Ep. 230: Kamala Goes to Border! Klappenstein X Ban! Pennsylvania Corruption & MORE! Viva & Barnes
|
Time
Text
If we're not doing left, right, up, down, we're either going to do the right things or the wrong things.
And so we have to understand the nature of what we're up against here.
And here's the one question that you have to resolve when you're in insolvency approaching bankruptcy, which is the legal proceeding.
Who's going to eat the losses?
That's the question.
Who's going to eat the losses?
They're working on this right now.
They're working really hard at it.
They want to make sure it's you.
And they don't want to eat any of the losses.
So that brings us to the Great Reset.
And the central bank digital currencies is their answer to having really overspent and done terrible things and not been responsible adults.
And when they get the central bank digital currency, let me tell you how it's going to go.
Here's a scenario.
Oh, no.
Markets are down.
Huge. Oh, no.
We had to close the stock market for 48 hours.
Actually, we meant 72. Sorry, it's going to be closed this week.
All your stuff went away, but good news, we have a central bank that loves you, and it's going to make you whole.
Your entire portfolio is now these central bank digital currencies, except this or a zero.
What do you want?
A lot of people will go to zero, and what happens when you have a programmable currency?
You no longer have freedom of spending.
I like freedom of speech.
Huge fan, but we need freedom of spending.
Anybody remember the Canadian truckers?
Yeah, let's not become Canadian truckers.
Let's not become Canadian truckers.
Well, it depends in what way you mean that.
It wouldn't be the worst thing on earth to become a Canadian trucker who ended up at that protest in Ottawa fighting for the freedoms of the rest of Canada, even if they didn't know that they needed people fighting for them.
But what Chris Martinson means is that...
The government freezes your bank accounts and says, sorry, no more spending for you.
For those of you who don't know who that was, I mean, you should know who.
Everybody knows who Chris Martinson is.
That's Dr. Chris Martinson, Peak Prosperity, who was speaking at the...
Oh, geez, the Republic.
It's called Save the Republic?
Hold on, my goodness, I'm totally senile.
It was on the...
It was called Rescue the Republic, not Save the Republic.
Which was going on in DC today.
I was actually asked to speak at it while I was up in California and there was just no feasible way of getting from California back to Florida yesterday and then up to DC today to speak at it.
It would have been absolutely amazing.
But I watched a little bit of it today or I listened to it as I was preparing for tonight's show and I was listening to Chris Martinson and I'm like, there's a man who can connect the dots.
You might think he's crazy.
Holy cows.
Oh, there's going to be a stock market crash, and they're going to have to shut down the markets for a day, two days, a week?
Oh, you're not getting your money back?
You get another Great Depression-like crash.
That's exactly what they're going to do.
And if you listen to the way Chris Martinson describes it, it sounds eerily similar to two weeks to flatten the curve, which we saw turn into two months, into two-plus years to flatten the curve.
And that's what they want to do.
I see an FJT in the house.
That stands for Forget Justin Trudeau.
Support Kayla Pollack.
Someone says in the chat here.
Let me see if I can bring this one up.
So that was going on today.
Rescue the Republican DC.
From what I understand, several thousand people showed up and I listened to Jordan Peterson talk.
I saw Rob Schneider very briefly as I was listening.
There are people who are still speaking up, speaking out, and trying to raise awareness for those who might not know that awareness needs to be arisen.
Good evening, everybody.
Before I even get any further into this, let me just make sure that...
We're live across all the platforms.
Oh, good.
We're on the nice mic.
We are live on Commitube.
Let's see.
Are we live on the Rumbles?
We look like we are live on Rumble.
Bada bing, bada boom.
And we are most certainly live on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
Is my audio breaking up?
The mic is good, so everything is good.
We can get into tonight's show.
Everybody, if you're new to the channel...
How many people are new to the channel?
It's not a good thing if there's not too many new people to the channel.
It means we're not growing, but we're going to continue trying regardless.
We're growing.
Growing nicely.
This is the Sunday Night Show.
Viva Frye.
David Frye, hey, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler.
And if you don't know how this goes, we start on Commitube, Rumble, Twitter, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
We then get to leave.
Commitube to go over to Rumble and we vote with our feet, vote with our eyeballs, vote with our dollar and go support a free speech platform that actually supports free speech.
And then we have the after party at vivabornslaw.locals.com for supporters.
And we read all of the tip questions, I believe five bucks and more.
I will not get to all of the super chats and Rumble rants in as much as I try my best or if I do, miss some.
And you're going to be miffed that I didn't read it out loud.
Don't give it.
I don't want people feeling miffed.
I appreciate the support.
But the Sunday night show.
It's a big show, and I don't always get to read all the chats, and sometimes I miss some of them, and I don't like feeling guilty.
So, fair warning to thee, BD, says I. Before we get into tonight's show, by the way, I was going to start off with one of our sponsors before we get into the show, but I wanted to start with Chris Martinson.
I was also going to start with Kamala Harris, but I want to, you know, not vomit before we get into this, by the way.
So, if I may, I'll take a pause, and I'll just thank our sponsor, Chuck Norris, by the way.
That could mean a natural disaster.
Or even a threat to your loved ones.
I'm not going to play the video.
You're going to have to go and watch the video.
Have you ever wondered what happened to the legendary Chuck Norris?
I recently saw a video, and I was shocked.
He's in his 80s, still kicking butt, working out, and staying active.
What's even more amazing, he's stronger, can work out longer, and even has plenty of energy left over for his grandkids.
He did this by making just one change.
He says he feels like he's in his 50s.
His wife started doing it too, and she's never felt better, leaner, 10 years younger, energy that lasts all day.
Chuck made a video about it.
I've watched it through.
And I ended up ordering the...
What is it?
Oh, geez.
Ashwagandha. It's like a powdered drink.
It's amazing.
I ended up ordering it because that's the type of person I am.
ChuckDefense.com forward slash Viva.
Go watch the video.
It will change the way you think about your health.
Once again, ChuckDefense.com forward slash Viva.
Click the link in the description and watch the video now.
You won't believe how simple it is.
Just a reminder.
Many of you already know this.
Chuck Norris is 84 years young and he has more energy than the majority of Americans.
He discovered he can make dramatic changes by simply focusing on three things that sabotage our body as we age.
Watch his method.
ChuckDefense.com forward slash Viva.
Bada bing, bada boom.
And by the way, while we're on the subject of making your bodies healthier and making your bodies healthier, that's less redundant.
Here's the second sponsor.
Everybody? Let's get into this.
We're going to discuss the topic that's been both for masculinity and feminization of men.
The truth is, weak and feminized men are more easily controlled.
We're going to get into this when we talk about, what's his face there?
Tim Nobles' Tampon Walls, making society vulnerable to manipulation and tyranny.
This is why anyone who speaks out against it is quickly labeled as a homophobe, sexist, or misogynist and shut down.
We're bombarded with estrogenic chemicals from plastics, junk food, sedentary lifestyles.
The mainstream media loves to demonize normal, heterosexual, masculine men, calling them toxic.
They promote homosexuality and non-masculine behavior while censoring voices like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate.
Jordan Peterson was at the speech today.
He was doing great.
Don't worry, there's hope.
Black Forest Tuckertosterone and Tongkat Ali Limited Edition, supplement that has been dubbed the feminization killer since it combines two of the most potent natural testosterone boosters on the market.
Tuckertosterone is a natural antibiotic compound that supports muscle growth, improves endurance, and boosts testosterone levels.
Now, Tongkat Ali is an ancient...
Potent natural herb that has been used for thousands of years to increase testosterone levels, improve libido, and reduce stress levels.
It's very important that you try this natural way of boosting your testosterone.
Check it out.
Black Forest has said that since this product is limited edition, once the product goes out of stock, it will be out of stock forever.
So make sure to order yours.
Right now, the discount code is in the link on the description there.
It's blackforestsupplements.com forward slash.
Fry. And that's what I look like without my shirt on, people.
All right, let's get down to the show.
I wanted to start off with the good stuff before I make everyone want to vomit in their mouths.
It's been enraging me over the weekend.
And it's like, in our locals community, one of our wonderful members of the community, you know, said that all the Democrats do is deny, deny, deny.
Democrats, I should say, the...
Blue-pilled politicians.
All they do is deny, deny, deny.
You have Kamala Harris and the mainstream media denying that Kamala Harris was ever the borders are.
And they repeat that lie over and over again.
And now you have Kamala Harris running and posting videos that they really make you want to retch with the confession through projection levels of accusing your adversaries of doing what you are doing so as to not just create confusion.
But to demonize them for having done what you yourself has done.
Kamala Harris finally took a trip down to the border.
The first, from what I understand, unless I'm mistaken, it's the first time in three and a half, now damn near four years, that the border czar has gone down to the border.
You remember in an interview, I forget who she had this interview with, she says, oh, well, you know, I've never been to the border.
I've never been to Europe either.
Yeah, you weren't named the Europe czar.
Yet Europe is not a contiguous border with the country that you are the vice president of having an influx of Europeans invading the country.
It's not the same thing, you idiot.
She didn't go down at any point, from what I understand, from what I recall, and as she did, I will correct myself.
But it couldn't have been more than twice.
I do not believe that she's ever been down until three and a half to four years in, and now she's campaigning off being the tough-on-border politician.
One such tweet.
From Kamala Harris, it makes you want to retch.
Donald Trump made the challenges at the border worse.
Trump made the challenges at the border worse.
This is the woman.
I'm going to show you the montage of criticizing Trump for trying to secure the border.
He made the border issues worse.
He's still fanning the flames of fear and division, all for his political game.
Does that sound familiar?
In this election, there's a clear choice between common sense solutions and the same old political games.
How many times did Kamala Harris...
Suggest that Trump was weaponizing the border issue so that he can campaign off the problem.
Another one from Carla Harris.
The United States is a sovereign nation.
You have to understand, this is Darvo, deny, attack, reverse, victim, and offender.
This is gaslighting extraordinaire.
This is the woman who called the border wall un-American, medieval, we'll get to it, vowed to interrupt the funding for it, that the funding for the border wall was not for Trump's medieval...
What did he call it?
Not Pet Project, but Vanity Project.
She has the balls to come out right now, and I appreciate the irony in that, but for a crowd that thinks men can be women, I'll say that Kamala Harris, it just takes balls for her after four years as VP to come out and say, the United States is a sovereign nation.
We have a duty to set and enforce the rules at our border.
I take that responsibility seriously.
She has the audacity to tell it to you like that.
We are also a nation of immigrants.
Enriched by generations who have come to contribute to our country and become part of the American dream.
Did they come illegally or legally, Kamala?
The recent reports, studies, which many people on Twitter are saying is fake news, but I don't think it is.
Something like over 400,000 convicted criminals have crossed the border illegally since Biden and Harris took office.
We are a sovereign nation.
We have a duty to enforce the rules at our border, says the woman who has been derelict of her duty at the border.
Derelict like it's nobody's business.
This is another one.
This is coming from the woman who has never visited the border until now, who equated it to having never gone to Europe, who denied being the borders are.
They've seen 10, 15 million illegals cross the border in the last...
Three and a half to four years?
As your president, I will protect our nation's sovereignty, secure our border, and work to fix our broken system of immigration.
And I will partner with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to do it.
As president, as vice president, I have been responsible for...
Maybe not responsible.
It's Joe Biden.
Maybe not responsible.
It's Alejandro Mayorkas.
They've been at the helm of this ship, which has been...
Facilitating an invasion.
Facilitating what is the wholesale destruction of a generation as a result of fentanyl overdose.
And then you've got Kamala's winds breaking.
This is what a president visiting the border looks like.
This is what a vice president visiting her broken border for the first time in four years looks like.
A woman who...
Apparently, Laura Loomer was saying this is something like a $15,000, $20,000 necklace.
I can't confirm.
But she definitely thinks that she's Katie-Ann Moss.
Out of the matrix.
Just badass.
Wear the sunglasses.
Not the aviator sunglasses.
That's what Joe Biden's already got.
Wear your sunglasses, your fancy top, and look badass, Kamala.
I mean, you've done nothing but facilitate the invasion of the country you were elected to represent, but look badass.
And we're going to get Kamala Harris's wins to come in.
Yeah. But if you need a refresher of memory, and by the way, if anybody wants to know the easiest way to just like, if you think someone's been a hypocrite, Go to Twitter and search up their handle with keywords.
This came from an article, or at least I compiled the montage from an article, but it's very easy to, you know, go find someone's hypocrisy.
This is from January 25th, 2020.
It's been three years since Trump signed an executive order to start his multi-billion dollar vanity wall project.
Three years later, and it's still a complete waste of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.
Didn't she just talk about building the wall?
Oh, but it won't be a physical wall, it'll be a technological wall.
Which one's this one from?
2019. Congress did not appropriate these funds for Trump's medieval vanity project.
Let's be clear.
What's going to come next?
A load of bullshit.
Trump's wall has never been about keeping the American people safe.
Another one?
2019. We have a president who is stealing money from military families to pay for his border wall.
They sued the We Build the Wall charity organization that was going to do it.
They petitioned the courts to block Trump from building it.
Let's see what else we got down here.
Trump's anti-immigrant agenda couldn't be more clear.
He separated families, locked children in cages.
Who built the cages, Kamala?
Attempted to end protections for dreamers, yada, yada, yada.
Oh, yeah.
Tried to spend billions on a wasteful border wall.
That was 2019.
Another one from 2019.
The administration's anti-immigrant agenda flies in the face of our values, yada, yada, yada.
Children in cages lie.
Taking babies from their parents.
Lie. End protections for dreamers.
Lie. This has to end.
Oh yeah, that's right.
Sought billions to build a wasteful wall.
Donald Trump lost his campaign off hateful attacks against immigrants.
Then he enacted a Muslim ban.
Lie. All this itch bay does is lie.
Demanded funding for a wasteful border wall.
Trump's border wall is just a stupid use of money.
I will block any funding for it.
Kamala Harris, 2017.
2020. As I said, Trump's border wall is a complete waste of taxpayer money and it won't make us any safer.
2020, a budget is a reflection of our values.
Trump proposed cuts to Medicaid, student loan assistance, society...
And an additional $2 billion for his useless wall.
It's downright heartless.
If anybody wants that one.
$2 billion for the wall.
While they funnel $200 billion to Ukraine.
30-70% of which ended up getting squandered or corruptly misappropriated.
It's atrocious.
Now, Barnes was at the event today, by the way.
So we're going to see what he had to say about it.
But before we get a little further into the show here, we'll take a break in a second.
But let me show you what Colin Rugg put together.
Colin Rugg put together.
If you do not believe, they call him a surrogate, a Kamala Harris surrogate.
This reeks of blackmail.
This reeks of, they've got something on Mark Cuban because nothing can explain.
This is a public self-flagellation.
This is public humiliation.
This is like a ritual sacrifice that this man who once upon a time was deemed to be somewhat of an intelligent, successful man is now thoroughly corrupted by something.
Listen to this.
Meaning the mainstream media is not who you think it is.
The mainstream media truly leans right.
When you're second in command, you do what your boss tells you to do.
He delegates authority to you.
But the border was supposed to be her.
Yeah, but it's still the same thing.
It's his policies.
What he said to her was, you go down and you use diplomacy to try to improve, to try to reduce the flow, the migration of people across the border, right?
And when they finally came around, and it took too long, I agree, but when they finally got there, now look at the results.
It didn't take a while, but yet...
The crossing numbers are where Trump's were pre-pandemic at the same number.
So it worked.
So what she did actually worked.
We can look at exactly what happened.
He's already been president.
And we can look at what happened when she was vice president.
And it's not good, the comparison.
Being the president, Joe, as you know, is different than being vice president.
She can take credit for the good things that happened with Biden.
But she didn't have anything to do with the bad things.
In the past, there have been Democrats that have voted not to certify.
Yeah, that's fine.
But none of them called their vice president a pussy and said, don't certify the election.
Donald Trump, being the socialist that he is, had to beat Bernie.
So Donald Trump went out and recommended that interest rate caps be set to 10%.
I mean, the fact that he's even suggesting price controls and price caps.
It's socialism 101.
You understand, he's getting grilled by MSNBC or CNBC.
He's getting grilled, Mark Cuban and Kamala Harris, by extension, or at least directly, by a friendly, a media-friendly propagandist.
So she gets to claim the benefits and take credit for all the good things that Joe Biden does, but then gets to wash her hands because she wasn't in charge.
It's amazing.
Oh, what do we got here?
Hold on a second.
Let's bring this up.
We got from our locals community.
Does it come up?
Where is it?
Pin. I want to pin this.
Pin. Are they not?
Am I not able to pin them?
Oh, son of a beasting.
Mel Matt from our locals community says, Trump is sentenced 1126.
Win or lose, I believe he'll be sentenced to prison.
Is there any way around this?
Please explain all of the details and options.
So he's going to get sentenced on 11-26.
No, the sentencing has been postponed until then, if any.
And I'll let Barnes, you know, Barnes will correct me if I'm wrong on this, but if any.
My prediction is they're going to have to vacate that verdict sooner than later because of the Supreme Court ruling.
But that's what I think is going to happen.
They're going to sentence him to jail?
If he loses the election...
That becomes more likely.
If he wins the election, it becomes imminently less likely.
In any event, this, by all accounts, should not be any jail time, even if the conviction stands, which I don't think it should, because it's a first-time offense, and I think the sentencing guidelines would dictate no sentence there.
But before Barnes gets here, people...
Last break before we get here.
1775 Coffee People, it's another sponsor of ours and it's a Rumble partner.
They are amazing.
You know what I'm about?
Questioning the mainstream, poking fun at the absurd and exposing the nonsense.
But you know what else I'm about?
1775's Protein Creamer.
Most people out there tossing whey protein into their coffee like they've just discovered fire, but we've evolved.
We took it up a notch and made a creamer.
With the whey protein already built in, no sugar added, and under 50 calories, none of that corporate crap.
With 10 grams of protein whey per serving, proven to build muscle, speed up recovery, and boost metabolism, they're fueling your body the way it was meant to be.
They're dropping this protein creamer along with a whole new lineup in addition to the classic dark and medium roasts.
You'll find new coffee pods and brain-boosting mushrooms that will...
Take you beyond the four-sigmatic marketing circus.
You'll be focused like a...
You'll be focused, people.
Don't start your morning.
Funding. Woke.
Garbage. Coffee.
1775. Promo code VIVA for 15% off.
And the 1775 is one of Rumble's parallel economy products because, as Chris Pawlowski mentioned to me during an interview, they are over-indexed in coffee.
And because they're sticking it to D&D, dump Dunkin' Donuts, they decided to make their own coffee.
And if you drink coffee and you like coffee, you're going to love it.
And the other partner program that they have, or it's a partner with them, is positive.
It's a medical kit for dogs, and it's amazing.
Let's be real.
Getting your dog to use the vet these days is harder than booking a reservation at a top-star Michelin restaurant with over 15,000 vet shortages predicted by 2030 and emergency clinics cutting hours.
Pet owners are waiting a very, very long time to find it important.
No wonder 66% of U.S. households now have pets, but they're using positive.
When you have skin problems, stomach issues, the one thing you want to do is have the kit.
It's like the wellness company's kit, but you have it for your pets at home.
Positive medical kit, basically your dog's personal ER in a box.
It's like you're suddenly at the vet minus the loans and the student white coat.
You'll save a ton of cash, skip the music, and skip the holding lines.
And you might just save your dog's life.
Positive, P-A-W-S-I-T-I-V-E dot com.
Promo code VIVO.
15% off.
Don't let your dog's health go on a waiting list.
Order yours today.
And the links are all in the description.
And I see Barnes in the back, and I think I hear some rustling.
Let's see when he comes in here.
Ah, there's Barnes.
Barnes, are you back home?
You weren't in D.C. today.
No, no.
I was invited by Brett Weinstein to speak at the Reclaiming the Republic speeches that they were giving today.
But I had another work project that I had to take care of, so I wasn't able to make it.
It's a shame.
We could have done it together on stage and had a meet and greet in D.C. But the next one we will get to.
Robert, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
What do you got behind you?
The Devil's Chessboard.
Yes, by David Talbot, about the Dulles brothers and how the CIA operated in that time frame.
Robert, you heard my assessment about whether or not Trump gets sentenced on November 26th.
Do you think that the conviction is going to stand, or do you think ultimately that the judge is going to be forced to vacate the order?
I don't see that going forward, no matter what happens with the election.
Now, there was a connection, by the way.
There was another merchant.
There was another merchant.
Oh, we'll get to it in a second.
What do we have on the menu for tonight, Robert?
We got the top topic voted on by the board was the FBI informant.
More of that leaked out this week concerning January 6th.
We've got a big Second Amendment case.
This is the Reuben King case, the Amish farmer whose appeal is pending before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
The government is claiming extraordinary powers through that case to effectively eviscerate the Second Amendment in its current form.
A range of election cases across the country continue to percolate.
Trump's civil appeal was heard, oral argument, before the New York Court of Appeals, which is the New York's version of a Supreme Court.
The New York mayor was indicted.
We had a COVID vaccine injury case get dismissed by a federal court.
We'll be briefing that, as well as Paul Gosar is now recommending legislation.
To end all vaccine immunities.
In this case, end the vaccine immunities for the pharma companies that cause injury.
Credit to Senate candidate Kerry Lake from Arizona, who's also endorsed and embraced it.
This was a topic that was polled by 1776 Law Center.
You can go to 1776lawcenter.com.
Go to Medical Freedom, and you can see the polling data and information, which showed this is an overwhelmingly supported idea across the party lines and would be a big winning issue for anybody who embraces it in 2024.
And this latest dismissal of this COVID injury, COVID death case, is evidence of its need.
I got a crazy case in Seattle that we're going to be getting involved with.
Somebody objected to a mask mandate, ended up losing his kid, losing his property, and is imprisoned in his entire trial.
One trial, all of his rights were eviscerated, and they're trying to eviscerate in another trial, all related to mask mandates at grocery stores.
That's how nuts the city of Seattle is.
The Catalina's independent movement against the EU faced some problems from the EU courts this week.
The when can states enforce immigration law?
Big case before the Federal Court of Appeals, this one concerning Iowa.
A Canadian company, Shopify, trying to weasel out of all of its illegality by saying you can only sue them in Canada.
The when can you recover for injury from an oil spill?
Federal courts have new ways to screw you over.
The fishermen, big win by fishermen against the administrative state.
They keep beating the administrative state.
They helped deep six Chevron, and now they're helping to deep six the rest of the problematic aspects of the administrative state with one of the best opening lines given in any appellate decision ever from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
When is 26 years in solitary confinement?
A cruel and excessive punishment.
One would think always without exception, but apparently there are exceptions.
Not in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania prison wardens had no idea that could be against the law.
These were some of the questions asked from our board.
Additional topics.
The Longshoremen strike that's looming this week.
Congress trying to pass a bill of a mass fatality and who's going to replace them.
I mean, what the heck are they doing with all that stuff?
InfoWars. Looking at its assets being auctioned off, what might be the future of Alex Jones.
And if you didn't know that farm laws, where they're going, look no further than the United Kingdom, which is going to make it a crime if you don't register your chicken.
This is how nuts, they want complete control over the food supply.
That's what the Amos Miller case is about, the Amish farmer in Pennsylvania.
You can get all of his food products at Amos Miller Organic Farm.
They're trying to shut them down.
A hearing will be heard Tuesday, October 8th, 9.30 a.m. before the Commonwealth Court in the Allegheny County Courthouse there in Pittsburgh.
So we got a robust agenda tonight.
And I see Aaron Gabra says, Trolls hitting the thumbs down button?
Come on, hit that like button.
That's on Rumble.
Hit the like button.
Let me see what we're at here.
Ah, there's only 10 thumbs down.
You can't do much better than that.
Robert, it wasn't on the menu, but can we start with this?
The Klippenstein ban from Twitter.
The guy's name is Ken Klippenstein, and I'm always very suspicious of parents who have a last name that starts with K that use a first name that starts with K. His middle name is Jacob, so it's not, I don't know, Ken, Kyle, Klippen, whatever the hell his name is.
Robert, he got...
Permanently or temporarily suspended from Twitter for having published a link to his substack in which he published the full J.D. Vance dossier that was allegedly, at least according to the Justice Department or whoever the hell's in charge of that, was allegedly the result of a hack and a theft from the Donald Trump campaign from an Iranian-backed organization or Iranian entity that was shopped around to the mainstream media, but none of them took it and published it.
Either out of, I don't know, altruism or they didn't think it met the standards of journalism, which I would find very curious.
Klippenstein publishes a link to the full unredacted memo or dossier, whatever you want to call it, on his sub stack and gets banned from Twitter.
The explanation from what I understand is that it's the publication of hacked materials and doxing.
Because, remember, that was the basis for banning the link of the Hunter Biden laptop story, except that was not the result of a hack at all.
That was Hunter Biden surrendering through abandonment his computer to a computer repair shop.
So a little bit of a distinction there.
And apparently, Ken Klippenstein, in his infinite wisdom, didn't think it was necessary to redact what was the...
The majority or a substantial portion of J.D. Vance's social security number and his physical address, which Klippenstein says you can get elsewhere on the internet, so no doxing for me.
I think the idiot did it on purpose.
I think he knew that he was breaking the rules because he deliberately linked it from Twitter, knowing that he couldn't publish it on Twitter.
The idea, I know how you feel about addresses.
You know, they're public, and so maybe they're not disclosing private information, but this is in the wake of...
Two failed assassination attempts on Donald Trump and now you're saying here's where the guy's physical address is.
Oh, but you could find it elsewhere.
And the social security number.
Fair application of reasonable rules or unjustified and or weaponizing because he's anti-Trump.
I just don't know why he couldn't have redacted that.
It's one thing to publish hack materials.
That's one set of issues.
But what I think pushed it over the line for X was publishing the...
Personal, the social security number and large parts of the social security number and the and his personal home address.
It's like, yeah, I mean, I get you can say, well, maybe that's out there, but why do you need to publish it?
Like, why can't you redact that information?
People forget Julian Assange went to great lengths to redact all kinds of private information.
So, you know, they tried to put him in prison and did lock him up for a period of time until they finally cut a deal, so he's back in Australia.
But he went to great lengths to protect people's life and well-being.
He was not careless or reckless.
He wanted to expose government secrets, not expose private people's private information that could cause them harm.
They went to great extents to do that, contrary to what the media tried to...
Spin what the government tried to claim.
So I just don't understand.
I think he did it because he was going to get a lot more.
I mean, why do you do that?
To get the traffic.
I mean, he made a tactical choice.
He would get a lot more traffic if he included the person's personal information.
That's why he did it.
So I have no sympathy for him under those circumstances.
I'm a little more cynical.
I think you do it and post the address to remind everybody who might have forgotten or who doesn't know that you can find most people's home addresses relatively easily.
That's what I would call a bonafide dog whistle.
A malicious one at that.
The funny thing is, I was inclined to think that he was wrongly treated wrongly or unfairly in this.
And then Crystal Ball comes out.
And she's like, when she took a position in support of him, I knew that I was probably in the wrong because everything she says is a filthy lie and disingenuous.
And she came out and said, he redacted it and then republished it.
He's still banned.
Well, where are the free speech advocates now?
Like, you know exactly why that is dishonest and maliciously.
So was there anything?
I mean, I haven't read the dossier.
I don't plan on reading the dossier, not because I'm not interested in hearing bad things.
But what is there in that opposition research that's...
New to anybody.
I mean, everybody knew that he made some anti-Trump comments in 2016, that he has since come around.
What is in this dossier that would...
I don't think people declined the story because they didn't trust the source.
I just think there was nothing in there other than personal info.
Yeah. I mean, it's a reminder.
I mean, Trump sticks to this, but his campaign team doesn't.
You know, never in writing, always in cash.
I don't...
Especially dossiers.
I mean, I've been part of that in the past.
I discourage it ever being in writing unless you want it distributed or leaked.
So I will say I'm deeply suspect of the Iranians' cover story.
When has Iran done this before?
Iran's world-renowned for hacking?
Hmm. Who is the most likely source of this information?
Is it really Iran?
Or is this Spygate 2.0?
Russiagate 2.0, where they're using Iran as the convenient cover story.
And remember, they wanted to blame Iran for the assassination attempt.
It just went AWOL.
They'd arrested someone who was supposedly conspiring with Iran to assassinate Trump.
I think they planned on blaming Iran if the assassination had been successful.
So I'm not buying the Iran story.
Well, I mean, now that you say it out loud is, you know, the first time they did this, they blamed a foreign agent for the leaked materials was Russia for WikiLeaks.
When I may be mistaken, but I don't think anyone actually believes it was Russia.
They couldn't accuse Russia the second time around in the 2.0 iteration for two reasons.
They've already done it.
And why would Russia hack Trump if they've already been alleging that, you know, Russia wants to help Trump?
So Iran is a good scapegoat on this Russiagate 2.0.
It was interesting, they blamed Iran rather than China.
It's because they're more focused on Iran, and they want to manage the relationship with China rather than necessarily escalate.
They want Trump world escalating against Iran, and they needed a believable, credible source for the alleged hacking.
Okay, we can't use Russia a second time, so let's use Iran.
That was number two on the list.
Number three would have been maybe Venezuela.
The Cubans have never successfully hacked anybody.
Otherwise, they would have thrown the Cubans on there.
It just screams bogus.
It screams a deep state hack with a disguised source.
They would have leaked it sooner if it had anything inflammatory in it.
Instead, there's not a lot there.
It's just much ado over nothing.
And that's why it hasn't.
If the media suddenly discovered their ethics and not printing and published hacked materials based on foreign election interference, it's entirely because there wasn't anything in there that was that good.
And so they can hint that there's something really serious in there, but say our ethics compel us to not disclose it and thus allow this insinuation to be out there in the public eye without realizing it's a complete garbage.
Yep. I tend to agree.
But don't put this stuff in writing.
I don't know why they do these dossiers.
I get vetting a candidate.
You do that behind the scenes.
You do that confidentially.
And you don't reduce any of it to writing.
Trump didn't need it in writing.
You could just tell Trump, this is what we got.
Boom, boom.
Here's the risk.
Here's this.
You don't put that stuff in writing.
Because a lot of that stuff will be like innuendo.
It's like when the FBI does a background search.
There's all kinds of rumors and gossip and nonsense stories in there.
And they're constantly used to derail Supreme Court nominees based on what we now know to be utterly bogus stories.
So it's a trap, is what it is.
Robert, we'll do Alex Jones and maybe one other story before we head on over.
So the breaking news of last week, and again, not much breaking news for anybody who's been following the story, is that the federal judge...
Out of the federal court in Texas, or I guess it's...
The bankruptcy court, yeah.
The bankruptcy court has authorized or indicated they will authorize the breaking up and the auctioning off of the assets of Infowars and the parent company, which Alex Jones wholly owns, come November.
One detail which I want to get clarity on is that the judge said he wants to specify to correct or at least clarify in a prior order that the plaintiffs would retain...
What was it?
The plaintiffs...
Would control the trustee or at least would have the title to the assets?
Did I understand that?
I'm going to forget what the hell I was talking about.
That they wanted to maintain ownership, ensure that the trustee had the ownership over the Alex Jones's parent company, I think.
But we knew that this was going to happen in that there's no...
They were suspending the execution of the order pending the appeal.
They were trying to structure a deal which they obviously couldn't get done or nobody wanted to get done.
And how does it come to be?
Who's petitioning for this?
And what's it going to mean for the long term for Alex Jones, even if he wins on the appeal?
Let's assume he doesn't win on the appeal, liquidate and kill off all the assets or sell off.
It does not.
Include Alex Jones' personal social media for the time being, his personal voice, his likeness, etc.
So he could, in theory, have some flexibility on a going forward basis.
Yeah, and Infowars has no contract with Alex Jones, to my knowledge.
I saw no reference to it in the bankruptcy court proceedings.
So all you have is a copyright, a web domain, and studio space.
They don't even own the property, it's leased.
So, I mean, it's really small.
Well, what's there, to be honest about it?
So what they're auctioning off is the name InfoWars, the web domains associated with that are owned by InfoWars.
It's not crystal clear which ones are necessarily owned by InfoWars, but for the time being, assume that's all InfoWars-related web domains.
And the only thing of value is, you know, the cameras and the studios.
Physically owned video recording and broadcasting equipment.
Some computers.
Some desks.
So, you know, it's not a lot.
There's some cool posters.
Some cool images in there.
But that's about it.
And so its value is not that high.
And the issue then is who would come in and bid on it.
And Roger Stone is putting together an investment group to bid on it.
And once they own it, then they would be owned free of the debt.
They're buying the assets free of the debt obligation.
Whatever they pay will go into the bankruptcy estate to be distributed accordingly.
But that's it.
And that's not...
Who else is going to come in and bid?
So the only thing that someone would have value, who has value on the Infowars brand if Alex Jones isn't affiliated with it?
To be honest with you, that's probably not worth the whole lot.
The same with the web domains.
If Alex Jones isn't there, probably not worth the whole lot.
And so all you're really getting is cameras and studio build-out.
Well, who's going to use it?
Who necessarily needs that build-out in that particular kind of space?
So, you know, that's subject to a lease.
You don't own the building.
So, you know, could you physically remove the studios?
I mean, really, its main value is at that location.
So, the cameras?
So, unless somebody comes in and bids for it, surprisingly, I would think that Roger Stone's group is probably in a good position.
To purchase it.
And Stone's already announced his intention is to keep it as InfoWars and hope that Alex stays on board.
So that's the real future of it.
Even if it were to be bought for full value, let's just say the full cost, it would be, what, $10-15 million?
That would be a very, very high estimation.
Its value is unique.
Its value is to Alex Jones.
And since Alex Jones can't bid for it, It's value to anybody else is a lot less.
So you get into these situations with distinct, unique property valuations, where something has one valuation.
It's like people who've been historically on a farm.
The value to them is very different than the value of a bank foreclosing on it and trying to sell.
And so that's their hurdle, is the probability they get a big...
Valuation on it is low.
And the probability somebody else comes in and bids a whole bunch of money to do what?
To just own the brand?
I mean, buy some cameras?
No, let's just even say that there's some vengeful person out there who put together their own pool and says, we just want to buy it to shut it down.
But my point is only...
What are they shutting down?
The domains?
I mean, whoop-de-doo.
But that was my question.
Let's just say they get full value on the dollar.
They sell it for $15 million.
Good. They're killing the business.
There will be no more InfoWars generating revenue for the purposes of satisfying any judgment.
I'm not mistaken.
Alex Jones is part of it.
That's exactly...
I mean, that's why it's best.
The best situation for the plaintiffs is if somebody comes in that's sympathetic to Alex Jones to keep InfoWars on the air.
The plaintiff's lawyers have been sabotaging their own clients.
By setting up a situation whereby their clients may get pennies on the dollar because of their own bad tactical and strategic decisions.
I mean, they should have taken that very generous settlement offer, which I believe what's been published is over $50 million.
That was because Jones was willing to pay him off over time and through 20 years of being on the air in the future.
Now that option is no longer there for them.
It's just not there.
So that, you know, them going to this stage means they've completely failed their clients, completely sabotaged their clients.
And if their goal was to shut down Infowars, that too probably will fail.
Either because somebody sympathetic buys it and Jones decides to stay on board, or because Jones is no longer associated with it, in which case it won't produce much income.
So, I mean, that's the problem.
But, you know, they're selling off the assets and those assets will then be owned free and clear.
I don't know whether the domain names are included within that.
I don't know if the copyright is included within that.
But again, here's another thing.
Jones has very limited copyright assets.
Jones has deliberately forfeited copyright his entire career.
He has said, there's no copyright on anything I produce or publish or broadcast.
You're free to copy.
He used to do DVDs.
You're free to copy those and share them with your friends.
I don't care.
You're free to download them off the internet, share them with whoever you want, because he only cared about the message.
So typically, somebody that's had the inventory he has had would have, that would be its big value.
But there is no copyrighted inventory because he's never, and he didn't do this for any reason related to the suit.
He's done this his entire career because he cares more about the message than the money.
And not just that, it's not even any longer on platforms that are monetized like YouTube.
I mean, it's on Rumble.
It's not on YouTube anyhow, where there would be no royalties.
By the way, thanks to the plaintiff's lawyers.
Yep. The plaintiff's lawyers are the ones that got him kicked off of YouTube.
And then complained about his lack of access to his archives on YouTube that YouTube deleted at their request, by which a judge declared a default judgment for it.
I mean, they've done everything possible to sabotage their own clients.
It's one long litany of legal malpractice, the plaintiff's lawyers in those cases.
They continue to harass people.
Mark Bankston is a nut job.
One of the lead plaintiff's lawyers.
My joke about him that the Austin Press used to get a kick out of was they said the way he got his law degree is he got a free ticket to the nut house and the Uber driver accidentally dropped off at law school.
That's who this guy is.
And he's sabotaged his clients over and over and over and over again.
During the brief period of time in which I was appearing in the case.
He was busy spreading smear campaigns to local press, trying to get me kicked off of the case, trying to do all kinds of things.
The guy's a nutjob and a lunatic who has sabotaged his clients, and his clients should sue him and his law firm into oblivion for all the legal malpractice he's caused.
Same with the Connecticut law firm, which is one of the most politically connected law firms in the country.
They, too, have deliberately sabotaged their own clients to empower their political agenda, who they used to do the whole thing.
And remember, they admitted, one of their lead witnesses, plaintiffs, they admitted on the stand he'd helped orchestrate the whole case, and he had nothing to do with Sandy Hook except show up as an FBI guy.
And is that really a coincidence, given what James, not James O'Keefe, but another undercover group, using James O'Keefe tactics, had a guy who worked at the CIA and elsewhere, said that they helped orchestrate the Alex Jones case.
The whole point was always to kick him off the air and cut him off from his audience.
Both have failed.
And we'll continue to fail.
Let me bring this up.
This was what I was trying to paraphrase before.
The U.S. banks to Judge Lopez, he said he'll approve the auctions to start in November, but he said he first must change a previous order to make it clear that the trustee overseeing Jones' personal bankruptcy case controls all the assets of Infowars' parent company, Free Speech Systems, which is owned by Jones 100%.
That's solely to make it so that he has the power to auction it off.
But all those assets, like I said, the only assets...
That I've seen referenced are just the copyright of the name InfoWars.
And there'd be an issue about how copyrightable that name even is because of its colloquial use.
And some cameras and some studio space and some web domains.
That's it.
Otherwise, it would only have value to someone.
Who gets Alex Jones' commitment to stay on board.
And that's why they need...
What Jones has done is put them in conflict with their own clients.
It's like, if you want actual compensation, I'll arrange that for you.
And they've, at every turn, have said, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
We want to shut you down.
Well, that's the lawyer saying it.
In theory, for and on behalf of their clients, who now are going to not see a penny of whatever was the $40- $50 million over however many years, they're going to see nothing.
They'll see pennies on the dollars for the studio.
Two questions.
One is from Rumble.
I can't bring them up, so I'm just going to have to see.
It says, Equal says, are all the appeals for Alex, have they been reached?
What about the summary judgments, the exceptionally high fine?
All of these judgments may also be thrown out anyway.
I mean, that's why they had a great opportunity to get a settlement without risking losing on appeal.
A legally honest Texas Supreme Court will absolutely toss the verdict.
A legally honest Connecticut Supreme Court will do the same.
The big question is whether he will get a legally honest court in his cases, because so far he has not.
And over on YouTube, X underscore SSFD says, isn't there a stipulation that they're able to seize his income above a certain amount?
This we've talked about, but...
Sure, but he can decide how much he works for.
Roughly, it's...
What they never understood is money was never his motivation.
The message was always the motivation.
So they thought if they took away the money, they would take away the message.
He never cared about the money.
If he cared about the money, he would have copyrighted his own materials like everybody else does.
This guy is literally...
I mean, he has...
It would probably be worth tens of millions of dollars, his inventory.
He asserted copyright over none of it his entire life for the last 25 years.
The old videos a few months before 9-11 where he's talking about they're probably going to try to bring some planes, crash into some buildings and blame it on Osama bin Laden.
I mean, some of that would have, you know, unique market value.
He never cared.
They always misread him.
He was never about money.
If he was about money, he keeps his mouth shut about 9-11 and he replaces Rush Limbaugh.
I mean, he's a natural entertainer.
He's the best, most successful talk radio host in America, not named Rush Limbaugh.
And yet he turned down that easy path to cash by asserting what he believed to be true about 9-11.
So the guy's never been money-driven.
He's always been message-driven.
Money has just been a means to get the message out.
The message was never a means to make the money.
And because they never understood that and never appreciated that, they never realized their strategy could never work.
All right, and so it does look like it's going to proceed come November.
Do you think that there's any chance that this is to pressure a settlement with the families, or is that no longer even feasible?
This is just a regular bankruptcy protocol, and it was just up to the families' council to take the settlement, because if it went through the regular protocol, they would end up with next to nothing, and that's what's going to happen.
And I'm Not Your Buddy Guy over on Rumble says, I say the Alex Jones judgment has set the precedent for media lies.
Therefore, CNN, MSNBC, Daily Beast, etc., etc., should each be liable for $100 trillion.
Yeah, that's not how precedent works in this world in which we live.
The hyper-partisan, hyper-politicized world, which I guess is a good segue.
We'll do this one here, the FBI whistleblower, and then we'll head on over to Rumble or vivabarneslaw.locals.com, depending on what your preference is.
This is the guy that testified, it was last week, I was trying to listen to it, but my goodness, internet was intermittent, who was the whistleblower for Jan 6, who was sanctioned, had his security clearance revoked, and finally saw some form of justice at the end of the day, but they're going to only release the report.
After the next election, what are the major takeaways of any vindication that this man has now received?
So the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, who generally is better at being nonpartisan, and maybe that's why he's delaying his report, is he doesn't want to be perceived as influencing the election.
But of course, delaying the issuance of the report also influences the election.
And what is likely to be in the report, based on his testimony before...
And asked by the excellent Congressman, Representative Thomas Massey of Covington, Kentucky, a little town I'm familiar with, is that there are probably hundreds of FBI informants, confidential human sources, as they're called in the legalese and technical language of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or Federal Bureau of Inquisition, depending, Federal Bureau of Infiltration.
Federal Bureau of Informants.
There's a lot of other better names for the FBI than its official designation, though it is appropriately housed in the J. Edgar Hoover building, if you understand the true history of that man, explains the true history of that agency.
You can go watch some hush-hushes on the origins of the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover, and maybe this has a long history that goes from its very founding.
Its cornerstone may have been built on this kind of stuff.
But what it confirms is the reporting of Julie Kelly.
And others.
Darren Beatty, the revolver.
And what I talked about in the first Hush Hush that was done a few days after January 6th, which was that you will find that January 6th was littered with informants, infiltrators, and instigators on the government payroll in one way, shape, or form.
And it appears even one of the people connected to Garland was there on the ground that day.
I mean, you would appear to have high-ranking people involved.
We now know confirmed what they've been lying about for four years, which is that President Trump specifically requested National Guard presence to secure everything, to make sure everything stayed cool, that he didn't want anything to get out of control at all.
And it was General Milley, the saboteur, who made sure that did not happen.
I just want to interrupt you just for this because they called Kash Patel a liar when he testified to that effect.
I forget.
I think it was the Colorado case where he testified that Trump offered to bring in the National Guard and it was declined.
Everybody blamed it on Nancy Pelosi, but the bottom line is it was offered and they lied for the last, I don't know, four years out?
Now three and a half years out.
Yeah, completely.
So the, I mean, as I said at the time, the only way that event could happen...
Because speaking of Alex Jones, he was worried about it when I was laying out my hypothesis about the QAnon movement, who was really orchestrating large parts of it and so forth, that it was kind of an informant operation, infiltration operation by algorithm.
Notice they suddenly dropped that.
It's never come up again who exactly QAnon is and was.
It's just kind of interesting how the Biden administration, the Democrats, had such huge interest in it.
Suddenly didn't, once they were in a position of power.
He was concerned that J6 might be a setup of some sort.
And my reaction at the time was, it's the most secure building in the world on that day.
You've got 2,500 Capitol Police.
You've got D.C. Police.
You've got people who have Federal Secret Service protection.
FBI is also almost always present in a law enforcement capacity.
And, of course, you could have the National Guard, and they were all over the place the day before, in D.C. So I was like, there's no chance that anything can go AWOL.
There was an unusual lapse in security.
There was all kinds of instigative, provocative actions by some of those security agents.
Some agents were letting them in and guiding them in.
Other agents were throwing smoke bombs at them and physically assaulting them, including grandmas and other people.
All designed to create the outcome that happened that day.
And the only way that really comes off is you have lots of informants, infiltrators, and instigators also participating in it.
And they're just sitting on, you know, how long will it take for us to find out the truth?
That's all.
If Trump wins, and people like Kennedy and Gabbard have an influential role in the government...
I think, and people like that, Thomas Massey and Rand Paul, then I think chances are excellent that we get to the bottom line.
And my guess is it exposes high-ranking officials across everywhere.
And Nancy Pelosi's been cheerleading for Trump's incarceration and imprisonment.
As Trump pointed out, two things.
All the people involved in illegality, including censorship and other activities, are going to be fired and face legal consequences.
And people that have been involved in trying to fix elections, trying to scam elections, and have been involved in other illegal actions are going to pay a consequence.
And he noted, Nancy Pelosi seems to have been doing insider trading for a long time.
And maybe it's time to look into that more thoroughly.
So, you know, they've unleashed a full reformist agenda for President Trump because they keep not understanding the importance of self-restraint.
Well, the more you say that out loud, the more it really does make me nervous that the people who are saying, he's going to lock us all up, they probably know that they deserve to get locked up and they'll do everything and anything under the sun not to get locked up, which means not to allow Trump to get elected.
So they're going to release the more detailed report after the election, which is a form of election interference.
It's wild.
Did you watch the testimony of the guy?
I forget his name now, and I don't mean to be disrespectful.
No, Michael Horowitz.
So he was the one who did the Inspector General report that outed a lot of the scam of Russiagate.
So he was an Obama appointee, but he's been a pretty straight shooter.
And I don't doubt his reasoning on this.
I don't think he's trying to influence the election.
The fact that he's delaying the report tells me he believes it's so explosive that he would be then blamed for influencing the election.
Again, not disclosing it does that too.
I don't think he can really dodge it.
But he's trying to remove himself from being an obvious influencer of the election.
But he wouldn't have to worry about that if the report was a nothing burger.
So that tells you that there's all kinds of damning and damaging information in that report.
I meant the witness was, or the witness, the whistleblower was Marcus Allen.
But... Holy cows, an October surprise would be a nice one would be the leak of that report before November.
All right, we'll see.
That is it.
We all knew what it was from day one.
I remember that we streamed live that day.
You were just outside DC and you said, yeah, there's some violence, but this is like an ordinary day at any...
Well, it was nothing like the Summer of Love in DC.
By comparison to the Summer of Love and the BLM protests, it was over and within a few hours, and they certified the election by 8 o'clock that night.
Okay, hold on.
Before we go over to Rumble People or vivabarneslaw.locals.com...
I can't seem to highlight the tips tonight, but I'll do.
Pinochet's Helicopter Tours says, QAnon is DHS's CISA.
CISA is the Canadian intelligence surveillance apparatus.
That's not what it stands for, but CISA is the Canadian version.
That's the Department of Homeland Security.
And CTIL grats on following a bunch of feds.
And then we got King of Biltong with $100 says, Biltong is one of the most protein-dense foods in the world, packed with B12, zinc, iron, creatine, and more.
Need a healthy snack?
Get yours.
BillTongUSA.com Viva10 for 10% off and game is in stock.
And then your buddy guy says, okay, we got that one.
Jones being hammered for denying an event.
Shouldn't a bunch of MSM presenters be getting 1 billion judgments for saying Trump attack was staged?
I mean, that's the joke.
That's from Lane Mack.
It's a sick joke.
The amount of people denying that Trump was actually the victim of a failed assassination attempt.
He set it up himself.
It's blood on ketchup on his ears.
A violent event denial.
De-platformed and sued for a billion.
And then we got the rest of this.
Alright, so we end it on...
We end it on YouTube and we end it, unfortunately, on Twitter at the same time.
Rumble and Locals, people.
The entire stream will be on Viva Clips tomorrow and we'll put out the clips on Viva Fry.
It'll all be out, people.
And it's going to be on podcast format.
So we're ending on YouTube and we're ending on Twitter.
Come on over to Rumble and Locals now.
And I should probably get...
Hold on a second.
Did I do this properly?
Okay, update stream like this.
Boom. And that update stream, it doesn't look like it's letting me update the stream, so we might be on both of them all night tonight.
I can't seem to end it.
I'll try to end it.
If it ends abruptly, come on over to Locals, but if I can't do it, I can't do it.
What do we have next, Robert?
We got a bunch of stuff.
We got, you know, speaking of BLM nonsense, we got the craziness in Seattle.
We got the big Second Amendment case.
And, you know, speaking of fornication, Involving elections, we got a lot of election cases and a lot of inaccurate statements being made by so-called law Twitter concerning those election cases.
Let's start with the election cases.
What are the latest updates out of which states?
And then I want to ask you some questions that I know that I had.
So in Pennsylvania, ultimately, the effort to prevent enforcement of the mail-in voting requirements was...
So the enforcement will actually occur.
There's still other cases out there, backlogs of voter registration that hasn't been followed through on in some different counties that is being highlighted by Scott Pressler, who's doing excellent work.
I know there's some commentators that, you know, sort of go off the deep end.
They're wrong about Scott Pressler, just FYI.
If I could stop you just on the Pennsylvania one, the enforcement is going to occur, which means that it needs to be properly dated on the outside of the envelope, failing which it's not, there was two types.
It was not, is it a rejected that cannot be cured, correct?
Right. There's a certain way that you have to do a mail-in voting and you're going to have to comply with it.
In Pennsylvania.
In Michigan, that means they have to check the signatures before they open the ballot and follow proper signature matching protocol before they do it, despite the efforts of the Secretary of State to negate that.
In Arizona, they're going to allow the illegals to stay on there.
All we know is that they're people that didn't have proof of citizenship.
That's not a guarantee that they're illegals.
But you could raise a reasonable inference that at least some of them are.
And your method for making sure they're not was never properly substantiated.
What has come out since then is there was a great efforts by the Arizona political hierarchy, including apparently the governor's office and the secretary of state's office, to hide this fact from the American public once they internally found out about this problem.
In other cases, what's extraordinary is people like Garrett Archer, who's a data analyst, election analyst, used to work with a lot of the Arizona election officials, now is a commentator.
And on some stuff, we agree.
He agrees about the importance of signature matches, for example.
But on other issues, he keeps being very dismissive of these other challenges.
So, for example, in Alabama, Oklahoma, They went through and made sure people who are not citizens were not on their voter rolls.
People who are dead were not on their voter rolls.
The Biden Justice Department is trying to interfere and require those names go back on the voter rolls.
And the excuse is that within 90 days, they can't do a voter purge under a certain federal law interpretation.
The problem with all of this, and the other argument that he makes and some others make on their behalf, is that there's some constitutional right to vote by mail.
There's a constitutional right to vote once that's given to you by the state, and that depends on the state.
As people sometimes forget, that's up to the legislature of the state in presidential elections.
There's no U.S. constitutional right to vote in the presidential election.
That's entirely up to the state legislature, who's given exclusive and absolute authority about how electors are chosen for the presidential election.
Now, once the state gives it to you, Then there's due process principles that apply.
That was the debated issue in Bush v.
Gore as to whether the state was following those due process principles.
However, it has always been the case that voting by mail is a privilege.
Even in a state that gives you the right to vote, the right to vote is the right to vote in person and is protected thereby.
The right to vote by some mechanism other than in person has always been recognized as a privilege.
And in part, that's because of unique risks present of that election, of that vote not being a constitutionally honest vote, meaning you're a constitutionally qualified voter, as determined by the rules of the state legislature in a presidential election, that the method by which you're voting is constitutionally qualified, and that the counting and canvassing of the vote is also constitutionally qualified.
And that's why people have sued on these grounds before, saying, I should have the right to vote by mail.
And it's always been rejected.
There's no such right to vote by mail.
So, you know, people like Archer are frankly, he accuses other people of being misleading.
He's being misleading.
You know, he might want to stay out of the legal world because some of his state, he's so eager to defend the administrative election bureaucracy that he embraces some statements that are just not accurate, either factually or about the law.
I mean, it was amazing.
I think he said that...
There was no evidence of any administrative errors in the election bureaucracy a couple of weeks ago.
And then all of a sudden it came out, oh, by the way, there's 100,000 people who don't have citizenship qualification or are legally registered in Arizona.
Oops! And then what's his excuse?
Well, some of them may be legal voters, so they're entitled to be registered.
No, they're not.
Again, having proof of citizenship is not a burdensome requirement for the exercise of voting privileges in a state.
It doesn't violate due process.
Robert, this is from the Arizona.
I don't understand what the glitch is, but what the glitch was, it said they were allegedly supposed to have showed proof of citizenship when they applied for the driver's license from which they're pulling the role, but they might not have.
And then they say the issue only affects a fraction of the 4.1 million registered to vote, some 98,000.
The difference in Arizona last election was under 11,000.
Exactly. And they were saying that this couldn't happen.
And then, oh, oops, yes, it does happen.
And so I think we'll see what the courts do.
You're seeing the Democratic courts trying to intervene, interfere, and intervene in the election pretty consistently.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Democratic-oriented court, walked back from the breach on that.
But other courts are making all kinds of nutty rulings to try to force states.
To apply the most liberalized rules.
And it's always, let's protect the right to vote.
And whenever I hear the way they phrase it, it reminds me of the old Chicago voter registration joke, which is a young man's walking around with an older fellow registering voters.
And at one point, the younger fellow says, do we have to keep doing this?
And the older man says, would you dare deny all these good people the right to vote?
As he points to the cemetery.
The question isn't the right to vote.
The question is whether or not these people are constitutionally qualified to vote and whether the method they're voting is constitutionally qualified.
No one's interfering in a constitutionally qualified person casting a ballot in a constitutionally qualified manner.
Instead, it's some slow-to-act voter registrars in Pennsylvania who aren't registering voters because the good governor there, Shapiro, Thought that he was going to register everybody when they did their driver's license.
What he did not anticipate, like they didn't anticipate in a bunch of states, is who would end up benefiting from that voter registration.
And it's the reason why a bunch of counties, I suspect, are now going a little bit slow getting those voters on the voter rolls is because they're disproportionately Republican.
That, you know, the low propensity voter...
The new voter is a Trump voter in 2024.
It's a complete reversal of all Democratic party assumptions.
And that's why the party that's all about, let's maximize registration and everything else, is suddenly going slow in some of those capacities while they're trying to keep the rolls padded with as many questionable, with people who are just not constitutionally qualified to be registered to vote.
It's going to be an ongoing battle.
We'll see how all the cases ultimately filter out.
For the most part, good law has come out of the cases, but not universally.
I do not understand how they discovered this glitch.
The guy who discovered it was Richard, the one who testified during Carrie Lake's trial, the guy who said that there were never any issues with the voting, discovers a glitch that since 1996, they have upwards of 100,000 people who are indicated to have shown proof of citizenship when getting their license, which they did not or may not have.
And the judge comes in and says, 98,000 is not that much, and it was a 10,570-some-odd difference between Biden and Trump in 2020.
Wild. Okay, so that's Arizona.
That decision, they both appealed that decision, so that one goes up.
Is that going to be heard?
We'll see if the Arizona Supreme Court gets involved or not.
There'll be court cases all the way through.
Because these issues are just being litigated every which way.
So Democracy Docket, which is a leftist group, but they do publish almost all the election cases.
You get to see their briefs.
You get to see the underlying work.
Democracy Docket, that's Mark Elias'...
Mark Elias-affiliated, associated group.
But it's good to see the...
And so they give their spin.
But just you can ignore the spin and you can see what the court orders are, see what the rulings are.
Republican-aligned lawyers have been better than 2020, not as good as they need to be.
So some of the criticisms are fair criticisms.
Some of the criticisms go too far because they haven't been as bad as 2020.
But they're not as good as Trump thinks they are.
You know, Trump thinks there's a bunch of lawyers lined up to do election challenges everywhere since I know a lot of the best lawyers in that space and none of them have been contacted.
I can tell you that hasn't happened.
So there are still big gaps inside the operation.
So there the criticism is well warranted.
But there's also, that is not to be dismissive of a lot of the good work that's going on in a bunch of the jurisdictions.
If I may bring up one of the super chat, the Rumble rants over on Rumble.
Is from KMGood329 who says, Viva, Gouveia, Robert Gouveia, watching The Watchers, amazingly smart guy, did a report about two weeks ago regarding this issue.
The 98,000 is a trick to get registered voters that licenses are prior to 1996 off the election registration.
Viva talked to him.
I'll text him.
Maybe he can come on and we can do something about this.
We got the Gateway Pundit article here, which I'll see what that says as you give us the next update.
And Cinnamon says, rock on.
And the engaged who says, if you haven't already, you should have on Scott Pressler one awesome mane of hair to another.
All right.
Are there other election lawsuits?
There's about a half dozen, but that covers the broad strokes.
There's about a half dozen significant ones.
I think there's currently 50 election law-related cases pending in America today.
The issues that were the determinate issue in 2020 are not going to be the same.
you haven't changed your assessment based on register applications for mail-in voting mail-in balloting the requests are still down the numbers haven't changed and it doesn't Yeah. The method by which they were able to pad the voter rolls in constitutionally questionable ways primarily concerned mail-in balloting.
Even when the issue was whether the person who voted was constitutionally qualified, that voter was almost exclusively voting by mail.
The most questionable ballots?
We're mail-in ballots.
And the ballots that were not properly counted and canvassed in a constitutionally correct manner were overwhelmingly mail-in ballots.
So the big issue is still primarily and principally mail-in balloting.
But you need mail-in ballots to harvest.
You need voters on the rolls that you can count on to report them voting.
And they are in bad shape.
The Democrats are on both of those accords.
We have the best above average community over at Locals.
Little Philly says, this is amazing, now that I'm understanding it.
Robert Govea said that the Arizona non-citizen issue is related to people who applied for a driver's license over 20 years ago when proof of citizenship was not asked for.
The glitch was that they were grandfathered in and there's no time to cure it.
It is disproportionately Republican in the 98,000.
That's an interesting theory.
Okay. What do we move on to?
What's the segue into what now?
Well, we've got a range of cases, but one case that we'll see if they do anything before Election Day that could be one of the last impacts of the lawfare against Trump on Election Day is the skepticism that even the Democratic New York Court of Appeals expressed at oral argument concerning the insane monetary judgment against Donald Trump.
So, the oral arguments before the appeals court of New York, I don't want to ever get too optimistic because sometimes, or at least I found oftentimes, when they're hard on somebody, it's to look objective so that when they rule in their favor, they can say, well, at least I was hard on them during the oral arguments.
But the panel, I don't know who the judges were, but I think even one of them who was asking these questions was a Democrat appointee.
I don't remember if it was...
I think they're all Democratic appointees, to my knowledge.
And so he was, I forget the guy's name, I'll find it in a second, but was asking basically what was Trump's defense is like, didn't you go a little bit scope creep on this law, which is, you know, like expanded beyond what its intention was in terms of...
Going after two sophisticated entities.
This is what the judge said, which is what Engeron treated the banks like they were little babes in the woods.
And I must have said that 50 times at the time.
To say, oh, they were duped into loaning money to Trump as if they didn't do their own due diligence, as if they didn't ask for their own financial documents.
And so the judge, whichever one it was, and I'll get his name, says, these are sophisticated actors.
Nobody complained.
Nobody lost anything.
And don't you think you're...
Not overreacting, but rather over-expanding the scope of this law, which was intended to right wrongs when there was a complainant.
And the response was a, in my view, wholly unsatisfactory response, which was, well, there wasn't anybody who was a victim in this case, but that doesn't mean that this is a victimless crime, because others might so exploit this and do what Trump did, and there will be real victims in the future.
What do you think happens?
I mean, they were certainly grilling.
I forget the name of the lawyer.
It wasn't Leticia James, but they were grilling the prosecutor of this in a way that anybody with half a brain understood they should.
What do you think they're ultimately going to do?
I think that 75-80% chance that they throw it out.
I am a betting man, so those would be the odds I would set.
There's probably going to be a market up somewhere for it.
Polymarket, Calci, someplace else.
And they'll probably undervalue it.
As they have some other, there's been assumptions about how some of these cases would progress and proceed.
Because of how fixed it was at the beginning, they assumed nobody would step back from the edge.
And we've so far been correct at predicting both that they would go as far as they did in terms of once the cases were brought, I didn't think they would bring them initially.
But once they were brought, they were political theater, and they would be show trials, but that they would walk back from the edge of actually enforcing any of them before Election Day.
And so far, that's exactly what we've seen in all the cases.
And I think that's what we're going to see here.
Because the problem was always beyond Trump.
For political theater against Trump, fine.
Use it for Election Day.
And the New York Court of Appeals will deliberately probably delay their ruling until after Election Day.
An honest court would know how to answer this.
But they're ultimately going to step back from the breach.
And it's because they don't want to give the Attorney General the power to target anybody anywhere or New York is going to massively lose investors.
And that's already been threatened by high-profile investors who said, we're getting the hell out of New York if this case is not reversed.
There's no way we're going to trust ourselves to the whim of a random state prosecutor who can broadcast in advance their political motivation and bankrupt me even without there being any victim.
It's an unheard of case.
Unprecedented case.
I mean, everything about Trump's cases are unprecedented, unparalleled.
And what we said at the time, even these judges were recognizing, how do we issue a $400 million fine without a victim?
How is that within your power again?
With sophisticated players, it's not someone duping a grandma out of her life savings.
The judge was David Freeman.
I forgot where I took the screen grabs on my phone.
David Freeman and the...
Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale, she starts talking and they cut her off and they say, the accusation was, are they not expanding this to upset a private business transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners?
And then the answer was, there was another question which says, I think you hear underneath all these questions, the question of mission creep, said Peter Moulton.
Has this article morphed into something it was never meant to be?
And then the deputy, whatever her name is, I will stress, Your Honor, this does not have to harm the public and the markets.
This does not have to harm the public and the markets, but everybody knows it.
That's been their defense all along.
Trust us, this was only for Trump.
That doesn't work legally, nor does it work politically.
And so that's the problem.
That's why they have almost no choice but to reverse it and validate it.
The only question is whether they wait unless they want to risk New York's economic future.
Based on an insane interpretation of an insane law to begin with, I assume they don't.
I assume that New York, if they're anything, they're political hacks, but they're super sensitive to the impacts on the financial markets because the financial markets for the entire world split their time between New York and London.
So New York relies...
I mean, it's high-end real estate.
It's mostly foreign investment.
New York cannot...
It could be seen as a political jurisdiction that could subject anybody they want, any time they want, to being basically bankrupted and imprisoned, like they're trying to do with Trump, based on novel interpretation of cases that no one's ever heard of being applied in this manner before.
I mean, you can't have a victim when the so-called victim says they weren't a victim.
You just don't have it.
And it was always a ridiculous action.
They did it with tape.
They said those victims who we say were human trafficking victims, when they say they're not, it's because they are.
In this case, they're saying, look, the victim here is the people of New York, not the banks who made their money.
Who profited.
Who profited in tax payments, profited in successful real estate developments, profited by investments, profited with jobs.
You think that there is a better chance than not?
I haven't seen a market for this yet, but there's a better chance than not that they withhold rendering a judgment until after the election.
They're partisan enough to do that.
Yeah, but also it's October, November.
I once was sitting on a judge for six months to get a ruling on a motion to disqualify for conflict of interest of the attorney.
They wouldn't even have time to draft this if they started yesterday.
I think you'll see, after the election, a massive walkback of the lawfare.
That is my informed speculation.
The flip side to that is they might, depending on the outcome of the election, if Kami Kamala gets elected.
You have a president, you're going to try to lock him up.
You're going to try to bankrupt him then.
I mean, you're going to create a massive constitutional crisis.
This was always theater.
This was theater to influence the election.
I think even if he lost, they were going to dump the cases later.
And then say, oh, actually this went a little too far.
We want to restrict this.
But they needed the theater in the interim.
Well, speaking of theater, and it's a good segue into the other New York case, which is Eric Adams, now officially indicted, pleaded not guilty.
Of all the New York politicians to get indicted, for all the potential crimes, this has got to be one of the sorriest, saddest, most pitiful indictments I've ever seen.
It says very little about Eric Adams.
Aside from me, he's obviously done something right to get this nonsense from the Southern District of New York.
One of the most corrupt jurisdictions.
If you wanted to lock up criminals in New York, start with the Southern District of New York.
Just go through the FBI office.
Go through the U.S. Attorney's Office.
There you've got your biggest criminals in New York.
This indictment is a joke.
It is a complete joke.
It shows how insane their bribery interpretations have become.
It's a joke in that reading through it very summarily and reading some analysis, taking campaign contributions and then bestowing gifts like granting construction permits without a fire inspection.
This is not like one kilo bars of gold that the other guy there, Menendez, had.
He was upgraded on Turkish Airlines.
I was like, you're kidding, right?
You're saying getting upgraded now is the sophistic...
In New York?
I mean, everybody's getting bribed in New York.
With real money, with real illegality, with real promises.
The Clinton Foundation has run out of New York.
It's an ongoing criminal operation.
And you go after the mayor of New York, and I thought, okay, if they're going after him, it's got to be, they got him in something big.
And I was like, that was the most biggest letdown of an indictment I'd ever read.
Airline upgrades?
That's your big bribery, Alec?
Obviously, he went AWOL by talking about he didn't want to house all the illegals the Biden administration was coming in.
So they punished him with this nonsense prosecution.
And obviously, Adams is one of the cleaner mayors of New York when the biggest thing you have against him is campaign donations, which is right there for anybody to see, and policies he had the discretion to issue.
And then...
And airline upgrades.
I want to see when he was elected.
He was elected as the mayor in 2021.
A lot of this predates his mayoralship.
I don't know if that's the word.
A lot of this predates him being elected mayor, and it leads me to believe that...
They either sit on these accusations or they dig them up once someone falls on a political favor.
They got a thousand allegations on everybody.
But I thought they would have had something serious.
I mean, the guys connected the high-ranking New York Police Department and officials.
I mean, you know, the New York's finest.
Research the New York's finest.
It's Great New York Taxi Service.
It was a unique taxi service with some unique taxi drivers.
So there's real corruption in New York.
And all they got him on is airline upgrades and campaign donations for trying to help somebody be able to get their building ready without having to deal with the regulatory insanity that is New York City.
Robert, was it a sex taxi?
No, no.
The taxi service was by the New York Police Department for a special set of customers.
Okay. I immediately went to, I don't know, some massage therapy.
It's actually referenced in the film The Unusual Suspects.
Gotta go back and watch that movie.
That's a great film.
That's so good.
So, bullshit indictment from a guy because he fell out of political favor because he complained about the migrant crisis after trying to ship all of the migrants that New York had, illegal immigrants to Canada.
For those of you who don't know, that's what he tried to do.
And then...
Was complaining about how it's costing the city too much.
Was he not getting enough compensation from the federal government for housing illegals and replacing homeless shelters?
It was causing disastrous problems.
It was causing problems throughout the city.
New York City politics is somebody wins, somebody loses.
And when illegals are coming in, it's all the voters are losing.
So there's no mayor that wants that trade-off.
All right.
So, well, I mean, he's going to...
Go to trial?
There's going to be no plea deal here.
So this goes to trial, what, a year, two years?
Yeah, probably.
We'll see if it has any impact.
You know, it's amazing.
The feds really do love to indict black mayors.
They got a real fondness for it.
Black mayors who get too uppity, the FBI comes in and finds an excuse to indict.
Yeah, you say that, though, but then I do think, like, you know, Leticia James deserves to be indicted.
Oh, she's not a mayor.
She's an attorney general.
Yeah, she's an attorney general.
That's why she'll never be indicted.
She's doing the dirty folks' business.
Barack Obama's most of the world don't get indicted.
It's the guys that don't stay on message.
That's very interesting that you mentioned.
I was thinking Fannie Willis, also possible.
Even Marion Barry.
That was classic entrapment.
That was pure entrapment with Marion Barry.
That was a joke of a case.
Let's go back and refresh.
All I remember?
Smoke and crack.
That's all I remember.
What year was that?
Smart on the media.
I mean, how they spun that story.
It was pure entrapment.
Basically, he wasn't going to get any until he did it.
And she was like, no, no, you got to smoke it.
No, no, you got to smoke it.
All right, fine.
I hope she was worth it.
But that was a huge entrapment.
That's all that was.
Because Barry wasn't playing ball on some other issues.
Well, there's not enough money.
There's not enough you can do on earth to make me smoke crack.
I mean, I'm sure it would be like instant death if I ever did it.
Let me read a couple of these.
In Arizona, youngest, your DL at age 18 and don't renew it until you're 65 and 20 years ago.
Arizona was largely Republican.
These are the conditions that set up the current volunteer registration program.
I knew people say in almost every election that it's the most important election of their lifetimes.
Well, 2024, for better or worse, will be the most important election, not just in the U.S., but in the West.
And I tend to agree with that.
What do we move on to?
The other biggest one on the board that was voted for was the Second Amendment case, my Reuben King Amish farmer case.
So Reuben King was...
Convicted of selling firearms, of being an unregistered or unlicensed firearms dealer, facing a lot of jail time.
What stage of the proceedings are you at right now?
On appeal.
He is currently...
Where is he now?
He's... He got probation.
We started representing him at the sentencing stage.
And the original recommendation was three years in prison.
And the judge recognized the issues that we raised and reduced it to probation.
All right.
And so you're appealing it even though probation has come and gone, I presume?
Oh, no.
The probation is like three years.
But the main, it was really the big constitutional questions lurking in his case.
And he went along with the appeal because of the broader consequences of the case.
Generally, Amish don't seek legal relief or legal remedy because of their religious traditions.
But in this context, it was permissible, I have an understanding of the Second Amendment constitutional issues, but flesh it out for those who might not appreciate it.
This is a man who's selling his own This is what we would call a private sale of a firearm.
He's not making it his primary business.
Their argument is that any private sale basically is going to make you into a gun dealer, which means that you need to get licensed by the feds?
Yeah. And in particular here, problematic because they require as a condition without exception a photograph.
And the Amish don't do photographs as part of their religious tradition.
And so consequently, he couldn't apply.
And they didn't provide any accommodation for him to apply.
And what they told him was if his general business was selling guns, then he had to register.
He's like, well, I farm every day.
So no, selling guns is not my daily business.
My daily business is this big farm I operate here.
So he thought that was that.
Some undercovers went back in.
And decided to charge him with being a commercial sales, someone that required a license.
And so one issue is whether he could even be required to have a license.
The law is so vague about that, that that's one of our challenges, that it's void for vagueness, because nobody would be on fair notice as to who is required to be licensed.
When even the ATF can't agree on who it is that's required.
They've described it themselves as saying there's no bright-lying rule.
That's kind of the definition of void for vagueness.
For those that don't remember, the principle is that the law has to give you fair notice of what you can go to prison for.
And if there's any doubt about it, they can't put you in prison for it under the rule of lenity for criminal statute interpretation.
And the other aspect here...
Was the argument that this violated the Second Amendment?
Because there's no federal...
First of all, there's no federal gun law registration of any kind until the 1930s.
So if you go back to when our Constitution was founded, you won't find any federal laws for a century and a half of any custom and practice or history and tradition of limiting who could sell a gun, who could buy a gun, and who could possess a gun.
So our argument is there is no history and tradition of federal law regulating this, requiring a licensing in the first place, despite the rule being so vague that it can entrap all kinds of people on top of it.
And the only question is, is selling or buying a gun protected under the Second Amendment?
Well, it almost has to be, right?
Because if not, if you have no Second Amendment right to buy a gun...
And no Second Amendment right to sell a gun.
What good is a Second Amendment right to possess something you can neither buy nor sell?
Let me play devil's advocate.
They'll say you have the right to buy a gun if you buy it from a registered federal dealer, and you have the right to own it if you've bought it from a registered dealer.
But that only goes to the second aspect.
So the first aspect is, does the Second Amendment protect it?
Because if it does protect it...
Then they have to show that the regulation or restriction on purchases or sales fits within the history and tradition of federal registration laws.
They know they can't win on the second part because there were no federal registration laws until the 1930s.
So the only way they can win is if the courts decide, well, the states were imposing these restrictions, except the Second Amendment wasn't applied to the states until the Civil War and the incorporation.
So that has no analogy to what was the interpretation of the Second Amendment as to the federal government, which is applicable only at the time of the founding.
And even then, they've just got a scattered shot set of laws that aren't consistent and the rest.
For the most part, gun sales were not controlled by the government, whether in terms of purchases or in terms of selling.
So all of these laws are foreign to the history of the Constitution in the general world, Second Amendment.
So what's their main argument?
Their main argument is, you have absolutely no right in America to buy a gun.
You have absolutely no right in America to sell a gun.
The Second Amendment only protects possession.
It does not protect purchases, and it does not protect sales.
Which means, yeah, you have the right to have a gun, you just have no means to get it.
That's their interpretation of the Second Amendment.
They said that explicitly to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
And that's why I've been telling people that Reuben King's case is much bigger than Reuben King.
They say you do not have the right to acquire it unless it's acquired from a federally licensed deal.
No, no, no.
You don't have a right, period.
This is purely a privilege.
You have no right to ever buy a gun, according to the U.S. government.
You have no right to ever sell a gun, according to the U.S. government.
They're saying the Second Amendment doesn't protect that.
The right to bear arms only protects the right of possession.
That the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the purchase or sale of a gun.
That's their position.
All right, now, but no judge is going to say that you can't buy or sell a gun.
They're going to say...
The district court judge pretty much said exactly that.
Well, unless you're registered as a federal...
No, no, no.
He said there's no right.
So, in other words, the registration is purely ancillary.
You never analyze the registration rules.
It's, do you have a Second Amendment right?
Does a Second Amendment apply?
To gun sales.
If it doesn't apply to gun sales, it's just a privilege.
There's no right.
So that's it.
Now, you won't be criminally prosecuted under the existing law if you go through a licensed seller.
But what that means is Congress could just ban the sale of it altogether, not require any licensing.
Because what's important here is they're not saying that this method of registration is permissible under the Second Amendment.
They're saying the Second Amendment doesn't apply.
Period. And if we wanted to, we can ban all sales of all guns to everybody, everywhere.
Assume that they're going to come down with the reasonable middle ground, which is going to be you can have private sales for up to if you don't exceed your primary income.
The only way you can get to that, though, is you have to first say the Second Amendment applies.
And then you would say...
Is this regulation and restriction, this condition on purchase and sales, consistent with the history and tradition of gun law?
I would say federal gun laws.
They're trying to argue federal and state gun laws.
You only get to that if the first aspect is met.
They know they have a problem with a bunch of their current rules and restrictions.
Their fallback position is, hey, it still won't apply to Reuben King for reasons A, B, C, and D. But, you know, they put that aside for the moment.
The bigger legal precedent they're trying to establish here is there's no Second Amendment right, period.
But from a practical perspective, this was a criminal case.
Was it done by a judge or was it done by a jury, the conviction?
Both a judge and a jury.
But the first part was, does the Second Amendment apply?
Because then you turn to, is this particular restriction consistent with the Second Amendment?
And they didn't even get past the first part, which was, no, the Second Amendment does not apply to the purchase and sale of firearms.
Correct. I mean, they have additional arguments on the other part, but their goal was to use this case to make a precedent on the first.
And that's why the ATF was trying to expand into making all private sales you had to get registered for, which a federal court in Texas enjoined because it said you didn't even go through the proper APA process for that.
But the big first issue, because this has never been explicitly ruled on by any court, the courts have suggested our position is correct.
That yes, the Second Amendment has to protect purchase and sales, because if it doesn't, the Second Amendment is dead.
Your right to possess a gun you can't get is worthless and useless.
And that's been the logic other courts have noted, but they've never ruled on the specific question.
This case presents that specific question clearly.
They have to make that decision first before they do the analysis as, is this restriction permissible under the Second Amendment?
Because it fits within the history and traditions under the Bruin decision.
They don't want to get there because even if it's not this case, there'll be other cases they lose where they can't establish that their restriction on purchase and sales covers it.
The case the Supreme Court has addressed to date hasn't been purchase and sale cases.
It's been permits to possess.
And the new Biden administration, the new Democratic approach is, okay, we can't win on that anymore.
On controlling possession.
Let's just ban sales.
Let's just ban purchases.
And thereby we eviscerate your Second Amendment anyway.
What are the chances that the court says, the question will arise later on, but for the time being, he's satisfied his goal.
That first analysis before they can do the rest.
So they're going to have to address this question.
Now I absolutely understand, not your fixation, but why this was such an important case to you from the beginning, because we've been talking about it for a long time.
I figured out a way to do something.
Let me pull up.
Now we can read this.
Let's read some of the tips from locals.
Robert, I'm terrified that the harpy, that is going to be Kamala Harris, is going to win.
I won't be able to survive listening to that hideous voice for four years.
It's almost as though she has deliberately formed the most insufferable, intolerable voice imaginable.
I'm begging you, please won't you ease my worried mind.
And then Suzy C says, thank you for keeping us both informed.
Viva isn't swearing anymore.
I'm swearing less, Suzy C. But occasionally I lapse and I put out a mean tweet.
Schnookum says, follow YouTube channel Cash Jordan for good coverage of the New York problems, especially with the immigration problem.
I got the Gouveia one from a while back.
We got, Robert, do you think the idea of getting state laws passed will require the candidate for a statewide office must win the majority of the state's counties to be elected, and could that be crafted to include presidential electors?
The Supreme Court has held that you can't do it, because Tennessee used to do precisely that.
And they said, one person, one vote.
It means you cannot have an electoral college-style system within a state.
I wanted to read on the Harpy voice.
She's going super nasally.
It's like she's talking with the back of her nose.
It makes me want to retch.
But I still hate Justin Trudeau's voice more.
I hate Hillary Clinton's voice more and Chrystia Freeland's voice more.
Speaking of comedy, Shopify is trying to escape U.S. justice.
So, class action against Shopify for, what was it?
Privacy. They're mass stealing our privacy.
Well, not just stealing.
Stealing and then selling.
I mean, it's one thing just to steal and you keep it in your back drawer.
Stealing and selling your privacy data for people who weren't even making purchases on the platform and then selling it to third-party purchasers for the data and the information to collect it unlawfully, surreptitiously on not just clients and users, but anyone who visited the website.
And then they seek to dismiss on the basis that California is not the proper jurisdiction because they weren't specifically targeting Californians.
And though they do business in California, it's not proper jurisdiction.
I mean, they didn't pull out the arbitration clause, but they're seeking to have this dismissed out of California on the basis that nothing unique that grounds this case to California.
What have I missed and what do you take about this?
It's been a problem with websites.
So websites, people have used websites to defame other people.
People have used websites to steal information, used websites to commit a wide range of illegality.
And their excuse has been, well, we didn't do it in your jurisdiction, so it's okay.
And I've always found that problematic.
So a lot of people got away with libel because courts have said no personal, the Covington Kids cases that I handled in Kentucky.
They said no personal jurisdiction because the person wasn't in Kentucky when they made the libelous statements, even though they targeted the statements to Kentucky residents, even though they made it about Kentucky residents and intended to cause injury in Kentucky.
So it was, frankly, a ludicrous ruling, but mostly it was because you had a bunch of judges who didn't want to get into political hot water in the middle of that case, and so they ran and covered and hid.
And, you know, the smarter defendants all settled and went away.
But the dumb ones hung on, but they got bailed out by the Kentucky courts.
But this is a bigger, broader problem.
So here you have Shopify, a Canadian company, using, what do they call it?
It's cookie profiling.
So they stick a little cookie in your computer when you go there, and they steal all your information, and they go and sell it to other people, even if you don't buy anything on Shopify.
And they know they're doing this to California, in this case, to American customers, but specifically in California, to California customers.
They know they're causing the injury in California.
They know the injury is a continuous injury in California.
They take deliberate steps to profit from all of these things in California.
And yet, they claim nobody can sue us in California for our illegality.
And the lower courts went along with it because they've been getting...
The message the courts got from Section 230 and all the legal scholars being bought off by big tech is they bought these ludicrous theories, not only of Section 230 that they've now enforced, but ludicrous theories about personal jurisdiction to not only greenlight libel by just hiding your location, has happened in cases that I've had, where the person wouldn't disclose where they...
Committed the libel from, but every time you sued them in a particular place, they said, no, you can't sue me there because I wasn't there.
It's that game.
And court's going along with it, even when the statement was targeted towards a person that was either a resident of that jurisdiction or intended to cause injury in that place, which has historically been the standard.
Standards be, if I'm in Tennessee and I throw a rock to hit somebody in Kentucky and hit their head in Kentucky, Kentucky has personal jurisdiction over me, even though I didn't throw the rock from Tennessee.
Even though I'm not a resident of Tennessee, because I deliberately caused injury in Kentucky.
That has been the historic standard.
They've eviscerated it for web online platforms because they want to grant them every immunity known to man.
Just like they want to grant a lot of these libelers immunity whenever it's politically convenient to do so.
And so they've been abusing personal jurisdiction law to get there.
And it misapplies personal jurisdiction on a constitutional basis, is governed by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
And is it just consistent with due process for you to be sued there?
If you knowingly cause injury and knowingly profit from causing that injury to a person you know is in that state, by golly, that has always been personal jurisdiction and being a web business doesn't magically inoculate you from it.
And it looks like the Ninth Circuit, where the original panel affirmed this, which was just a nutty decision and dangerous because it would allow web companies to have a complete immunity for all the injury they're causing.
By locating in a jurisdiction that's difficult to sue them in or the laws are not applicable to.
And the en banc panel realized this is going too far and it looks like they're finally going to reverse this and maybe we'll reverse it all the way going back.
Return personal jurisdiction to its constitutional roots.
If you deliberately cause injury to a person in a particular jurisdiction and you know the injury you're causing is in that jurisdiction and you're profiting from that injury in that jurisdiction, You can be sued in that jurisdiction.
You can be hailed into that jurisdiction's courts and held liable.
What I found crazy about the initial part of it is that I don't understand whose interest the court is trying to protect here.
Typically, set aside the fact that it's not an out-of-state but an out-of-country company, in my 13 years of practice, courts were always unfriendly to foreign entities that were defendants in a local entity.
You want to protect your own from a nationalist perspective.
It's because it's big tech.
And they've enjoyed granting this broad personal jurisdiction immunity because it allows them to protect their favored libelers and defamers as well.
But it's mostly big tech.
They're so deferential to big tech, especially in the Ninth Circuit, that they've been issuing insane rulings.
But other courts have issued these rulings in a bunch of places.
Usually, most often comes up in the libel context, but sometimes in the fraud or privacy invasion context.
And it's wanting those big tech businesses to be as immune as possible from suit.
We might not be able to have the locals exclusive after party tonight.
I'll see if and when it comes time to shut it down.
To see if we can get to the locals exclusive.
But to the extent that we can't, let me just pull up a few more of these questions before we move on to the next subject.
Bayan Bayunola says, Robert, do you have any recommendations on who I can contact in Chattanooga or any effects by flooding?
I, along with many in Southeast Louisiana, want to help.
Thanks. Yeah, I don't know what the update is.
And then we got, what are your thoughts on the tornado cash case?
I think it's the most pressing front in their fight for financial freedom.
I mean, this is all the different ways they're going after crypto.
And the Biden administration is waging a complete war on crypto.
And that's why crypto has rallied to Trump, is because of this.
Kennedy was kind of a conduit for them being part of Trump world now.
But there's been a complete war on crypto because it provides an alternative from the central planners and central banks that want to control how you...
Share information, how you have resources to interact in the world.
Dred Roberts says Nancy Pelosi has made sure insider trader does not apply to Congress.
Are there protections?
It actually does.
So some of that law got changed in 2012.
So they haven't strictly enforced it, but it does apply in certain instances.
And it would apply to some of her conduct.
Barnes, this is from Sammy.
Was it generally Milley who sat in front of the Senate committee testifying it was basically a shell game moving the troops in Afghanistan to obfuscate the actual numbers for Trump?
I think it was.
He was complicit in that as well as keeping troops in Syria after they had been ordered out and lying to the president about it, as well as treasonous conduct, seditious conduct, by talking to China and saying he would sabotage the president from within.
Ruth Stank says, wouldn't it be sweet justice if the Sandy Hook clients sought to punish their lawyers for malpractice and hired Barnes to sue their asses off for malpractice?
I know you've offered it many, many times.
Blue CW Soldier says, Viva, you've become a real Florida man by following Mike's weather page on Instagram or Facebook.
He's the official Florida hurricane nerd.
Barnes, do you think the election could be impacted by those who have been displaced by the hurricane's damage throughout the country?
I don't think so.
Yeah, I think there's enough time to remedy that.
This was herpes and warts 2024, and I think this is going to make Barnes laugh.
Okay, I'll get to some more of those in a bit.
We'll cover a couple more stories.
Well, the rest of our stories.
Do we segue into...
Well, speaking of hurricanes...
The fishermen!
Oh, I was going to go to the oil spill.
Go to the fishermen.
I knew why you sent me this case, because this...
I don't know if this is the direct result from the...
Chevron overturning and the deference to the administrative state being basically undone.
But this is the case.
I don't understand the details and you'll flush them out or fill them if I don't explain them properly.
The feds set fishing limits or something along those lines of maximum catches or the policy for fishermen nationwide, I guess.
But apparently there are these administrators who have what they call pocket vetoes and if they don't like...
What the federal government says, these unelected officials can unilaterally veto the policy dictated by the government.
And they did this to unilaterally alter or reduce or amend the quotas that fishermen could take out of certain types of fish.
And I think that's when I started getting confused.
I understand the broad brushstrokes of this is that at the end of the day, they declared these pocket vetoes to be unlawful and these unelected officials can't dictate policy that's supposed to come from the feds by way of regulation.
But what is the broader importance of this other than what I suspect is the runoff or the trickle down of having overturned Chevron?
Well, I recognize two of the types of fish at issue, but the third I did.
So I recognize Flounder.
I recognize Black Sea Bass.
But what is a SCUP?
I didn't know what that was either.
I'm going to go Google it right now.
A scupp.
S-C-U-P-P.
S-U-P-P.
Fish. Or just one P. Yeah, there's one P. A scupp fish.
It looks...
No, now my computer's freezing.
It looks like...
It looks like it might be...
Oh, what's going on?
I'll get it in a second.
It looks like...
I don't want to say a sea perch.
It just looks like a regular fish.
Scupp fish.
Yeah, it kind of looks...
Oh, these look like the fish I catch off the pier here.
Here, check it out.
Let's see what family they are in.
Scup. These things.
I catch these off of...
I would not call them trash fish.
Deep-bodied...
Well, these are definitely not the ones that I catch them.
They are dusky brown.
They're fish.
The scup fish comes primarily in the Atlantic, Massachusetts, along with many other fish in the Spiridi family.
So it's a cute-looking fish.
It looks like it probably tastes like redfish.
Redfish? Doesn't it taste pretty good usually?
Yeah, well, I'll tell you what doesn't taste good.
The locals community is telling me I've got to change my cooking habits for fishing, but I'm going to bread it next time and not do it the way I do it.
But is the broader impact about this is that we're coming down finally on the administrative state and things have to be done by way of legislation?
Well, in part, but it also relates to presidential appointment.
So this aspect of abuse isn't so much in regulation as it is in execution, in enforcement.
So what you had was they passed these fishing laws to try to maintain a constant stock of fish and not to exhaust fishing supply for fishermen across the country.
But the way they did it is they created these regional councils.
None of whom are appointed by the President of the United States.
None of whom are confirmed by the Senate of the United States.
And yet, they could override the decisions of a state.
They could override the decisions of the Secretary of Commerce.
They could override the decisions of Congress through what is effectively a pocket veto.
If they didn't like the plan.
And they could thereby unilaterally increase the limits on what amount of fishing you could do in that particular region.
And in this case, they put drastic limits on being able to fish for scud.
No, what was it again?
Scup. Scup.
Scup. Black sea bass and flounder.
And that was putting real strain on these small local fishermen who are the most...
Regulated, restricted, and negatively impacted by these kind of rules.
It's not usually the big fishing industries that get impacted.
It's usually the little fella.
And they brought suit because they pointed out the people exercising this extraordinary power were not elected by anybody, were not appointed by elected officials, were not confirmed by elected officials, and by golly, that sure sounded like a principal officer under the appointments clause.
An Article 2 of the Constitution, which says anybody that's a principal officer must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to have such power.
And finally, after years of abuse of power, and this is just one aspect of the entire regulatory administrative state, the bloated bureaucracy that has been suppressing individual liberty and stripping us of our constitutional government, this dual state.
Which, when applied to the national security apparatus, is colloquially called the deep state.
It's just the dual state in practice as to areas outside of national security.
And the Third Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously said, this clearly violates the Constitution.
These people are exercising classic examples of principal authority.
And they weren't appointed constitutionally to have such authority.
That when you have the power to determine how much a fisherman can fish, by golly, that sounds like classic executive power of the executive branch of the government, which means it needs to come from elected officials or those appointed by it.
And so it was an exceptional ruling that negated all these regional councils, said your role is to simply be advisory, not controlling, not dictating policy.
And they had two great quotes in the case.
They also did a great constitutional history.
I like these cases that go through, and I'll probably post it on the locals' board, that go through the history about how this exact problem is part of what led to the revolution.
Because one of the objections was the colonies would pass legislation that would be more reasonable and amenable to the local demands, and the king or his administrative regents would just block it without regard or respect to the interests of the local people.
And they're like, you're abrogating our core constitutional, our core liberties and rights, our traditional liberties and rights, as they were then called and designated, sometimes considered charter rights, other times considered part of the Magna Carta Extended, and so forth.
But consequently, that was part of what brought about the revolution, which said, we're never going to have people, that's why the principal officer's clause exists in the appointments clause in Article 2. And they said, a little unconstitutional power is deadly.
Doesn't matter if it's a little.
That's a great quote.
But it starts with one of the best starts of any federal appellate decision I've read of late.
Quote, the buck stops with the president, but not when unelected officials get a veto.
And that's exactly the problem.
And if we start eradicating this, we can substantially reduce the most problematic aspects of the bureaucratic administrative state.
Let me bring up...
I'm going to bring up the rumble rants for a second because there's one that I want to get to right at the end, but let me just go down because a bunch came in from T1990.
Also point out the laws and regulations that make sense to a city don't make sense in suburban and rural parts.
The left, like the left did with gay marriage, just keep bringing it to the Supreme Court, make arguments that of the cities keep overriding that will...
Okay, hold on a second.
I laughed when Viva said, assuming the courts come down to the reasonable middle ground.
That's from Real Todd.
Robert, I have to push back against the idea that we can't get a state electoral college.
Keep in mind, the Supreme Court said that about gay marriage 36 times, and that was the rest of that question.
Do you know that you're still live on YouTube?
Yes, because I can't seem to end it in studio, and I don't know if it's my computer, but whatever.
We'll give YouTube a freebie this week.
Any updates on the Raketa case?
Robert, so I believe there were some updates on the Raketa case last week.
I was trying to follow along, but from what I understand...
Reketa, Nick, or his lawyer had presented a bunch of motions to dismiss all the charges and, I don't know, strike the evidence as inadmissible.
And I don't think it comes as a surprise.
I don't think it's as devastating as anybody thought it would be.
But the motions to dismiss were not granted.
They were dismissed.
And the motion to exclude the evidence for the time being was not granted.
Is that about the size of it?
Well, there was a request for a Frank's hearing.
So a Frank's hearing, if you get a Frank's hearing, it usually means the case is going to be dismissed right out of the gate.
But they're tough to get with a lot of judges.
That doesn't mean the judge's decision is correct.
There are some people out there that constantly confuse power with principle.
So the fact a judge says something tells you nothing about the law.
It tells you what people in power do, but it doesn't tell you anything about principle.
So some of these same people that celebrate the exercise of power in this case, I think wrongly denying a Frank's hearing.
They are the same people who would condemn such power when it's been utilized against Trump, for example.
Do you think the New York was Judge Engram right?
According to the logic of some of these people, if the judge says it, that must be the law.
It's some of the most simplistic notions of the law I've ever heard or read.
Now, sometimes it just reflects personal or political prejudice.
On the topic or subject matter involved, and that can cross all kinds of barriers.
And there's people that are obsessed with hating on Rakeda.
So it's amazing you see these people that pretend to celebrate civil liberties and civil rights, celebrate the abuse of those civil rights and civil liberties when they don't like the target.
Well, let me play a little devil's advocate because some people might say, well, when the judge comes down with a good decision, it's the right decision.
When they come down with the wrong decision, they lack principle.
Or I disagree with him in the interpretation of the principle.
You should always separate principle from power.
One is, what do you think tactically is going to happen as opposed to what do you think legally should happen?
And those two should not be conflated in doing legal analysis.
And there's a tendency in the legal academy to conflate them because what it will do is reduce, it makes objective truth subject to subjective power.
And when you do that, you no longer have objective truth.
You no longer have an objective principle.
You know, I mean, the law is supposed to be the idea of it is that there's an objective truth that we're seeking to discover as advocates, as jurists, as jurors, etc.
Not that it's subjective, that it's subject to subjective win or interpretation.
So the, the, the, I disagree with the judge.
I just don't say, oh, I must have been wrong on the principle because somebody in power disagrees with me.
That's the, and whether they agree or disagree, that's the other aspect to step back from.
So when you're analyzing these things, Look at what is the objective truth of the matter and always separate that because the powers that be want us to divorce ourselves from the meaning, from the objective truth seeking at all and say, you need to defer to subjective power and whatever we say is the law.
Whatever we say is the rules.
We don't need no stinking badges.
I find that idea.
It's dangerous to any sense of constitutional liberty or governance.
It's part of the sort of left in general, but it's also part of the power in general.
No objective truth.
Everything's subjective.
So all of a sudden, nothing is true and nothing is real.
And you get into all those philosophical aspects that have been popular within parts of the academy for 60 years.
And some of these people that are so deferential to power constantly do that.
When a judge issues a ruling, sit down and say whether you agree with it or disagree with it and why.
As opposed to, oh, the judge agreed with this, so that must mean the principal was right.
I was either right or wrong on the principal, regardless of what the judge said.
Are you telling me that the expression is not badgers?
We don't need no stinking badgers?
No, no badgers.
What movie was it from?
Badgers. I think it's from UHF.
Okay, that was a joke.
But the question is this.
I view these types of motions, especially like a motion to dismiss and a motion to exclude evidence.
The vast majority of the time, they're not going to be granted by the judge.
Not in America, unfortunately.
Now, if you're talking about the tactics, one, you always raise them because you raise every defense.
Two, tactically, you want to make it as robust as possible to preserve issues for trial and to preserve issues for appeal.
That's where a lot of the plea bargains that are done in these cases are done in two different ways.
Either the government fears losing power broader than just the individual case on appeal, and so they come to a more reasonable terms.
If they had lost with the trial court, the case was dead.
The trial court even orders a Frank's hearing, and you have a cop subject to...
Cross-examination on his entire history of a range that they dismiss right away, typically, or they just dump the case.
Frank's hearings are supposed to be commonplace, but they're very rarely granted.
So everybody knows that that's part of the system.
You're not likely to win out of the gate with any of these kind of motions tactically.
I disagree with that as a matter of principle, because that's because our courts are way too deferential to power, and they don't meaningfully enforce, in criminal defense cases especially, our civil rights.
That's why I talked about the Eighth Amendment and P. Diddy and Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein and Sam Bankman-Fried.
These political cases where they know the person's disliked and most criminally accused are going to be publicly disliked, they know they get away with eviscerating our constitutional rights and liberties.
And these people that celebrate that because they don't like the individual, whether that's Nick Ricada or whether that's Sam Bankman-Fried, doesn't matter who it is, that's how you lose your constitutional rights and liberties.
Another way you lose it, Is by confusing objective truth with subjective power, with principle, with power.
Don't make that confusion.
You may be right or wrong on your interpretation of the principle, but never defer to power to who is right as to what the truth is as to a principle.
Because that's how power gets away with a lot of bad stuff.
I heard the news.
Some people might want to frame it as a massive defeat for Reketa.
I presume that these motions were never going to get granted in the first place.
They're long shots.
You take the long shot up front and then you just keep taking the shots.
It clearly established a robust basis because the government had to take time to issue a different reply.
They didn't want to do a straight oral argument out of the gate.
They conceded on a range of issues and topics.
If you're in the government, you know you've got a long fight.
The smart thing for them to do, given the low...
Low significance, frankly, of this case.
I know some people climb the walls because they get really upset over people allegedly using certain unapproved drugs.
I find more objectionable people that kill people with legally authorized drugs, like Big Pharma and COVID.
And yet another case where a young man who died from the willful misconduct...
In this case, of government officials lying about the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccine were let off the hook this week by a D.C. judge.
Hold on just one second before we forget that, before I forget what I was about to say.
Too late?
I forgot what I was about to say.
Okay, tell us about this case.
This is a man who...
I'm confusing two cases in terms of the threshold for injury, which was in the oil spill case.
What's going on in this case?
It's another case where they're helping big companies get away with murder, quite literally.
So what happened, this is Children's Health Defense brought a case on behalf of a young man who died from the COVID vaccine.
It's meaningfully undisputed that he died from the COVID vaccine based on a wide range of medical expert evidence.
Just to clarify, you say meaningfully it is not a disputed fact that the death resulted from the jab.
Okay. Yep.
So he takes the COVID vaccine.
He dies because of it.
And he was a young man.
I think it was in college, if I recall correctly.
I think he may have taken it by a mandate, but I don't remember that detail or not.
But he took it also because the government lied about it.
So under the PREP Act, they say any covered person can be sued with some procedural hurdles.
If they engage in willful misconduct.
So what happened is they...
Man, I got some crazy cats out back.
I actually heard that.
Time to invite the Haitians over again.
Hold on.
Let's see if Winston's got to hear it from here.
Let's see if Winston gets upset and you say, Haitians want to come over.
Well, he's eating me, Robert.
Okay. Yeah, exactly.
So they sue.
They can't sue.
Big Pharma, according to the government.
But a covered person they can't sue.
And one of the covered persons in this case is the government.
And the government was complicit in the willful misconduct because they did the whole bait and switch saying, oh, here's what's approved.
But actually what's out there is not what's approved.
They did that whole shenanigan.
And so the question was, well, okay, it says you can sue for willful misconduct.
This constitutes willful misconduct.
What if the government was the one that's complicit?
Let's sue the government.
And the federal judge said, ah, nah, sovereign immunity.
And they're like, hold on a second.
The statute says the United States is a covered person.
Isn't that clearly at least an implied waiver of sovereign immunity?
I mean, why is the U.S. listed as a covered person if they weren't supposed to be subject to suit like every other covered person under the PrEP Act, which they give mostly just massive immunity to everybody with this tiny little space you could sue for willful misconduct under select circumstances.
But the federal district court judge there in District of Columbia said, nah, you can never sue the government pretty much.
And what they're doing is they're shutting down every path of relief.
Legislative immunity under the PrEP Act for the vaccine manufacturers, sovereign immunity for the government.
If you were to sue the doctors for giving negligent advice, what would be their...
It's the same.
PrEP Act covers everybody that's a private actor.
And so the theory was, well, there's a provision for suing certain covered private actors or certain covered...
If you can show willful misconduct, now you have to go through all these loopholes if you're suing a private actor.
You have to get the U.S. Attorney General basically to sign off.
But what if it's the government?
There was no protocol that said you had to go get the Attorney General's approval, but it did require you sue, guess where?
In the District of Corruption.
I mean, it's sad and pitiful how many of these cases are deliberately assigned by Congress to the most politically corrupt court in America, the District of Columbia.
And they wanted to assign all of the border disputes to the District of Columbia as well.
As Mike Davis said, we need to get rid of the District of Columbia altogether.
It shouldn't exist as a separate legal system.
It was never intended to be that by our founders.
But it's another reason why we need to end PrEP Act immunity.
As Children's Health Defense and Mary Holland and those folks have advocated for, and she spoke today at the Restoring the Republic rally put on by Brett Weinstein in...
The District of Columbia, District of Corruption, appropriately.
But credit to Paul Gosar, congressman from Arizona, who is now propounding legislation to do what we already showed at the 1776 Law Center.
We surveyed and polled the entire country with one of the best pollsters in the country, Richard Barris.
You can find him at People's Pundit Daily.
And what we found was that overwhelmingly Americans support drug companies being held liable.
When their products cause injury.
For the damages those injuries cost.
Regardless of what the nature of the...
Even when it's a vaccine.
Because that was the specific question.
Massive support in the country.
And among swing voters.
Voters who are going to decide this election at every level of election.
They in particular supported this policy because they have disproportionately experienced injuries, disabilities, death, and discrimination.
Related to the vaccines.
And so it's a great issue.
So Paul Gosar proposes the legislation to end this special immunity.
Credit to Senate candidate Carrie Lake in Arizona, who immediately jumped on board and embraced it and endorsed it.
Would it only be going forward?
It could not be retroactive.
No, it would be retroactive.
Which you can absolutely do.
And so this is why Big Pharma in other countries...
Required the contract immunize them.
My view is they have provisions of that in the contract that the Trump Defense Department signed with them, but that came with conditions that they comply with that contract.
And for those that don't remember, the Trump contract required that Big Pharma deliver a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19.
And as long as that's what they delivered, they got agreements for the government to cover any injuries that may occur, to basically indemnify them.
But of course, they didn't do that.
They provided something that was dangerous, ineffective, not even a vaccine, and never prevented COVID-19.
So we need to go back and fix these laws so no more immunity from vaccine injuries at any level.
Not because they're on the kids' list.
Not because they're on some school list.
Not because they're on some mandate list.
Not because they're on some PREP Act list.
End it.
That has been a disaster and a debacle for public health and public confidence in public health.
And credit to Carrie Lake for endorsing it.
And any smart candidate that actually wants to win office, I'm not sure a lot of these candidates actually want to win office, as dumb as their campaigns are, at the House and Senate and state level, will embrace this because it's one of the most popular and compelling issues.
In the country, precisely because of cases like these.
I'm going to try to, and we're going to go over to the locals part, if I can do this, and I'm an idiot because I think there's another way of doing it.
But before we do that, let's actually read a bunch of the tips from our locals community for everyone.
Then I figured out I'm an idiot.
There's a way to bypass whatever glitch is going on tonight.
Am I sharing the screen right now?
I am.
We got, scrolling up, here we got Melmat, Trump is sentenced to 11-26, win or lose.
I believe he'll be sentenced to prison.
Is there any way around this?
I think we got to this one.
Massachusetts Ethic Committee sends, quote, warning, end quote, letter to Warren Police Chief for defending the Constitution and gun rights after the new gun law is signed by governor.
What can he do to tell them to go?
You could probably challenge it.
In court, depending on the degree of specificity of the threat, you would have standing to sue.
I'll refresh this afterwards, and we'll see what we can do.
Okay, hold on.
We're going to try it right now.
How many cases do we have left to discuss?
Well, some we may get to tonight.
Some we may save for another night.
Some I've got to research otherwise.
But we've got the solitary confinement case.
Oh, yes.
And the oil spill.
The oil spill, immigration, and the Catalan-EU case.
Those four for sure.
The Longshoremen strike I'll probably discuss tomorrow with Richard Barris on What Are the Odds?
which will be on at 2pm Eastern Standard Time at People's Pundit Daily.
Congress, I gotta research this crazy law they're trying to pass that replaces them in case of mass fatality.
I don't even understand what they're up to with that.
And just in passing, to show you how nuts the food laws are becoming.
In the UK, as one of our board members mentioned, they're going to require you to register any chicken you have.
Or you can be subject to criminal prosecution, apparently.
At least they get to own chicken.
Our HOA does not allow chickens, unfortunately, but we might...
All right, hold on.
I'll read this.
You got some sort of commie...
Ah, yeah, that's why I hate those housing...
Yeah, and I said, you know...
Rules are rules.
What are you going to do?
I'll get my...
We don't need more animals in this house anyhow.
When the stuff really hits the fan, we got three turtles that were like fattening up for Christmas.
Spam Ranger says $5.
Could they still do a Frank's hearing on the Trump documents case?
The affidavit for the Mar-a-Lago search warrant failed to disclose exculpatory details that the former President Act authorizes post-term work on presidential records by allocating...
That case is dismissed.
So only if the case was reinstated on appeal.
And then we got Dirty Efster says, Michigan had some meat food composition laws tossed 50s from conflict with ICC.
Rules for meat purveyors in interstate commerce, wife of Michigander, and told me of this.
Does such logic potentially arguable apply to California and pork production restrictions to the Amos Miller case?
If so, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture may be on shaky ground for these reasons.
Commerce clause is one of the basis that we are challenging what they're trying to do.
Okay, now I'm going to try to do this, and if it doesn't work, I'm just going to go manually end it.
Yeah, it won't let me...
I'm stupid.
I could have probably just...
So everybody, come to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party.
I will be live tomorrow with not a lawyer for Tina Peters, but a lawyer who is intimately familiar with the Tina Peters trial and conviction.
We're going to go over that for a good 45 minutes tomorrow, and then Jake Lang, a political prisoner who some people find controversial, is going to come on afterwards, and I think this is going to be his last.
Interview before his trial, from what I understand.
So I'll be live at 1230 tomorrow, and hopefully we don't overlap for too much.
But let me give everybody the link to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for here.
And I'll put it into Rumble.
Locals. Boom.
Before we go, because I'm an idiot and I always forget to remind everybody that we have merch.
At Viva Frye if you want to get some.
And you can also...
Here we go.
Go to VivaFrye.com.
Get some merch if you're so inclined.
So you're live tomorrow.
What else do you have on for the rest of the week?
You have actual law work, don't you?
Yeah, yeah.
This week will be the return of Bourbons with Barnes each night this week because the next week out in Pennsylvania in the Amos Miller case on Tuesday, October 8th.
And maybe we'll even try to do something that night.
We'll see.
But if people want to listen in or see it, I think you can only listen to it live.
I don't think it can be re-recorded and re-broadcast.
A lot of those crazy Pennsylvania rules.
So there's that dynamic present.
But they've already elevated us to the top case of the docket.
Got the specialized notice that our case will be the primary case before the Commonwealth Court on next Tuesday.
Allegheny County Courthouse is where the Commonwealth Court will be convening.
I think 9 or 9.30 in the morning.
That's a week from this Tuesday.
Yeah. They'll be spending some time prepping on that.
I got this crazy Seattle case that people have worked together where a guy's basically illegally imprisoned, had a bogus trial.
They took away his custodial access to his own son, who's suicidal because of what's happened, all because he objected.
On religious and medical grounds to a store's mask mandate.
That's how absolutely crazy the city of Seattle is.
No, they've done similar things in Canada, stripping parents of parental rights because one parent insisted on certain gibby jams.
Maybe we should just carve out the western part of the west coast.
We can stave the interior and give it to Canada.
it.
But hold on a second.
If you said you could only listen to it live, is that to say that live commentating would not be allowed because that could be constituting a rebroadcast?
I don't know.
You'd have to look at the particulars of the Commonwealth Court's rules.
Or I'll just do it and apologize.
I will not do it and apologize afterwards.
They will lock me up in Pennsylvania.
All right, people, I'm going to end it on YouTube because I can do that by going and hearing an ending stream.
Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
If not...
We'll see you, you know, tomorrow.
Ending on YouTube now.
Winston, hold on a second.
I don't want to drop the dog.
That would be very bad.
I'm going to end on YouTube now, and then I'm going to go end on Rumble.
Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Ended on YouTube, and now I'm going to go into here, into the live streaming.
It's going to be live on Twitter, because I don't know how to end a live stream while we're live on Twitter, but locals, we're coming in for the after party right now.
Bada bing, bada boom.
Okay, so we should be only on locals right now.
And did we miss any of the...
Let's see if I missed any of the tips here.
FinboySlick1box says, we don't need no stinking badgers.
It was Raul from UHF Vivo.
He also taught poodles how to fly.
I got to watch UHF again with my kids because that would be amazing.