.
	Now that's a bit of salty for us Brits.
	LOL.
	What's the view from your side of the pond on the EU elections?
	French president spat his dummy out and called a snap general election just like the UK PM.
	Ginger Ninja.
	Robert, I was told by Matt Christensen that he'd love to interview you about Amos Miller and your food freedom case.
	He wants to put it on blast.
	I think you're able to make time for that interview.
	Matt G. Hammond says, you missed my super chat.
	Yeah, I unfortunately think I'm going to have missed all of the super chats because they were not kept in the Rumble studio.
	So that's a note that I'm going to have to make.
	If the American people really want their medical care system back, we must break the power of the AMA and their medical central policies.
	Okay, sorry about all the super chats because I can't seem to find them.
	And they were not kept on the donation list.
	So sorry about that.
	I'll tinker with that and make sure they make the change.
	Okay.
	Right now we are ending on YouTube and Twitter.
	So I'm going to go here.
	No, that's bringing the window up.
	Okay.
	I'll figure this out sooner than later, people.
	But hold on.
	I go to here.
	And then I go Rumble and Locals.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Come on over.
	And that's where the party will be.
	Then we're going to have the locals supporters only afterwards.
	Ending and updating, so we're losing it on YouTube and Twitter.
	Come on over to Rumble or vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Robert!
	Oh, that was an hour on the nose virtually.
	The Facebook post and Judge Marchand, who...
	Look, I'm borrowing a lot from Alex Jones' brain, but this is something I knew from before.
	Like, when someone's corrupt...
	And you know they're corrupt and you know they're liars.
	You either can predict that they are always lying or if they're telling the truth for whatever fluke reason, there's a strategically beneficial reason to them for which they're telling the truth.
	Judge Marchand issues this letter on Friday that apparently on the United Court Services website, I don't know what the hell this is.
	It's a court website, Facebook page.
	Some anonymous troll whomever shit poster comes up and says, my cousin's on the jury.
	Trump's getting convicted.
	Nice work, fellas.
	That's the post on the Facebook page of an unrelated United Court System post on their Facebook feed.
	And Judge Marchand sees it.
	It comes to his attention.
	And he issues this letter to counsel.
	It's come to my attention that there's a Facebook post and yada yada.
	I don't need it.
	There was no...
	Conclusion, call to action?
	There was nothing.
	What the hell was the purpose of that letter?
	I thought it was fake at first, but it turns out it's true.
	Robert, what the hell?
	There was no call to action in the judge's letter.
	What's the purpose of him doing it?
	If they declare a mistrial, is it in fact a mistrial with double jeopardy so they can't retry him?
	And does the judge see the writing on the wall and is now playing dirty, dirty judicial politics to get out of the mess that he's made?
	A mistrial would not be double jeopardy, so they could re-prosecute him.
	The general rules are, in New York it's a little bit different on the state side than the federal side because we discussed this in part during the Ghislaine Maxwell case where questions arose about a juror potentially misrepresenting facts in the jury selection part of the process.
	There's also different evidentiary rules about what is admissible in investigating potential juror misconduct.
	Now, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that for Fifth and Sixth Amendment reasons, the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment rights to a trial by jury, which includes a right to confront witnesses, and the rest, that you combine the two and you're entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
	And that is what this post raises doubts about.
	It raises doubts as to whether or not this was in fact an impartial jury.
	So usually the issues that come up in the juror context are, did the juror lie to get on the jury?
	Did the juror introduce extrajudicial, prejudicial information to the other jurors during deliberation or they themselves did so?
	Were they in fact biased and not impartial all the way through?
	Did they violate their oath not to communicate anything about the subject matter of the case to outsiders or third parties?
	The Supreme Court has said when there's third-party contact of any kind, then the effect of it is that there's a presumption of prejudice that applies.
	You don't assume there's no prejudice.
	You don't require the defendant to prove prejudice.
	You automatically presume prejudice.
	So once you presume prejudice, The burden then shifts to the government to prove that this third-party contact did not, in fact, materially prejudice the defendant.
	In other words, there was no extrajudicial information that the juror used as part of deliberation or shared with other jurors, that there's no evidence of bias here by the fact of the third-party communication and information, that there was no violation of the oath.
	That was prejudicial to the defendant because of this course of conduct.
	There's a requirement of a notice, requirement of a hearing, requirement of an investigation to be done, and it becomes the government's burden to prove that it was harmless to the defendant.
	Now, in that process, they're limited as to what juror deliberation information they can get into, but they're not as limited as the federal courts limited.
	The federal courts make it almost impossible to get into juror deliberation.
	This issue came up in the Snipes case.
	Because in the Snipes criminal tax trial, nine of the 12 jurors wanted to vote not guilty on all charges.
	Three jurors were holding out.
	The three jurors confessed during juror deliberations to one of the other jurors that they lied to get on the jury.
	That in fact they were biased against Snipes the entire time and they were going in there to try to convict Snipes regardless of what the evidence showed.
	This happened, it was Roger Stone as well, right?
	Where the jury foreperson had made...
	Prejudicial or politically biased Facebook posts, and it was revealed after conviction.
	Correct.
	So what should happen, now in the federal system, the way they get out of this is they don't allow you to inquire as to what happened in jury deliberations, and it becomes difficult to prove the case.
	Notable exception, again, third-party contact information.
	Third-party contact information triggers an automatic presumption of prejudice, that now it's on the burden of the prosecution to prove harmless.
	With a evidentiary hearing usually required.
	So the judge knows by sending this out, he's going to see what the response is.
	What does the defense say?
	What does the prosecution say?
	Prosecution will probably try to say no evidence that this person's statement is true.
	So we don't know that the juror did anything improper or communicated improperly.
	But the defense most likely will say we have to have an investigation because this is plausible information.
	That a juror engaged in third-party contact that reflects and reveals the bias and prejudice of the juror and the juror's violation of their oath and likely lied during jury selection.
	And in New York, here's what is admissible: whether extraneous prejudicial information was ever introduced to the jury, any misconduct that could have prejudiced the jury.
	And any bias that could have prejudiced the juror, you can ask about deliberations if it goes to those three subject matters in New York under state law.
	So what's interesting is, here's the practical issue.
	You dig through the law, it's very one-sided when they apply the law.
	So if it hurts the government, then they're very affirmative and assertive about juror misconduct issues.
	So look at the Tyco mistrial in New York in state court.
	So because the juror appeared to be pro-defendant, by golly, we had to declare a mistrial right away in that case.
	So if you get a juror that was acquitted in some cases, they try to go back in and set aside those verdicts.
	Normally they really can't, so instead they prosecute and try to say that there was a bias leading up to it.
	But if there was no verdict yet, they get pro-defendant jurors kicked on these grounds all the time and get mistrials declared on this all the time.
	But when it helps the government, the juror misconduct, all of a sudden the courts are like, well, you know, we got to respect the jury verdict.
	So that's the practical political hurdle you have.
	But constitutionally, if it is in fact the case that this juror was communicating information with the third party during deliberations, Or on the eve of deliberations, then this was that revealed bias and prejudice of the juror and revealed the juror likely lied to get on the jury and likely revealed the juror's violation of their oath as a juror.
	Then those are all independent grounds and then an aggregate, no doubt, grounds to declare a mistrial unless they can show it's harmless and I don't see how they could.
	The only question is, will this court continue to make this joke of a proceeding even a bigger and worse joke?
	Will the court follow through on the law or not?
	We'll see.
	But we all knew that these were biased, prejudiced jurors, but they're too stupid to keep their mouth shut.
	I'm still predicting it's not an authentic, genuine post.
	I think it's going to be some shit poster.
	My concern is that the judge is going to use it as some sort of pretext to not ratify, but continue or enhance the gag order pending the appeal.
	He's going to say, look at these people being motivated by Trump and his tweets that they're now Phoning in, dropping fake Facebook messages.
	We need to maintain the gag order.
	Use it somehow to try and continue to hammer home and maintain this gag order.
	But I think it's going to turn out to be fake.
	I don't think it will turn out to be fake.
	It will depend on whether they can track it.
	And the reason is because it was put on the uniform judicial site.
	A site that very few people follow except the judges' employees themselves.
	Number one.
	Number two, the way it was phrased.
	I think it would have been phrased other ways if it was a true trollish behavior.
	And then third, the person deleted it very quickly as soon as there was attention brought to it.
	So that's not your typical troll behavior.
	So I would say 75% chance it's true.
	Okay, interesting.
	Well, our bets are in.
	We'll see.
	I always bet on Barnes, but I've made my own prediction and I'm not changing it now.
	Alright, so that's the Facebook post.
	On the good news, the Georgia case ain't going anywhere anytime soon.
	So they've set arguments for what?
	Well, they've permanently, or at least permanently, they've temporarily suspended it.
	They paused it formally until there's adjudication.
	Dude, if Fannie's going to get disqualified, and I'm going to be the smartest guy in the room, and I'm not letting anybody forget, they dragged me over the coals when McAfee didn't have the balls to do what he had to do.
	If it happens in the long run, I still claim victory.
	But yeah, so that's been put on pause formally until the...
	I think the arguments are, what, in October?
	So definitely nothing happening until November.
	Right.
	You're following the Hunter Biden drug charge?
	I mean, I knew that you were going to have constitutional issues with this, and I read that question on the gun application, and I've got a problem with it.
	Or at the very least...
	I can understand how someone is filling out that form and reads the question, are you an unlawful user or an addict?
	And he's like, well, I'm not using now, and I don't think I'm an addict.
	I think I've got everything under control.
	I just got out of rehab.
	So I don't think that I should take this box off.
	And now you're going to go criminally prosecute him.
	The trial is a total, total shit show.
	Tell me one thing.
	Obviously, I respect your opinion almost more than my own.
	Jill Biden flying in and out from Normandy back to the trial to sit there in the jury, in the trial room, the courtroom.
	Is that a question of supporting her son, Robert, or is that what I think it is, absolute jury intimidation?
	I mean, given that she and her stepson hate each other, I don't think it's for him.
	I think it is to remind the jury who he is, potentially for a verdict.
	Though I think that there's a part of the Biden administration, I think Joe Biden himself actually wants his son convicted in one of these two cases because he wants control and makes sure Hunter doesn't go talking.
	That as long as Hunter is subject to criminal prosecution or punishment, then he's got to stay on the good side of daddy so daddy can issue the commutation or pardon of the sentence when it comes due.
	And I think that's what this is all about.
	It's my hunch, you know, pure speculation in that regard.
	And I suspect she's there as a political signal of some sort.
	But what it all means?
	Good question.
	But there are Second, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment problems.
	I think the Hunter Biden prosecution is unconstitutional, to put it simply.
	All right, so now...
	Okay, so he's being three felony charges, lying on a firearm application, submitting it, and possessing a firearm when he should not have been in possession of a firearm because he's a drug addict and whatever.
	I mean, are they raising the constitutionality or the ambiguity of the law?
	I think they said there's no Second Amendment in this courtroom either.
	I mean, what's your take?
	Do you think he's going to get convicted regardless of how you feel about the law?
	Is he going to get convicted or is he going to get acquitted because politics trumps?
	And what do you think of the merits of this case?
	I mean, I think Abby Lowell gets this big reputation, friends with Dershowitz.
	I've been utterly unimpressed by Lowell's defense, both in the limitation of constitutional issues that have been raised.
	I think a lot more robust arguments should have been made.
	And the trial presentation is all over the place.
	You know, granted, I haven't been there in court.
	I haven't witnessed it, so I'm relying on secondhand information from Jonathan Turley and others.
	But Turley has been like, I don't know what the defense even is.
	Because if it is a nullification defense, not even a consistent nullification defense.
	And they're coming up with excuses.
	They get shot down immediately.
	You know, it's the old, well, he wasn't really high.
	Well, he never really did drugs.
	Well, he wasn't using them at the time.
	Well, you know, it's just like they get disproved by witness after witness after witness.
	You'd almost think Lowell was setting him up to get convicted.
	And you might want to wonder about some of Lowell's connections and what's really going on here behind the scenes.
	Because either Lowell's reputation is way overrated or he's throwing the case.
	That's how I take it.
	But I would have defended him differently.
	I would have focused on the constitutional issues first and foremost.
	But there is a way to defend a drug addict filling out that form.
	Every drug addict thinks they're never going to use drugs again.
	Every drug addict thinks they're not an addict.
	They lie to themselves more than they lie to anybody.
	And they're fantastic at it.
	And they're so good at it.
	They think they're lying to other people when other people are like, it's kind of obvious that you're doing something.
	But they think no one else notices.
	The best depiction of this, of all time, is Wolf of Wall Street.
	Remember, he thinks he drives the car home perfectly and perfectly parks it.
	He got me in that movie and then he comes back and his Lamborghini is totally totaled.
	Yeah, he destroyed everything everywhere that he was driving through.
	That's the delusion, the level of denial.
	So you pick a jury that could be sympathetic with that, maybe sympathetic for political reasons because it's a Biden being prosecuted in Delaware, maybe sympathetic because of his tough life history, which you can sort of introduce as the addict.
	I'd put an addict expert up there to explain how do they deny these things?
	How do they lie to themselves?
	And every juror is probably going to know somebody this is absolutely true of in their own lives.
	So it's like, yeah, when he filled out that form.
	He believed he was never going to use unlawful drugs again.
	Yeah, he believed he wasn't in that because that's what he believed every single day in between using drugs.
	We all know it.
	We all experience it.
	So when I saw Lowell not present anything like that, I was like, okay, either this guy's reputation is way overblown or he's throwing the case.
	So take your own inference.
	But the constitutional issues are the big issues, and too many conservatives are abandoning those issues because of the name of the defendant.
	Well, the constitutionality of it.
	I understand people saying, why would someone who uses illegal drugs not be allowed to own a firearm?
	There was that ruling.
	It's in this case, the same judge who issued a 10-page ruling saying, drug addicts are akin to mentally ill people, and therefore it's not a constitutional violation to deny them Second Amendment rights.
	Two massive problems.
	Now, she said that only as to a facial challenge.
	So she said that there are situations where it could be constitutional, but she wasn't ruling that it's always constitutional because the Eighth Circuit did the same thing.
	The Fifth Circuit said it's always unconstitutional, and the Fifth Circuit is right.
	What these courts are ruling that are saying that there may be some scenario where it's constitutional, they all admit that there's no law historically.
	That made it illegal for you to be an unlawful user of any product and be prohibited from your Second Amendment rights of self-defense and gun ownership.
	Every court has admitted that.
	That's the standard under Bruin.
	So instead, they go and say, well, let's try to pretend that illegal drug use is more like being mentally ill.
	Because they also realize that they don't want alcoholics.
	To suddenly be stripped of gun defense.
	They know how dangerous that is.
	So like, oh, this would never apply to alcohol.
	But it could apply to drug use because really, that's like being crazy.
	Well, it's not.
	But let's put that aside.
	Then they cite the fact, well, you know, in our history, we used to abuse the hell out of the mentally ill.
	We used to violate their constitutional rights every day.
	So let's go back to violating more people's rights because, look, we used to screw over the people we call crazy.
	It's like, what in the world?
	Yeah, you're right.
	The courts used to, and state governments used to, illegally imprison people on the determination that we're going to call somebody crazy without a trial and strip them of all their constitutionalism.
	This is like the Jacobson trilogy of infamy decisions.
	This is like citing Korematsu.
	Well, we can definitely deprive people of their Second Amendment rights if we consider them dangerous, because we locked people up because they were Japanese, because we consider them dangerous.
	That's not a precedent you should ever be citing.
	So these are absurd precedents to be cited.
	But putting that aside, they're raising now the as-applied challenge.
	And here, it seems quite straightforward to me.
	And all the crimes are derivatives of the original crime.
	If it's a violation of the Second Amendment to make it a crime, To condition gun ownership on never using drugs, unlawful use of drugs.
	Because by the way, it's both.
	It's not just being an addict.
	You can't unlawfully use any controlled substance and have your Second Amendment rights.
	There's no constitutional basis for that.
	There's no historical basis for that.
	Unless you're going to say any use of controlled substances ever makes you indistinguishable from a Institutionally insane individual.
	The problem is there's already separate laws governing the institutionally insane.
	So pretending that it's analogous is just a cop-out by courts that are acting with cowardice rather than constitutional courage.
	And that infects the entire proceeding.
	The other thing is, this strikes me as an Eighth Amendment violation on the same grounds that the homelessness issue is before the Supreme Court currently.
	Hold on, let me just go.
	Let me go Google the Eighth Amendment.
	I forget which one that is.
	Excessive bail will not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
	And what is a cruel and unusual punishment?
	It was a California law.
	I think it was the Robinson case, if I recall the citation correctly, where they made it a crime to have ever used drugs or to be a user of drugs, even if you weren't using drugs.
	And the Supreme Court said, that's cruel and unusual punishment.
	Because that's saying something that's involuntary status as the basis of criminal prosecution or punishment.
	Isn't that what this is?
	So I think there's an Eighth Amendment violation here.
	And then I think there's a Fifth Amendment due process violation here because the government signed a deal.
	Now, I think the government never should have signed the deal.
	But once the government signed the deal, they should, in the Mad Max terminology, face the wheel.
	That the Fifth Amendment requires that they honor their contract not to prosecute them for these charges, which they are violating by continuing to pursue them because their deal got set aside.
	But I think that when it got set aside, it was not constitutional to punish the defendant for that.
	So I think that the entire indictment of Hunter Biden violates the second, fifth, and eighth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and a constitutionally courageous court would throw it out.
	It's amazing.
	And Abby Lowell, L-O-W-E-L-L?
	Yep.
	Very politically connected lawyer who's doing a peculiar job in this case.
	I'm going back to my sitcom about two disgruntled, abused children who are doing their best to take down their father and are foiled at every attempt because of the intelligence.
	What would...
	Foiled Biden's attempt to take down his father to sabotage him.
	Lock him up for this.
	Maybe, pardon, I don't even care about that.
	There would never be a prosecution for the tax issues, which seem to be lapsed in any event, and that spares his father the meaningful takedown.
	You make more sense than...
	You make a lot of sense, Robert.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, what do you think?
	Getting convicted or not?
	The defense is so bad, I think he gets convicted.
	We disagree with you.
	We have now two opposite predictions in one show.
	I'm saying he gets not just hung jury, acquitted.
	I would say a 65% chance.
	So I'd give him two to one odds of conviction.
	I'm going to go to predicted and see if I can put my money where my mouth is.
	Oh, Robert!
	I don't know what the news was, but J.D. Vance went up a lot in predicted for the VP pick.
	Tim Scott still number one at 22 cents, which I don't know.
	That'd be a disaster.
	Total disaster.
	All right, so that's it.
	You think he's going to...
	As we say in French, rien ne va plus.
	The bets are in.
	We'll see what happens.
	What do we have next, Robert?
	We got a bunch of SCOTUS cases, Kansas voter fraud, smart meters, some VBL, Viva Barnes Law tip questions from Felicia about corrupt state actors, from Will about state election law, from some other folks about the Uvalde.
	This may be a good transition.
	Talk about stupid suits.
	The Uvalde plaintiff's lawyers trolling for cash in honor of dead kids.
	Do you see who they're suing now?
	No, I'm just trying to guess.
	The police force?
	FedEx.
	They're suing FedEx and UPS.
	For delivering the firearms?
	Yes.
	Can you imagine that?
	I mean, this is ridiculousness.
	Ridiculousness.
	I mean, this has got to end at some point.
	I mean, it's supposed to be that the firearm company, you know, immunity by federal law was supposed to put Cabot in this, but this is because of the gun-hating left, that they're looking for every excuse to blame somebody somewhere else that has some money that they can shake down for cash, and as part of their broader war on guns.
	Blame parents if their kids do anything wrong, like the Michigan case, and those parents get locked up for however long.
	I think that's a long sentence they were being sentenced to.
	But now, suing at FedEx and UPS because of what was shipped, because a gun was shipped that was lawfully shipped?
	This is ridiculousness.
	It's an attempt to undermine and sabotage the Second Amendment by greedy plaintiff's lawyers standing on the graves of dead kids.
	That's unbelievable.
	I hadn't heard that.
	Robert, let me actually, now that you mention it, I still think I can share here.
	I can't.
	Sorry, you're seeing the gnats on my arm.
	Randy Edwards said, gun drug laws are the result of Democrats' legislative efforts.
	The hypocrisy of the Democrat Party is the real issue here.
	It's only illegal if our adversaries do it.
	Mark of reality, Bruin is Thomas' trap for the progressive gun grabbers.
	All gun control relates back to Crookshank.
	Where they took gun rights away from freed slaves for safety.
	Denise Antu, Second Amendment says, shall not be infringed.
	I hope he's acquitted on the gun charge.
	He definitely deserves to be tried for other crimes, but not this one.
	And then, wouldn't it be wonderful if the Hunter Biden gun case were used to nullify the state-level gun control across the nation?
	Now we need to get rid of the NFA.
	That's from Mark of Reality.
	So the million-dollar question, is New York going to render sentencing, or is it in limbo due to possible...
	Juror misconduct.
	It should be put in limbo pending it, but you don't know with this rogue judge.
	Interesting.
	Okay.
	Let me take this out.
	And Robert, let me see in Viva Barnes Law.
	Go to the tipped here since I think we can.
	Ganfit says, does it make more sense for Hunter to be convicted while father is still president so he can get a pardon?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Wait until after election day to make sure Hunter is a good boy.
	It's unbelievable.
	RetreadMedic says, Robert Gouveia said he investigated the poster and it turns out he's a paid shit poster.
	That was yesterday afternoon.
	I don't know if there's an update on that.
	Barnes, do you think Mike Davis would be a great attorney general if not you?
	I've heard him many times say he wants to go after the other side legally, of course.
	Would love to see him back on this channel again.
	We can have him back on.
	What do you say about that, Robert?
	Mike Davis?
	Oh yeah, he's great.
	Ithaca37Cato, five bucks.
	Questions over Trump lawfare.
	Is it legal for a prosecutor to keep adding charges after the court strikes down all of his current charges?
	If legal, can prosecutors keep adding charges against you forever?
	I'll let you answer these.
	Where's such prosecutorial forever wars done under Jim Crow?
	Isn't this lawfare a violation of at least the Eighth Amendment, which bars excessive bail, a cruel and neutral punishment?
	Robert, what do you say there?
	Yeah.
	Okay, now you're going to go, you sent me a lot of cases and I'm not saying that I didn't read them.
	I'm just saying I started and then I started falling asleep.
	Now, especially, what was the one?
	The tax one, Robert.
	So this company, I mean, I'm like, oh, this is interesting.
	And then my brain just shuts off.
	It's two brothers who own a company.
	They own shares in the company.
	One of them dies.
	They have insurance policies in place that are specifically set up so that when one dies, the policy pays out the value of the shares.
	So the estate of the deceased buys the shares of the, or no, sorry, It doesn't buy them.
	So the company has the money to redeem the shares of the estate and the money goes to the estate to buy out the shares so that it's one, whoever's surviving owns the company and so they don't have to go into business with third parties.
	I hope that was clear enough.
	That's when I stopped paying attention, Robert.
	What did the IRS come after them for?
	They were taxing the estate of the dead brother for real market value and not the stipulated value of the shares as per the insurance policy?
	That, and they were double taxing them.
	So what happened is they created a...
	So a lot of times you have these family companies that they're worried that if somebody dies, the company's going to be lost and outside the family.
	So they'll agree, okay, whenever I die, it'll be made available so that my shares can be redeemed by the other family members.
	But they knew they needed a funding mechanism for this, and the funding mechanism will create a life insurance policy.
	We'll solve both issues.
	So the life insurance proceeds are being used to pay for the redemption to keep the family business in the family.
	But what the IRS said is we're going to double count that.
	We're going to count the value of the shares as part of the estate value plus the value of the life insurance policy as value.
	So we're going to count what's meant for one source of wealth.
	One $3 million, in this case, transaction becomes a $6 million taxable transaction, where they take a million bucks, which is what the IRS did.
	Supreme Court, often deferential to the IRS in these kind of corporate tax cases, particularly when it's small-scale people, they screwed the brother's family over and said, yeah, that's just fine, and it's your fault you didn't have better tax planning.
	Like us Supreme Court justices have with our buddies and pals who give us discounted deals.
	So it's a reminder that a lot of your asset protection lawyers out there or tax planning or estate planning lawyers, or I call it freedom planning is what it should be, that looks at everything comprehensively.
	Most of them have never defended a case in court.
	Most of them have never attacked a case in court.
	In other words, they haven't tried to set aside a structure in order to help a creditor recover, nor have they ever defended it against a creditor, whether the government or somebody else.
	So consequently, they think they have these super genius little things that look good on paper, and they usually turn out to be crap.
	They usually don't hold up at all.
	95% of asset protection lawyers in America have never defended a plan in court and never attacked a plan in court.
	Their advice is mostly useless.
	And so make sure you get legal counsel that's actually defended cases in court on this, that have actually attacked cases like this in court.
	Otherwise, you'll end up, like this deal could have been structured, so they paid zero tax.
	Instead, they end up paying a million in tax, which could potentially put the business under because of how much is due.
	That's how, and I guarantee you they had some, you know, local, well-respected asset protection counsel.
	Put together this nonsense that got them screwed, sadly, because the IRS is always greedy.
	But that was one of the Supreme Court decisions this week that screwed ordinary people.
	But it wasn't the only one.
	Segue us into the next one.
	And if I remember it, I'll do a very quick summary.
	So they decided to recognize creditor standing for insurance companies in bankruptcy cases.
	So when you have a reorganization, there are certain parties that recognize creditors that have a right to vote and to veto a reorganization plan.
	And there's something called a cramdown, where this is partially what's being considered in the Alex Jones case.
	The judge forces the reorganization plan on an unwilling, unconsenting creditor.
	But he has to meet certain standards in order to do it.
	During that process, there are people that are potential, that might have an interest, might be impacted by the proceeding, but don't have a voice or a veto.
	And for good cause, quite frankly.
	Well, these insurance companies are like, hey, we're impacted by whatever happens in bankruptcy.
	This, I think, was an asbestos case.
	And so we want to be able to come and object.
	And the bankruptcy court, the Supreme Court said, yeah, you can.
	Said, no, you don't have a veto, you don't have a formal vote, but you have standing to intervene and muck up an entire bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of these poor, big insurance companies that struggle so badly.
	So in my view, they're screwing over debtors to favor creditors, which is what they usually do in bankruptcy.
	Okay, interesting.
	Let me go to the list of our things here.
	Owen Troyer's First Amendment case the Supreme Court did not take up.
	What's amazing is the media that were gleeful about this.
	I was on talking about it on InfoWars with Owen Troyer this week.
	The War Room is the Owen Troyer show.
	Even if something happens and InfoWars is not broadcasting in its current form in a couple of weeks, they'll all be back one way, shape, or form.
	Don't worry.
	There's other places you can follow Owen Troyer.
	He already has set up independent separate channels on Rumble and other places.
	And also, just to clarify for everyone who's concerned, Owen Schroyer no longer part of the Sandy Hook trial, judgment, verdict, or anything.
	So he can make whatever living he can make free of garnishment.
	The Sandy Hook lawyers are suing him again on something else.
	Shut up, Robert.
	And demanding to depose him.
	As if they haven't deposed him enough.
	Exactly, exactly.
	It's that same loony guy.
	The same guy that belongs in a nut house.
	That's the lawyer.
	And they brought a case in Austin, Texas against everybody else, like Fox, a bunch of other people.
	They threw Owen in because it was the only way they could sue in state court in Austin.
	It's a rogue case brought for rogue reasons, as is typical.
	But as I told people, you always file with the Supreme Court because it's not often you get to say hello to every single Supreme Court justice and their law clerks.
	You can influence future decisions on future cases.
	And don't let the fact that the odds are 100 to 1 against you of the Supreme Court taking your case deter you.
	Yeah, it costs, you know, five, ten grand just to print out the little booklets that you got to print out, all that.
	But that's the only hurdle.
	And if there's any good cause or good issues in your case, if you can afford the five, six, seven, whatever it is, the grand to pay for the printing cost, do it.
	And we'll see if it shows up in the presidential immunity cases, the January 6th cases, the Missouri versus Biden case, because I think we made good arguments that might translate to those other cases.
	So credit to Owen Troyer for willing to continue to fight it.
	Children's Health Defense case against the FDA has now been scheduled for the Supreme Court to discuss toward the end of June.
	And they've scheduled three or four other cases that are along the same lines, which suggests the possibility that there's going to be one of these cases that they're going to take.
	For those that don't remember, this is Children's Health Defense Against the Food and Drug Administration, and they're lying to the American people about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine for children under the age of 12. So the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the District Court said nobody's allowed to sue the FDA.
	We're saying we should be allowed to sue the FDA.
	We were the one targeted for this false representation and misinformation by the FDA.
	The fact that putting other cases on the docket at the same time strongly gives a better-than-average shock that either this case or a related case gets taken, which might reestablish law in America on those grounds.
	So that's more of the white pill news in the Supreme Court this week.
	And then this was an interesting case.
	Indian tribes.
	So Indian tribes have a structure where they can implement federal programs themselves, and there are certain reimbursement requirements.
	And the feds, for a long time, they're always figuring out ways to screw Indian tribes.
	That's what they sit around and do at the Indian Health Service.
	Remember, the Indian Health Service conspired for decades to illegally euthanize and sterilize Native American women by lying to them about what the medical proceeding was.
	And they were doing that all the way through the 1970s.
	That's who these federal Bureau of Indian Affairs people are like.
	Bottom of the barrel.
	Well, the issue came about reimbursement because they were getting screwed.
	The Indian tribes were getting screwed on reimbursement despite what would appear to be a congressional mandate for reimbursement.
	Well, it ended up being a 5-4 split.
	And the most interesting, not a surprise, the three liberals went with the Indian tribe.
	The other one that went with Indian tribes is Gorsuch.
	Gorsuch saw a lot of this firsthand when he was on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, that where I am here in Denver, Colorado, seeing a lot of tribes get screwed in cases that went in front of him.
	That was the value of litigating, as I'm talking about, bringing cases to the Court of Public Opinion, bringing cases to the attention of the judges, because some judges will start to see a pattern and realize the issue.
	What's interesting is Roberts chose to side with Kavanaugh.
	Because Alito, quite frankly, Alito and Thomas have never been good on Indian tribe issues.
	Unsurprisingly, Kavanaugh and Barrett were like, oh, the poor executive branch of the government that's put under such terrible burden.
	No surprise there.
	But what was interesting is Roberts, who's often on the executive branch side, chose the side with Gorsuch and the liberals for the Indian tribe.
	So we'll see how much that might show up in other cases as this shakes out.
	Over the next couple of weeks where we've got some big, big, big cases coming down the pipeline.
	We've got the immunity one that we're still waiting for.
	But, Robert, I don't want to go too far down a rabbit hole.
	What's the broader context or the context at all about sterilizing Native American women?
	Oh, they did it through the Indian Health Service and they disguised it as something it wasn't.
	It was part of the eugenicist agenda that continued through the 70s.
	And what people don't realize is the eugenics agenda continued in America just a little bit under the radar at women's prisons and in the Bureau of Indian Affairs all the way through the early 70s until they were caught and exposed.
	Hmm.
	Okay.
	I mean, there should have been consequence, but there mostly hasn't because the...
	Courts have come up with various immunity defenses to excuse this horrendous behavior.
	We had something similar with the residential schooling system in Canada where they were experimenting on native kids and taking them from their homes.
	And they did it over the course of 90 plus, maybe 100 years, up to as recently as 1996.
	And then an apology.
	There was a settlement.
	And trust the government now when they mandate a jab on...
	Well, speaking of which, that's a new area of law that I'm getting into.
	But I even saw people on our board that were like, oh, Barnes, don't worry about this.
	You know, trust the government.
	And I was like, where have you been in the last five years?
	But in the smart meter context, a lot of people don't know.
	That these utility companies are at the behest and behalf of the government sticking these so-called smart meters on your home.
	And these smart meters not only emit a certain kind of frequency that can cause health problems, but in addition, they're gathering information constantly on what you're doing inside your home.
	And it's become part of the control grid.
	So in Pennsylvania...
	The courts interpreted the smart meter law to be a mandate, even though it didn't appear that's what the legislature ever intended.
	But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said, don't worry, there's a reasonable accommodation exception.
	So anybody that's truly bothered and feels it's unreasonable or unsafe, you can, with the lowest threshold of evidence, no demand, preponderance of the evidence, you can just show that it's either unsafe or unreasonable and you need a reasonable accommodation.
	Well, so a bunch of people in Pennsylvania have been doing that.
	What's happening?
	They're being all denied.
	Even in this case, where a woman suffered direct physical medical consequences from the very time the installation of the smart meter was put in, and when she had sworn testimony from her own personal medical practitioner, her doctor, that this was the source of her causing, it was unsafe for her to have it there, and the testimony of other experts, they said, nah, Unless you have conclusive proof of causation beyond any question or doubt.
	This is the old excuse of big tobacco.
	This is the old excuse of big polluters.
	A civil action details as well.
	Unless you can rule out everything else, then we get away with it.
	Even when we have a cancer cluster that's eight times the average.
	Well, maybe it was just that community likes to do this or that.
	And then I see some people on the board that they're thinking that this is not a big issue.
	They need to do their research.
	And especially they said, "Don't worry, the government's on top of it, Robert." I don't think that's going to be the answer.
	So we brought this one particular petition.
	We're also challenging on a privacy ground.
	This is an invasion of privacy.
	That's unconstitutional.
	You go back to the COCO decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that said using infrared red into people's homes violated their Fourth Amendment rights, violated their right to privacy.
	That's what this is, and most people have no idea.
	I mean, I had no idea.
	These smart meters were telling us, when did you use this?
	When did you go here?
	When did you do this?
	Who was connected here?
	Who was here?
	They're gathering intel on you constantly.
	And who are they sharing it with?
	I mean, do we trust them not to share this data with other...
	Corporate entities.
	Exactly.
	They're not disclosing who they're sharing it with.
	So they're getting it without informed consent.
	They're getting it without probable cause.
	And then they're sharing it illicitly in ways that violate your right to privacy.
	So we're challenging on both grounds.
	We'll see if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court does anything.
	And if not, we'll take it up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	But 1776 Law Center is going to get into the smart meter because contact, legal contact.
	Because they're systematically screwing people over that goes to their medical freedom and screwing them over when it comes to their political freedom.
	So it's an intersection of issues of importance.
	And then they threaten them with cutting off any access to critical energy if they don't go along, which I think is a separate due process violation.
	All right, Robert, I'm setting up some stuff for the locals after party.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'll give you the link and I got some clips.
	What do we have next, Robert?
	We got a couple of them.
	So we got some tipped questions from the community about corrupt state actors, the Reed case, the St. Louis gun couple, the state attorney generals dealing with corruption investigations.
	But we also got a beautiful case out of the state of Kansas from the Kansas Supreme Court on voter fraud.
	I'm going to post it at some point this week at vibobarnslaw.locals.com.
	Because it is a great case to explain how the Constitution, this is the Constitution of Kansas, but it's true outside of Kansas, how the Constitution is supposed to work when it comes to voter integrity, election integrity, voter fraud issues.
	Okay, well, let's do this last one, and then we're going to end it on Rumble.
	Everyone's got the link to come over to Locals.
	It's going to be supporters only right now because that's the way it's set up in Rumble Studio, and it's going to be fantastic, and I've got a few videos that everyone's going to want to see, and we'll take the tip.
	Robert's got to be out by give or take 8 o 'clock, which is going to be an early show.
	Last topic on Rumble before we go over to locals.
	So yeah, dear Mark Elias, world-renowned money-launderer for the Clinton family.
	It's down to the world-renowned.
	It's getting better and better.
	He's brought suit against Kansas because Kansas passed laws saying you can't imitate an election official.
	You can't harvest more than 10 ballots.
	For somebody else.
	In other words, take their ballots between them and the election office.
	And your signature has got to match if you're voting by mail.
	And they say the ballot can't count if your signature doesn't match.
	Well, Elias said that they have a constitutional right for the Democratic Party to steal elections.
	Now, he didn't put it quite that way.
	The way he put it is a constitutional right against voter fraud laws.
	That that infringes on the fundamental right to vote.
	And the Kansas Supreme Court explained how our entire constitutional process works.
	The power comes from the people through the Constitution back to elected officials to operate and act on behalf of the people.
	And as part of that, there is a right of suffrage, which is separately articulated.
	There is no fundamental right to vote in that way, in that context.
	It's a separate mechanism and method for the people exercising their power as the right of suffrage.
	Which includes the right to make sure that the person voting is, in fact, someone who is constitutionally qualified to vote under the Kansas Constitution.
	And so they said the ballot harvesting laws, the signature match laws, are completely constitutional, that it protects speech and protects election integrity and protects the right to suffrage because your right and your speech is being diluted if there's deception or fraud going on that's outside of the Speech protection, deception, and fraud.
	And in the same context, your vote is being diluted if voter fraud is occurring.
	And so that you absolutely are entitled to make sure the person voting is the actual person voting and that they're the constitutionally qualified person who's voting and a constitutionally qualified method of voting and a constitutionally qualified method of counting and canvassing the ballots, all of which did not happen in 2020.
	So the Kansas Supreme Court did an excellent job breaking that down in a detailed way.
	And Mark Elias loses again.
	Is it going to be on his democracy docket, Robert?
	I wonder that.
	Let me bring this up because I can't do this every time, but when I see it, I can't ignore it.
	At Viva Friday, I guess my $10 in the Open Rumble chat disappeared when you joined.
	It was...
	What thoughts on Jed Rubinfeld's angle before it goes into effect for the federal court to hold off the entry?
	Robert, do you know what this means?
	So Jed Rubinfeld's a great lawyer, good close with Robert Kennedy.
	It was he and Robert Kennedy who brainstormed with some of the rest of us contributing to the Bantam Books decision.
	The Supreme Court just reinforced the Bantam Books doctrine.
	And he's decided to open up a podcast.
	And he's a Yale Law professor who's been targeted because he went after big tech and big government colluding to censor and suppress our speech.
	And now he's extended that to his analysis of the Trump trial.
	And his analysis is that the Trump trial violates a bunch of Trump's constant federal...
	He's on the same path that I'm on.
	That the federal...
	That that should be the focus.
	Yeah, like some people are like, oh, Barnes is missing the New York issues.
	There's plenty of New York issues.
	There's no dispute about that.
	Violation of the New York Constitution.
	Violation of New York statutes.
	Violation of New York rules of evidence.
	All of that agreed.
	The point is you want U.S. federal constitutional issues because that's what the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction over.
	That's what a federal district court or federal appellate court would have jurisdiction over.
	If you brought in original writ of habeas corpus action, like Professor Eastman is talking about, Trump having the right to do in case he's sentenced to any time period of time in prison.
	That is the grounds to have filed an original writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court of the United States.
	But you need U.S. constitutional issues for them to adjudicate.
	And what Rubenfeld is pointing out is he was completely stripped of due notice, of due process.
	Same thing I was arguing, but he highlighted that you have to be told what the crime is before the trial, before it even begins.
	Not be told, maybe it's one of these three.
	To the jury during jury instructions after closing arguments.
	He's like, this is just axiomatic violation.
	This is Kafka's The Trial, where Kafka keeps running around saying, what crime am I even being accused of?
	Oh, you know.
	You know.
	Yes, exactly.
	And so excellent analysis by Jed Rubenfeld.
	Excellent.
	I've worked with him in multiple cases.
	Great guy.
	Great professor.
	Very smart.
	Very committed to the Constitution.
	In a Turley-Dershowitz kind of way.
	And his analysis is, I think, very robust and excellent as well.
	Robert, I'm going to put this one up for a second.
	Let me see if I can do this.
	Put on timer.
	I'm going to answer this.
	You'll answer your side.
	I'll answer my side.
	Viva and Barnes, how do you stay off the deep state radar?
	Please give advice to regular viewers.
	First of all, I take for granted I'm on some form of a radar.
	I just don't have dinners with women alone.
	I don't go to parties.
	I don't leave the house.
	I don't engage in certain behavior that makes it very easy to be targeted.
	But Robert, you have, I mean, now we know.
	And when we had Jones on, Last week, he talked about the degree to which you were targeted in a meaningful way, that they went after him to get to you.
	Do you want to feel the second part of this?
	I live a boring life, people, despite what I look like in exercise and family.
	You can't avoid the radar.
	I've always liked the statement.
	One of my favorite quotes of all time, Medgar Evers.
	I saw this quote when I was seven years old.
	They asked Medgar Evers, for those who don't know, a great civil rights leader who was assassinated.
	But before he was assassinated, they asked him about, look at all these death threats you have.
	And Evers said, well, most men die a thousand deaths every day.
	I'm only going to die once.
	And when I was a kid, I was like, I want to be like Medgar Evers.
	So I think it's a matter of mindset.
	Nelson Mandela taught this.
	If you're free inside, then what happens outside will not have the same adverse impact.
	And I think it's the right approach.
	Robert Kennedy takes that approach.
	Donald Trump takes that approach.
	So that's why I respect and admire both of them.
	So I think that's what you have to do when you're dealing with these kind of corrupt adversaries.
	Well, Jesus, Robert, I'd rather live to 95 than die once.
	My thought process, you go into a restaurant.
	I went into a Thai place after doing The Unusual Suspects.
	I knew where both exits were.
	I made sure no one was sitting behind me.
	I'm a crazy person.
	It's like crazy but functional as opposed to dysfunctionally crazy.
	Okay, this is what we're going to do now.
	We're going to end it on Rumble and it's going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	It's going to be for supporters only because that's the way it's structured via Rumble Studio.
	Come.
	Or don't.
	This will all be published tomorrow.
	We're going to go through the super tap.
	The super tap.
	The super tips of the super chats.
	The tips.
	And we're going to talk about some other stuff.
	You've got to be out, Robert, in about 20 minutes.
	And if we go later, I'll carry it on.
	So now I'm going to go over here, people.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	And I'm clicking it.
	I'm updating the stream.
	And that is it.
	We're ending early tonight, exceptionally.
	Actually, before we do it, Robert, next week, what do you have coming up?
	I'm probably bouncing around.
	We'll see.
	In a judicial sense, not in a deep state exploitation sense.
	Hopefully that trial gets continued, then I'll be back to Vegas and then up to Philly.
	I've got to meet with a bunch of people in Philly.
	We're filing this week our opposition to the government's renewed request to try to prohibit the shutdown Amos Miller.
	They have a new one.
	We're filing our opposition to that.
	We're filing.
	The Pennsylvania Supreme Court took up our illegally imprisoned farmers and like, yes, you're right.
	We do have jurisdiction.
	But it's all moot now because they're out.
	So that's how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handled it.
	So we're going to figure out ways to file federal civil rights actions over those issues to try to prohibit and preclude that from reoccurring again and try to get some other relief and remedy.
	And then there's about several other Pennsylvania cases that I got a conference with people on.
	So we'll try to do bourbons if I get some free time during the week.
	Last week, we had bourbon Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
	I think it's a lot of bourbon.
	Yeah, I think it's a lot of inside information and intel.
	So we'll try to do those at vivabarneslaw.logos.com and some hush-hushes that are coming there, too, on alternative narratives and history.
	But it may be postponed a week or two, depending on what happens in court this week.
	Okay.
	And I will be on Luke Rudkowski Tuesday night with the lectern guy.
	It's going to be fantastic.
	It's fit and fresh.
	I'm either going to be on them Friday or Monday.
	So next Friday or the week from tomorrow, Monday.
	It's going to be fantastic.
	I'm not staying for the bimbo after party because nothing good happens after 10 people.
	All right.
	What we're going to do, I'm going to flavor this up for a second just to show everybody.
	Come on over to VivaBorn's Law and I'm going to answer this question first.
	That's it.
	Entire stream will be up on podcast tomorrow.
	Viva Barnes Law for the People on Podbean.
	I'll post the entire stream on Viva Clips, which is the entire stream.
	And I'll be live tomorrow.
	Maybe.
	Maybe not tomorrow, but definitely Tuesday.
	We're going to answer this question in a second.
	Now I'm going to Rumble Studio.
	Local supporters only.
	Updating the stream.
	Rumble, if you're not coming, peace out.

▲