Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 13, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:16:43

Ep. 232: Trump Appeal! Kamala Harris PLUMMETS! Gretchen Whitmer Scandal! Amos Miller Argument & MORE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We're now down to three Raptor engines.
	We can see those chopsticks now.
	laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter
	laughter laughter laughter laughter This is absolutely insane!
	For the first ever attempt, we have successfully caught the Super Heavy Beaster back at the Watchtower.
	What an incredible view!
	laughter Are.
	You. Getting me!
	laughter All right, two things.
	First of all, when I first saw that video, I thought the audio was an overlay.
	Like, there's that meme where they're staring at the screen and everyone's like, yeah, and they cheer and then they've made like a number of memes out of it.
	That were not actually related to the cheering fans.
	I thought that's what this was at first.
	Okay. Second thing was my joke.
	Joke's on all of us.
	That video's just in reverse.
	That wasn't a rocket landing back in its pad.
	It was a rocket taking off.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	That doesn't work because you can actually see from the flame that it's going the other way if it were reversed.
	Bottom line.
	There's a certain freedom of not being a part of like...
	Big enterprises.
	When you're a solo practitioner, it's a little bit different than when you're working at a big law firm and you work at a big law firm.
	You got to go to Christmas parties.
	You got to go to the Sank Asset, the wine things from five to seven.
	It's a lot of pains in the asses about being involved in a big organization.
	But my goodness, that type of celebration and teamwork, it's amazing.
	The internet is oftentimes a place of darkness.
	You know, it's a place where you're seeing violence and terrible videos on the internet.
	And then occasionally you see something like that that celebrates teamwork, human ingenuity, human awesomeness.
	And then the other one that I saw last night also, sitting there, not alone.
	I got one kid here, my wife, is away for the week.
	I'm watching Get Him to the Greek, reveling in the predictive patterns of...
	P. Diddy's behavior in that movie.
	And then I come across a video on Twitter of a doctor reviving a newborn baby who was blue.
	I guess, you know, the baby wasn't breathing.
	This doctor just meticulously, calmly brings it into a room, starts massaging its heart, sucks out the, you know, breathes it.
	And then the baby starts, you can see the baby turn pink in the video and starts crying.
	And then the doctor, after a minute and a half, two minutes of, you know, mission at hand.
	The doctor lets out a smile, and if you don't sob like a little baby watching those videos, you may or may not have a heart.
	All right, but I wanted to start on something good so that we don't have to start on the stuff that's going to make you want to puke, which we're going to get into in a bit.
	First things first, everyone in my locals, in our locals community, you know that I firmly believe that I blew out my MCL, the myocardial ligament, whatever the heck, the one on the inside of the knee, because I'm a freaking idiot.
	And I'm at the beach with my kid and I have the surfboard.
	And it's not even like surfing or anything.
	I'm just like standing alongside the water with the surfboard holding it laterally to the ocean.
	And then a big wave comes in, crashes it, and pushes the entire surfboard with the force of the ocean into the outside of my right knee.
	And I felt something pop.
	And debilitated.
	It was like the scene in 127 Hours when he cuts through the nerve in his arm to free himself from the rock.
	It was like a key on a piano popping.
	And then I bit my cheek on both sides.
	So I'm a kvechi old man.
	And I know what my father would have been saying.
	My father's saying, Machaya, Dave, that's God punishing you for going surfing or going to the beach on Yom Kippur.
	You should have been atoning for your sins.
	And he may or may not be part right.
	I also do believe it's God punishing me for the things that I've done wrong because we are all weak.
	I shouldn't.
	I won't lump everyone together.
	I am weak.
	I do things that I occasionally feel bad about.
	I know that I...
	I transgress the ethics that I hold for myself, and that's God every now and again just, you know, plucking a cord, reminding you.
	On the one hand, here's a little bit of punishment for the things you might have thought you got away with.
	And on the other hand, no matter how bad you think things are, they can always get worse.
	Like that, in the snap of the fingers.
	There goes your MCL.
	I didn't go to the ER.
	I'm going to go maybe to a clinic tomorrow because from everything that I can read, even if it's a full level three rupture.
	There's no surgery.
	It's just a question of staying off of it, which I'm not going to do either.
	So I once broke a toe clean in half, just cracked in half, and it healed broken.
	And I vowed one day I'll show the picture of the video of me being able to turn my pinky toe absolutely perpendicular.
	You can see where the bone broke and where it healed totally separate.
	But all right, setting all that aside, people, I wanted to start with this video, which is going to make you a wretch.
	Two reasons why I didn't.
	I didn't want this stream getting copyclaimed right away because these bastard copyright trolls will claim an entire stream because you used 30 seconds for commentary purpose, fair use commentary of their newsworthy events.
	I also wanted to start with something good for the show.
	We're going to talk about it when Barnes gets out here, the hearing that occurred before the New York Court of Appeals two weeks ago in the New York nipple judge Engelron and Tish James.
	Political persecution of Donald Trump.
	And it's like, I live on the internet.
	I take for granted everybody knows and has seen these videos in the past.
	But then again, you know, the internet memory is short.
	Where the heck is it?
	Because I did bring it up here.
	It's the Leticia James.
	Remember when?
	No, I've been saying it from the beginning.
	No. A reminder.
	Tish James.
	When she ran for Attorney General of the State of New York.
	She effectively, categorically, unequivocally ran on a campaign of prosecuting Trump if and when she were ever to get elected.
	If that is not weaponization of the legal system, given what she did afterwards, I don't know what is.
	First of all, you look at her face and she's consumed with anger.
	It snarls in her nostrils.
	I want to get to one part in particular.
	Uncharted territory.
	Look at this.
	We are angrier and more deeply divided than we've ever been at any point in our history.
	She's yelling at me.
	And at the eye of the storm is Donald Trump.
	It's him.
	He's the problem for your hatred.
	Not you, Leticia.
	But I wanted to go to a part of this where everybody needs to understand this.
	Leticia James campaigned off prosecuting Trump.
	And she was floating idiotic, legally untenable, and factually baseless grounds to prosecute Trump.
	And some of us who have been living this since 2018 and earlier remember it.
	She originally said she was going to prosecute Trump.
	He should be indicted on money laundering.
	Listen to this.
	In addition to that, the Office of Attorney General will continue to follow the money.
	Follow the money.
	We believe that he's engaged in a pattern and practice of money laundering.
	Laundering. Laundering the money from foreign governments here in New York State and particularly related to his real estate holdings.
	Put on pause there.
	Tish McJames, along with her partner in crime, literally, New York nipple judge Engeron, her original theory upon which she was going to prosecute Trump if and when she was elected on the promise of prosecuting Trump was that domestic banks weren't lending money to Trump.
	And so he had to be laundering his money for the purposes of his New York real estate because domestic banks weren't lending to Trump, which was factually wrong and stupid.
	She's just stupid.
	A stupid, angry, nasty woman with a severe case of TDS.
	And then when I guess it became undeniable that, no, that's a baseless, factually incorrect legal theory, well, it went from money laundering to somehow he must have been defrauding the banks.
	He must have been defrauding the banks of the money that they were in fact lending to him.
	And they went before the Court of Appeal.
	I put out a vlog, you know, the pre-show vlog today.
	They had their arguments appealing New York nipple judge Engelron's insane ruling.
	And I pulled two highlights in particular.
	I put them in the vlog.
	This will be repetitive for anybody who saw them.
	But, uh...
	Do I want to bring this one up?
	Yeah, we can bring this one up here.
	I want to turn your attention to a different subject because your time and your red light is on.
	Talking to Trump's attorney.
	I'm trying to figure out about the valuation of Mar-a-Lago.
	I noticed that your expert, Mr. Moans, valued it at over a billion dollars.
	He also said that if it was in the hands of a new owner, club memberships, 500 club memberships could be sold.
	Could be sold for how much?
	Generating $250 million.
	That's a lot of money.
	And generates revenue of over $50 million a year in 2020 and 2023.
	Stop. Mar-a-Lago, set aside the value of the real estate itself, which is...
	Immeasurably valuable.
	The business could sell its memberships for $500 million.
	It generates, what did they say, $25 million a year?
	No, $50 million a year.
	And that New York nipple judge, Engeron, came in and said, yeah, I'm going to go with the county appraiser and say this property is worth $18 to $27 million because of restrictive covenants on it.
	And at the time, we were all calling this out loud and proud.
	And then fake news media and the fake news wordsmiths of the devil, fact checkers, came out and said, no, no, no, New York nipple judge Angeron never evaluated the property at $18 to $27 million.
	And Supreme Court values it at $18 to $27 million because of restrictions.
	Do you have anything to say about those restrictions, taking it down in value?
	Yeah, here's what I have to say about that.
	Angeron is an idiot.
	He's a political, hacked, corrupt judge of an idiot who deserves to get impeached and locked up because this isn't just a case of a judicial injustice.
	It's a question of trying to deprive someone of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
	They are trying to violate Donald Trump's constitutional rights.
	And nobody should forget that.
	There was another one that I'd be, oh yeah, this one.
	I do want to pat myself on the back here.
	By the way, this is the judge for the state.
	The attorney for the estate, she gets cut off as she's introducing herself because they've had enough of her bullshit.
	Listen to this.
	May it please the court, Judith Vail for the New York...
	Can you believe the way she flips her page?
	Look at that.
	May it please the court, Judith Vail for the New York Attorney General's office.
	All of the defendants repeatedly violated...
	Ms. Vail, can you identify any previous case in which the Attorney General sued under Executive Order 6312 to upset a private business transaction?
	That was between equally sophisticated partners.
	Equally sophisticated partners.
	The victim had the legal obligation to discover, do their own due diligence.
	What I've been saying from the beginning, you think the bank got into this without doing their own due diligence?
	Sorry, I'll interrupt the questions no more.
	misrepresented matters by conducting its own due diligence, where the supposed wrongdoer advised the supposed victim through written disclaimers to conduct its own due diligence, and to draw its own conclusions with the alleged misrepresentation almost entirely concerned inherently subjective valuations of properties and businesses.
	Stop. I'll actually correct you there, Judge.
	The victim, the alleged victim, the bank, did complain.
	They complained they can't do business with Trump anymore.
	Because I've gone through the cases which you've cited, and all of them always involve the consumer protection aspect.
	It involved protection of the market.
	And I want to add to his question.
	And little to no impact on the public marketplace.
	That, ladies and gentlemen, is what it looks like when you get your ass handed to you.
	There has been no ruling yet, as far as I know, and we'll clarify when Barnes gets here.
	There's been no ruling yet.
	But you can't really have much more of a spanking of a legal question that doesn't presuppose their conclusion.
	It basically illustrates their skepticism with what has occurred here.
	So as far as I know, Jeremy from The Quartering asked, like, what's these viral videos going around that Trump won on his New York appeal?
	There hasn't been a ruling yet.
	We're going to get into it when Trump, when Barnes gets here.
	Now, before Barnes gets here, and actually before we even get into the intro story that I wanted to get into.
	I want to say thank you to our sponsor of the evening, 5G Free People.
	Speaking of corrupt government, let's be honest, people.
	The government's track record of telling us the truth is about as reliable as a politician's promise.
	38% of the U.S. population, that's over 117 million people, live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant.
	Don't worry, everything's fine and good.
	As they say, the same thing they said with tobacco, asbestos, lead paint.
	They've got a long history of pretending everything is fine until it isn't.
	Meanwhile, they've been quietly hoarding Radio Guard Ace since 2003.
	Why? Because when the radiation hits, the stuff flushes out the dangerous drunk from your system.
	Funny how they're prepared, but we're left to trust the same people who thought lead-filled toys were a good idea.
	That's why 5G Free includes Radio Guard Ace in their radiation emergency kit.
	Plus meds for nausea radiation monitors so that you know what's really going on instead of waiting for the official report.
	Quote, unquote.
	Go to 5gfree.com.
	Promo code VIVA gets you 15% off with millions near potential risks.
	Why roll the dice when you can actually be prepared?
	And like we saw out of New York, by the way, when they tell you to go wash your clothes off after a nuclear bomb goes off, just go shower, wash your hands, wash your clothes, and you'll be fine.
	Duck and cover, people.
	Duck and cover.
	All right.
	The news of the day that I feel morally obliged to address...
	Can we get rid of these frickin' ads here, this garbage?
	There was allegedly, potentially, a third...
	I mean, I guess it's a third, fourth, fifth...
	I mean, another foiled assassination attempt, apparently, allegedly, potentially, on Trump at Coachella, where he held a massive rally over the weekend, and all...
	I get a DM that says, Viva, you might want to check this out because you might have had a selfie with the accused if it's the same person on their Instagram page.
	We'll get there in a second.
	Armed man outside Trump's Coachella rally and sheriff says it was possible third assassination attempt.
	People are saying, no, it's the fourth, fifth, sixth because there was an arraignment.
	It's another one, allegedly.
	A few things don't make sense about this story, but we'll get there.
	Local cops arrested a man outside Trump's Coachella rally on Saturday.
	Local sheriff said it might have been an assassination attempt on the president.
	The suspect, identified as 49-year-old Vem Miller, was caught at a checkpoint a quarter mile from the rally with fake VIP passes to the rally, fake press passes, as well as unregistered weapons, including a loaded gun, a handgun, and a high-capacity magazine.
	Miller did not have a valid ID when he was stopped at the rally checkpoint and was detained after police searched his vehicle and found the weapons.
	We probably stopped another assassination attempt, said the sheriff, Chad Bianco.
	Okay, so let's get into where I start to have a lot of questions.
	However, law enforcement sources told the FBI, told the Post that the FBI does not believe this was an assassination attempt and the former president's life was never in danger.
	He was released after posting $5,000 bail, police records show.
	All right, so we can stop there.
	Oh, then apparently Bianco said that this guy was a member of the, what's it called?
	The Sovereign Citizens Society and he was there to kill Trump.
	There was some, let me see here.
	Citizen? Is this the article that...
	Citizen? Oh, there was one that said he's a member of a far-right group, whatever.
	I got some skepticism about this because...
	And for no other reason than it didn't make sense.
	If this is a failed assassination attempt, they're not releasing a guy on $5,000 bond.
	Do I think that this might have been an attempt to vilify right-wing groups?
	Maybe. But here, let me bring this up here.
	Apparently, I ran into this guy in Milwaukee because the person who said, Viva, you might want to look into this and then sent me a picture of us apparently having taken a selfie in what appears to be Milwaukee.
	And I'm like, oh, okay, I'll look into this.
	The individual described themselves, if it's the same Vem Miller as on their Instagram page, the individual described themselves as a journalist, a documentary filmmaker.
	Was this the one here?
	Third assassination attempt?
	Here we go.
	This is from another article.
	Bianco told the Southern California news group on Sunday that he believes Miller, who he said is a member of a far-right, a right-leaning anti-government group, planned to kill Trump and that deputies thwarted the plan when Miller presented fake ID.
	A member of a right-leaning anti-government group.
	And then he was released on $5,000 bond.
	I say that...
	If this is a failed assassination attempt, they're not releasing him on $5,000 bond.
	This guy appears to be a documentary filmmaker, so maybe if he had fake VIP passes, he was trying to get close access to the...
	Just, you know, things to throw out there.
	Why he would have guns?
	Well, I don't know what the gun laws are in California, and it might be that some of the guns that are legal elsewhere are not legal in California, and so that might actually be illegal in California.
	Much like it's questionable as to, depending on what type of Glock.
	Kamala Harris actually allegedly owns.
	May or may not be legal, depending on the type of Glock it is.
	But then, go to the Instagram account, and you got pictures of the individual with Russell Brand, RFK Jr.
	That looks like Ian Carroll.
	I don't know who that is.
	And then you go over here, another one a little bit.
	You got Don Trump Jr.
	That looks like Newt Gingrich.
	Is that Newt Gingrich?
	I don't know who that is up there.
	You got Vivek Ramaswamy, and then you got me here, which is where...
	The building in the back, I'm certain, was the building in Milwaukee.
	So is this another foiled assassination attempt?
	The individual looks more like a GOP, not junkie, I want to say a groupie, who may have been carrying guns, I don't know, potentially in his own mind for his own protection, or they might have been illegal in California.
	And there's other explanations that should be.
	Entertained before one jumps to too many conclusions.
	And if this dude was there, in fact, on a foiled assassination attempt, and in California they let him out on $5,000 bail, I got even more questions.
	All right.
	While Barnes makes his way in here, let's start with some tip questions coming from our locals community.
	Thank you for your honest and open opinion and encouraging and open conversation.
	Pete to base.
	Thank you very much for thanking me.
	I got...
	I hate death.
	Also known as fanatophobia.
	My third tip chat.
	The first time you said you've never forget my name.
	The second time you said you've never seen it before and definitely would have remembered it.
	Let's see what happens the third time.
	Always look forward to the Sunday show.
	Sunday shows Viva and Barnes.
	I hate death.
	I definitely remember having seen it.
	In fact, I'm curious.
	I don't think I would have ever said that I don't remember having seen it.
	TM Davis, 30 bucks.
	Thank you very much.
	Then we got Awazawa.
	Over on Rumble, did you watch the quartering reaction to the woman mouthing the same words as Kamala Harris during the town hall?
	He posted it out on his ex-account, evidence showing it was transcripted.
	It isn't.
	I was, oh, this is no, no, I'm not, no shape.
	I would respectfully disagree with the quartering.
	I think that person in the audience was showing how Kamala Harris is such a gosh-forsaken, broken record that you can literally mouthing what she's going to say.
	I can mouthing what she's going to say.
	She says the same bloody things every single rally that she does.
	I was born in a middle-class family.
	My mother worked very hard.
	We had a second mama named Mama or Mimi or whatever the hell she calls it.
	And she's a proud gun owner.
	She too is a gunner.
	What's the other one?
	Oh, the other ones.
	People deserve to be heard.
	Donald Trump, all he does if you go to his rallies, I invite you to go to his rallies.
	What you'll see there is a man airing his personal grievances.
	He never asks what's good for you.
	He comes out and it's all about him.
	When I was a district attorney, I never asked someone if they were Republican or Democrat.
	I asked if they were okay.
	I could give Kamala Harris' speeches.
	So I don't think that shows that there was a transcript that they could see.
	I think it wouldn't have been obvious anyhow.
	I think it shows that she's just a broken freaking record.
	And everybody has her campaign speech memorized for now.
	Now, the other thing that I'm following is the guy who claims to have evidence that Tim Walls had an illegal, potentially illegal relationship with a potentially illegal minor and that he took this kid apparently to...
	Gay bars and a number of things for which I said, I don't believe it yet.
	I know what I believe.
	But as we say in the industry, it doesn't matter what you believe.
	It doesn't even matter what you know.
	It matters what you can prove.
	And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
	And in as much as I know what I believe, I know...
	I'm trying to find the link here.
	I know that...
	I'm going to be following that guy's story, but it did bring up another story from a little while ago.
	This guy, what's his Twitter handle?
	I'll have to get it in a second.
	Claims that he's got evidence from someone who was underage at the time that Tim Walls had an unlawful relationship of a homosexual nature with him.
	And then it really makes you go back and read an article that some of us may or may not have recalled from the time.
	I didn't recall it from the time, but we got a good community, above average, who sent me the link.
	Or at least the screen grab that night was easy to find it.
	Tim Walls and his wife, Gwen, took a gay student to an Indigo Girls concert in the 90s.
	A spokesperson for Gwen Walls told the New York Times that she and her husband had grown close to the gay students at the Nebraska Public High School, where they taught.
	That's some weird-ass she-at.
	If I might say so myself, even if there's no illegal...
	Relationship with the minor of a homosexual nature.
	That's weird.
	And that shows me someone who doesn't respect boundaries.
	First of all, taking a high school kid to a concert that's not your own, unless it was with his kid, is weird.
	And then taking a kid because they're gay to an Indigo?
	Who's the concert?
	Indigo Girls?
	Oh, I remember the Indigo Girls.
	Anyhow, Minnesota Governor Tim Walls vies for the U.S. presidency.
	New details are surfacing about his teaching career, including the impact he made as a faculty advisor for a high school gay-straight alliance club.
	However, sources say the Walls family were LGBTQ+.
	Hey, you bigots, it's 2SLGBTQIA +, and get with it.
	It was a community booster before then, as especially evidenced by one extracurricular Indigo Girls concert where the Walls taught in Nebraska.
	In an interview with the New York Times, Jacob Wrighton, a former student of Walls and the...
	Nay, Whipple.
	Both teachers, yada, yada, yada, described feeling stunned when Ms. Walls announced her husband would be leading the Gay Student Association.
	Right-hand said he had been subjected to homophobic abuse by other students, but confiding in Ms. Walls that he was gay gave him enough confidence to also come out to his parents and eventually to the school.
	All of this actually strikes me as being very, very weird right now.
	After coming out, and with Mr. Walls in charge of the Gay Student Association, the bullying generally came to a halt.
	Okay. Okay, whatever.
	It was important to have a person who was well-liked on-campus football coach.
	Okay, whatever.
	I see Barnes in the backdrop, so I'm just going to wait for him to get in here.
	Let me see here.
	I got just a thank you from Susie C in the house.
	Susie, thank you very much.
	So I'm waiting on that information to come up from that account, and we'll see.
	Hold on one second.
	You get up and you're not coming back yet.
	Oh! Oh, God, it hurts.
	Go, go, go, go, go.
	Get up.
	Get up.
	Oh! Oh, there we go.
	That was it.
	That was it.
	I turned my foot.
	Okay. Sorry, Robert.
	I'm just kvetching like an old man.
	Oh my goodness.
	Okay. I'm just stretching my leg out there.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Hunter S. Thompson, what is that?
	That is the...
	The Proud Highway.
	So it's all of his letters.
	That have been gathered over the years that he wrote to people they put together in a book, which is pretty cool.
	Oh, we're getting an update here.
	No assassination attempt.
	Let me see what this says.
	Yeah, the guy was...
	That story never made sense from the beginning.
	Yeah, it says...
	Okay, let me...
	If I may actually just bring it up real quick, because I don't know if this is true, but this seems to be the latest from Mindy MF.
	It says, the man they just arrested for supposedly trying to kill, he's a good friend and business partner for America Happens, Vem Miller.
	Vem had just exposed a huge deep state cover-up involving the feds and the Bundy Ranch scandal.
	So I firmly believe this is 100% some kind of setup in retribution for exposing it.
	That or Trump's security team is a bunch of dipshits trying to make up for how badly they feel.
	No, they denied that it was an assassination attempt.
	There isn't a universe.
	There isn't a universe.
	His intention was to kill Trump.
	He's worked too hard in this movement to expose Deep State and all the people against him.
	If he had guns in his car were illegal, whoopty-fucking-do.
	As a pro-Second Amendment, ask me if I give a shit about it.
	All right.
	His Instagram feed, he was at Milwaukee.
	I mean, he's arm-in-arm with Vivek Ramaswamy and RFK Jr.
	Didn't make sense that they let him out on $5,000 bail if that were the case.
	Robert, I'm not stupid, right?
	If this were a bona fide assassination attempt.
	Dude doesn't get out of jail for a long time.
	There's no evidence of that.
	Just he showed up at the Trump rally, and he had guns in his car, and his guns, because of California, they're saying he didn't have a permit for him.
	I mean, that's all it was.
	And then a local sheriff wanting to look like a hero.
	All right, good.
	Robert, so, Will, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	We got a lot.
	We got, you already discussed it partially, the Trump New York appeal.
	I had an oral argument as well this past week.
	Unfortunately, you can't go back and look at the videotape because the court prohibits it.
	But some people got to watch it live.
	The Amos Miller, the Amish farmer, that the government state of Pennsylvania is still trying to shut down.
	And amazing what judges know and still don't know in today's America.
	But we'll get into that as we dive into that argument.
	Banks getting caught being the principal and primary facilitator for drug cartels in the United States.
	A couple of big election cases, one concerning the non-citizens being on the voter rolls.
	The most recent suit is the Biden Justice Department suing Virginia to require those non-citizens to be placed back on the voter rolls.
	And then a related kind of election case, Senate candidate Democratic Senate candidate Ruben Gallego from Arizona was trying to keep secret his divorce file, including what was public record, or should have been, but had been sealed for years.
	And the Arizona Court of Appeals made a decision on that case.
	The court clerks in California are talking about going on strike, which would make it impossible for the courts to function.
	That's a whole new animal these days.
	The top issue voted on by the board at the poll is the J6 informant scandal, the latest scandal to arise out of that case, out of the J6 cases.
	The bake the cake guy finally gets a little bit of relief, though, for procedural reasons rather than substantive reasons.
	He'll be back before the court sooner than later.
	The big Second Amendment win out of the state of New York.
	A big win to prohibit vaccine mandates out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming a Montana state law that had previously been enjoined from enforcement.
	And last but not, and then a couple of crypto cases.
	We have a major crypto.com suing the Biden administration over their effort to suppress crypto.
	And we have the Bitcoin Jesus.
	We've talked about this case before, but it continues to move forward.
	This is Roger Veer that the U.S. government is trying to indict and extradite from Spain.
	And it raises many disturbing issues in the continued political lawfare by the Biden administration against crypto.
	But it goes further than that because they're trying to establish the means of criminal enforcement.
	To create a new property tax in the United States through the Roger Ver Bitcoin Jesus indictment.
	So it's not only punishment for his efforts related to Bitcoin, not only part of the lawfare that the Biden administration continues to engage in against Bitcoin, an extraordinary effort.
	It's also an extraordinary effort to make new tax law through the criminal justice process.
	By imposing a property tax on people that's unconstitutional, flatly, but saying if you didn't pay it, we can put you in prison for it.
	So it's part of their ongoing operation.
	It's one of the objections made by Crypto.com and their suit against the Biden administration is the effort to use lawfare as a mechanism for establishing new law that never passed the actual legislative branch.
	And it constitutionally couldn't, extending and expanding SEC power in places it doesn't belong, much like the administrative state is trying to do.
	And that takes us to the last topic, all the different cases.
	SCOTUS just started back up, and there's a dozen or so hot cases already on the docket, some of which relate to the administrative state seeking power far beyond what Congress or the Constitution ever afforded it.
	And Roger Ver's Bitcoin Jesus case is simply emblematic of that on multiple fronts.
	I'm sure you're following.
	This is not off topic, but not one of our topics.
	I'm sure you're following the markets.
	There's been, in the predictive markets for the presidency, about a 30% swing, Robert, in the last week, if I'm not mistaken.
	Yeah, it depends on which market, but this relates to the legal case that we covered.
	K-A-L-S-H-I won their case against the Biden administration that election markets are not gambling markets.
	They are not random events of chance as to who is going to win an election and the margin of victory they may win it by, whether measured by popular vote or electoral vote, as the case may be.
	Consequently, interactive brokers has also now opened up a bunch of U.S.-based markets.
	Calci has opened up a bunch of U.S.-based markets.
	That has diversified the funding into those markets.
	And there's been increased funding in places like Polymarket, BetOnline.
	BetUS now has markets that parallel BetOnline.
	And the ability of Democrats to manipulate those markets is diminishing.
	As the amount of funds comes into those markets and as U.S. funds come into those markets.
	And what those funds are predicting, what I said is one of their legal reasons, public policy reasons.
	The Biden administration went to such great efforts like the Obama administration did before them to harass these markets, try to shut down Predict It, so Predict It has one-tenth of the markets that it used to have in 2020.
	When you could bet on the margin of victory in a whole bunch of states, to some people's profit in 2020, was because they don't want an independent source of information to second-guess the institutional and official narrative about what is taking place in an election.
	They want people to think that the mainstream polls and the university and media polls and the media narrative and the Nate Silvers You know, that crowd, that they're the ones telling you what's really happening in the election in order to manipulate opinion, in order to create a vote pattern.
	And that's why they went to such great lengths to suppress these various independent mechanisms of betting markets and prediction markets challenging those assumptions.
	And what you've seen over the last 10 days is as...
	Funds have flown into these places due to their wins in court.
	They are showing that everybody in the media is wrong, according to people willing to bet with their actual dollars, about what's going to happen in the election.
	They're predicting a much higher likelihood of success for Trump than Nate Silver, The Economist, then YouGov, then 538, then The New York Times, then Nate Cohn, all the so-called Experts that want a monopoly on what's happening in the electorate, the person actually betting with their dollar is saying they're lying to you.
	And they want to profit from the fact that these folks are lying to you.
	And by the way, much of what made these election markets possible is Bitcoin, which relates to why they're trying to harass the Bitcoin world, particularly the part of the Bitcoin world.
	That wanted to use it and want to use it to democratize and empower ordinary people through a mechanism of exchange, a means of exchange, that is outside the monopolistic control of central planners or any central figures, whether big banks or big governments or bureaucrats, whoever they may be.
	And it's probably not a coincidence that the primary proponent of the democratization of Bitcoin It's Bitcoin Jesus, who they're trying to lock up for life as we speak.
	So all these things tend to overlap and interact in ways that might surprise the novice viewer.
	Also not a topic that we plan to discuss, but I'll throw it out there while we're at it.
	We didn't talk about the CBS scandal.
	Of them having edited the response to Kamala Harris' initial airing, right?
	Now, they do that all the time.
	They've been doing that for 30 years.
	Well, they don't get caught all the time.
	And the question is, when Trump comes out and says...
	They don't get called on it all the time.
	Is there any possibility to, I don't know, removing their license, stripping their license as Trump asked for because of what they're doing?
	I think it's more that their effort to influence political elections.
	In ways that circumvent the FEC rules may be a way to approach that.
	And that the, you know, forever Ralph Nader has advocated that the public airwaves should be seen as a public trust, not a private right.
	And thus, things like their FCC license of these corrupt institutions should be brought onto, first, they should have to pay for them in ways they haven't to date.
	And second, it should be brought into Scrutiny and skepticism, given how they continually give false information to people, they are the leaders of disinformation, and the ways they try to manipulate election results in particular, which we've seen throughout.
	I mean, 60 Minutes always got the reputations as hard-hitting.
	Investigative piece.
	But they would deliberately turn up the heat on the lights to make people sweat.
	And then they would edit out where they would hurt the person to make it look like one story rather than another story.
	I'll give you an example.
	Years ago, I had a client, Joe Bannister, IRS agent who turned whistleblower.
	Who they went out to interview.
	And they said they wanted him to look like a real family man.
	They wanted him to connect at that level.
	So they felt it.
	They said, is there anything you do along those lines?
	And he said, yeah.
	I like to skateboard with my son.
	And they're like, oh, that'd be great.
	So can you go out and skateboard?
	So he went out skateboarding.
	And then when they did the 60 Minutes ad preview and show, they said, you know, here's this person taking...
	Tax advice that's challenging what's happening in the tax system.
	And they show a photo, a video of him skateboarding as if he's a complete, you know, surfer crackhead.
	So the 60 Minutes has been a fraud for forever.
	It's just, I mean, they got exposed as a fraud on the left when they went in the tank for Big Tobacco because of how corporate owned they are.
	The right has known 60 Minutes as a fraud for...
	Going back to when they ambushed George W. Bush in 2004.
	Putin, of all people, has mentioned this.
	So the idea that 60 Minutes...
	But what it is today, they have no credibility.
	Everybody kind of recognizes outside of the partisan left that they're just a hit machine.
	They're just a propaganda...
	I mean, they continually advocated that everything was fake and the Hunter Biden laptop was fake throughout 2020 and have yet to apologize for it.
	I mean, they're just not a serious organization anymore.
	A shell of whatever they could have been.
	And in truth, they were always a partisan organization.
	They now are just not even good at pretending to be otherwise.
	Leslie Stahl.
	That was the name of the woman I was looking for.
	Leslie Stahl.
	And also, I'm thinking back to the Katie Couric.
	It wasn't 60 Minutes, but where she edited a delay to make people who were supporting Second Amendment rights had to hem and haw and pause on an answer.
	It's so offensive because...
	If anybody in alternative media did that, added a different answer to the question, I think they'd be sued.
	I mean, they would find a way to sue someone for doing that in 60 Minutes.
	I want to believe that it wasn't always this bad, but I suspect it always was, and I just never knew.
	All right.
	I guess we'll start with the, well, the one that I started with already, but the New York appeal case.
	Now, we talked about it last week.
	The quartering put out a tweet.
	What's with these viral videos going around saying that Trump has won his appeal out of New York?
	There has been no ruling yet, unless I'm mistaken, and I'm not mistaken.
	When we talked about it last, we were saying whether or not they're even going to render a decision before the election.
	I listened to the whole thing, snipped a couple of the most incredible highlights to illustrate.
	Sometimes the judges ask questions.
	In an explorative manner, and other times they ask questions that are not predicated on their conclusions, but that very much highlight the conclusions to which they've already come, asking them for their best argument to contradict the conclusion to which they've already come.
	To me, it seems 1,000% clear that the Court of Appeal is going to overturn the decision.
	The questions they were asking were...
	They were questions that illustrate the...
	There was no line.
	If this passes, there is no line.
	The state's argument was, we'll decide where the line is.
	And so all of these questions, they underlied the conclusion to which I think the Court of Appeal already came.
	But there has been no decision yet, and there's a reason why people seem to have a Mandela effect of having heard that there was a decision ruled?
	Well, I think what happened was, we covered this at the time the oral argument was made, and there was a delay in complete coverage of it.
	And then this week, some other people put out videos, and then Elon Musk shared one of them.
	And then that went viral, and people drew conclusions from the video that were different than what has actually happened in the underlying event.
	So what happened was the conclusion of the person who did an analysis of the oral argument was that their conclusion was the New York court, the appellate division of the Superior Court in New York, would overturn the Superior Court's judgment.
	the civil fraud judgment brought by the state of New York against Donald Trump and related parties.
	And so then that led to people saying there had been a ruling.
	I also saw some confusion, like people were like, oh, they're going to sanction the states.
	lawyers and they talked about I was like, when I watched the oral argument I don't remember anything about that.
	What they were talking about is how Trump's team was sanctioned for having made arguments to preserve objections and that's another one where like, how do you Just so everybody appreciates this, Trump's team was preserving objections.
	And I didn't pick up on this from back in the day, but Engeron apparently sanctioned the judges, the lawyers, sorry, for having preserved Trump's objections, arguing that, and this was what the woman said in defense of the state, well, they were sanctioned not for preserving the objections, but for reiterating argumentation and resubmitting the same filings in case law while they were preserving objections.
	And they're like, yeah, that's what we have to do.
	And it sounded like the Court of Appeal was amenable to that explanation and the absurdity of sanctioning lawyers for doing their jobs, which only illustrates nipple judges' prejudice in this entire case.
	I don't know how people interpreted that as the New York appellate division threatening the state with sanctions.
	Like, I didn't hear that ever come up at all in New York.
	That's how it became on the right-wing media.
	Oh, the New York Court of Appeals has ruled for Trump and is about to sanction an attorney general for New York.
	Yeah, it's wild.
	They said no such thing.
	That didn't happen.
	So I think it was a little bit of overexcitement in response to the questions.
	As a general rule, the appeals courts have usually decided a case before it gets up to them.
	Not always.
	And whoever gets more questions...
	Usually loses.
	So there's a popular misperception that if you get a lot of questions and that's a good thing, generally it's not a good thing, it usually means they're hostile to you.
	And they're usually trying to ask either rhetorical questions for the court of public opinion, ask questions to argue with the other judges on the panel.
	Or try to lead you to say things that either is harmful to your case if they're against you or helpful to help them write the argument rhetorically if they're with you.
	And now what is notable is this is five judges.
	This is not the final of court.
	That's the Court of Appeals of New York.
	This is the appellate division of the Superior Court.
	Two of the judges I don't think asked a single question.
	Two women on the bench.
	So that would suggest they might be still anti-Trump.
	So the question then is, do the three that ask skeptical questions of the state, do they end up writing the opinion?
	And if the other two disagree, do they really dissent?
	Or do they just say, you know, they save their fight for another day?
	As we said from the very beginning, this case made no sense.
	There's statute of limitations problems on almost everything.
	On the few things there aren't statute of limitations problems, this is a complete misuse and abuse of this statutory power.
	It should never have been interpreted this broadly, and if it is this broad, it raises serious constitutional questions.
	And then there's the way in which he handled summary judgment, the way in which he denied jury trials, the way in which he handled the Evidence Act trial, the way in which he was trying to limit defenses from being presented, his behavior in general, which raised all kinds of red flags.
	So all along, it's...
	The only way this case stays a judgment is if every court along the way ignores the law and ignores the public policy fallout long past Trump of the case.
	And I think that, you know, if they were sincere about enforcing the Constitution, they would have allowed him to post no amount of bail at all, no amount of security to stay the appeal.
	to stay the judgment pending appeal.
	They did not.
	They would have been a lot more proactive before now.
	They would have issued, you know, instead they allowed the damage to Trump to The second one has been that the public policy fallout for the state of New York.
	That has come from this case that major businesses and major investors have said if this case is affirmed and upheld, they're going to pull out of New York or not invest in New York in the first place.
	And New York relies upon foreign capital investment, capital from outside the state, to function in its current economic form, was going to put massive political pressure on the court to remedy the situation.
	And then last but not least, every judge on there knows there's a fair chance Trump is the next president of the United States.
	And having this case linger makes the New York courts look like a liberal laughingstock.
	So that's where I think ultimately the New York Court of Appeals will in fact overturn the verdict.
	But there was a lot of unfortunate misinterpretation, misinformation this week on the way to that path.
	But most likely they will not issue their decision until after Election Day because they're all very democratically aligned for the most part.
	Yeah, so that's it.
	The talk about sanctioning was the talk about Trump's team having been sanctioned for preserving objections on appeal.
	And there's been no ruling yet, and we'll see.
	It obviously has to be a written ruling.
	There will be no...
	Yeah, it's an appeals court.
	They don't issue oral rulings.
	And any potential, I mean, there's no sanctions on the table for N'Gurong.
	No, no.
	And there'll be nothing like that.
	It'll be more, statute of limitations gets rid of this, and that you have to have an actual victim in order for the state to exercise this power.
	Because that allows them to get rid of everything without getting into anything else.
	One Old Guy's Opinion over on YouTube says, just joined.
	Did you find out about the third attempt?
	We talked about it, and I think it's not an actual attempt.
	And then there was a $20 from One Old Guy's Opinion.
	Like, Robert Gouveia says, Ariel Angeron and his squeeze assistant playing grab-ass behind the bench during the trial got their ass handed to them by the appellate court.
	Well, fingers crossed it translates into the actual rule.
	It was more that there are legal issues that are always present.
	That Ingeron just pretended wasn't present for politicized purposes.
	Well, he used his tools, as he explained 10 years ago.
	Summary judgment, sanctions, limiting defenses.
	It's what they did with AJ.
	It's what they did with Bannon.
	It's the new norm.
	MLAT61 says, Viva, pray for your healing and comfort.
	I look forward to the Sunday show all week.
	Thank you both.
	Yeah, it better heal fast because Viva doesn't like being incapacitated.
	Cheryl Gage says, third attempt by Trump.
	We got to that one as well.
	And then...
	I think we got to both of those.
	And hold on.
	We're going to get to all of this in a bit.
	But Suzy C over back on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'm in California.
	Can I drive to Vegas and bet on political bets via Predicted or some other betting platform?
	You can do that anywhere in the country.
	Predicted, you can do anywhere in the country.
	Calci, you can do anywhere in the country.
	How do you spell Calci?
	Interactive Brokers.
	You can do anywhere in the country.
	And you can also do the other ones.
	It's just a little...
	Because it's not illegal for anyone to place a bet on the election.
	It's only the Biden Justice Department, the Biden administration, has made it annoying to receive it for the person receiving the money.
	And so they usually request it be done with Bitcoin or crypto.
	Whether it's Polymarket, BetOnline, BetUS, many of these have...
	Strong ties to the U.S., market in the U.S., solicit people to place bets with them.
	They just don't want to deal with the U.S. banking system and a lot of the harassment that's affiliated with it, including the credit card companies, so they encourage you to use Bitcoin.
	I encourage you to use Bitcoin because it's a great independent tool that can free up yourself as well as others down the road.
	So I think it's useful just to get familiar with it anyway.
	But if you don't want to go that path, you can be anywhere in the country and easily process a bet at CalShe, at Interactive Brokers, or at PredictIt.
	Robert, you shouldn't have introduced me to this.
	They have a lot of markets.
	It's really a predictive market.
	The goal is to use the predictive market methodology to help provide information to the real world.
	And so that's part of the point and purpose of its existence.
	Let me see here.
	I noticed, too, because I immediately go to the ones with the most radical odds for winning.
	Who will win Illinois presidential election?
	Donald Trump at 1%.
	Is there a greater than 1% chance that Trump wins Illinois?
	No. So it's impossible.
	What about California?
	They had a 5% on California.
	Where was it?
	Here. 4%, 5% for New York?
	Are those...
	No, you bet Harris.
	All right, even at that.
	All right.
	In those states, yeah.
	All right, now, let's do the biggest one before we head on over to Rumble.
	Exclusively the Jan 6, it would seem that some of the FBI informants are deleting evidence, not that we knew this.
	So the trial is ongoing for William Pope, representing himself.
	And allegedly, he's one of the Jan 6 defendants.
	He was seeking video evidence that I believe he knew existed because it was part of his...
	I don't want to say part of the charges.
	No, it's because he had watched all the CCTV footage that had been available.
	And he saw this FBI informant filming.
	Okay, and so he asks for it during his prosecution, during his trial.
	And now, apparently, is it acknowledged that they deleted it?
	Or they're just saying, we don't have it, it never existed, and don't believe your lying eyes?
	Their first claim was, we don't have it, and we don't have any reason to believe it ever existed.
	Then he pointed out, well, here's the CCTV footage where your informant, someone that was part of the Proud Boys but was actually an FBI informant all along, keeping the FBI apprised on a second-by-second basis, what was happening on January 6th.
	People should ask themselves some questions about that then.
	About the degree of government culpability and complicity in those events.
	Whether they were as unscripted as they...
	Have been presented as and who is actually doing the scripting.
	But basically, he said, hey, I have CCTV footage from others showing him filming.
	And so what do you mean you don't have any film?
	And then they came back and they said, well, he deleted it all.
	And he's like, well, in another case, he admitted he turned everything over to the FBI.
	And they mirrored his device from the get-go.
	So why don't you check that mirrored device to see whether it's still there?
	Because logically it should be there.
	And they can't seem to come up with an answer just yet.
	So it's just more evidence of that this was a systemic, systematic effort with informants, infiltrators, and instigators interspersed throughout the January 6th crowd.
	Meant to make sure that event went the direction that it went.
	And their only regret is that it didn't get more violent.
	That they couldn't have more false claims made.
	They still haven't explained who put the so-called bomb that turned out not to be a bomb outside the Democratic National Committee headquarters and elsewhere.
	Everything about that smacks of an informant operation, a bogus operation.
	And so, you know, that's the classic definition of a false flag is when the wrong culprit is being identified.
	Not that an event did not occur, but the wrong culprit has been identified, or at least it's not the exclusive culprit for the sequence of events.
	And it's just one more illustration and example of that, what this pro se defendant has exposed in the government, in that what it appears to be is you had an informant, part of the Proud Boys.
	Part of instigating everything that took place, keeping the FBI apprised on a second-by-second basis who was doing what, where, and how, while encouraging them to continue to do it, and then got footage that might be helpful, and when realized it might not be helpful to the government's case, magically everything disappeared.
	It got deleted like they were Hillary Clinton's emails.
	It's outrageous.
	It's amazing, actually, and what a pro se defendant can do on his own, despite the monopoly that's awarded to attorneys.
	Before we head on over to Rumble exclusively, let me just read a few here because I see King of Biltong is in the house.
	Dianag 1234 says, my sister-in-law has kept her dental on FEMA and her other receipts from the government immediately offering to take her land.
	How will it help her in North Carolina?
	Oh, my sister-in-law has kept her dental on FEMA.
	of FEMA and her other receipts from the government immediately offering to take her land.
	How will it help her?
	I couldn't venture an answer, but...
	King of Biltong.
	Biltong is one of the most protein-dense foods in the world.
	Packed with B12, zinc, iron, creatine, and more.
	Need a healthy, high-protein snack?
	Get yours at BiltongUSA.com Viva10 for 10%.
	It's delicious stuff, people.
	And then we go, have you seen that Elias is threatening lawyers that work for Trump?
	I haven't seen it, but that's just par for the course.
	Well, this is that committee.
	That 65 committee or whatever they are.
	They're putting out anybody that helps Trump might get disbarred.
	So that's what that committee, whatever they are, that's who that is.
	As an intimidation tactic.
	If any lawyers speak up or advocate for Trump related to the election.
	All right, I'm going to give everybody the link to either Rumble or Locals over on YouTube.
	And before we get over here, there's two super chats.
	Question. How can the American taxpayers sue both parties, Republican and Democrat, for fraudulence and treasonous representation?
	That is from EFI to stroke.
	I don't think he can.
	Sovereign immunity.
	There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen.
	Sovereign citizen is another pejorative used like far-right deflective term.
	We will find...
	Out that the guy is a Democrat, old guy's opinion.
	No, I think the guy might have had guns for his own protection and maybe a fake VIP pass because he wanted to get access and was hoping to do it.
	And there was a whatever the hell that guy was in California who wants to demonize the far right and gun owners.
	That's probably what I think.
	All right.
	We're going to end this and then just go over to Rumble and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	So I'm going to hit this update.
	And everyone should come over there.
	We're going to talk about Amos Miller, Robert.
	I'm one of the losers who couldn't...
	I was going to call myself a swear word.
	I missed the oral arguments because I was doing a podcast.
	Oh, sorry.
	Before I forget, for everybody here who's watching on both platforms, Zachary Apotheker.
	He's the whistleblower border agent behind the new documentary that James O'Keefe is bringing out.
	He's going to come on on Tuesday, 1230.
	So we're going to have a great show then, just so everybody knows that.
	I'll obviously update this.
	As the week progresses, but I wanted to let everybody know.
	So come on over to Rumble or vivabornslaw.locals.com and the stream shall continue right now.
	So Robert, I missed it.
	Seven and a half minutes to plead your case before a hostile court with judges who are arguably but not arguably engaged in constitutional violative behavior by locking people up with the two veterinary...
	That was the guys practicing veterinary medicine, but were not.
	You know, dealing with pregnant cows in Pennsylvania.
	You have seven and a half minutes to argue your case.
	I missed it.
	I heard the Bourbon with Barnes recap, but how do you think it went?
	And when do you expect an answer?
	And for those who may not be familiar with what's going on with Amos Miller, that's very few people.
	Tell us how it went.
	Yeah, so Amos Miller is a fifth generation Amish farmer from Lancaster County.
	The county portrayed in films like Witness.
	He's an extraordinary dairy farmer, and he has all kinds of food.
	You can get little pumpkin pies.
	These muffins are amazing.
	They just sort of fall apart.
	The cookies are perfectly soft.
	You can get all his milk products.
	He's got a wide range of other products.
	But he's one of the most popular Amish farmers anywhere in the world because of the quality of his food.
	He's been very dedicated to every organic.
	Method that's out there avoiding chemicals that are not desired by people that have experienced it.
	Trying to keep food as close to the way we did it at our founding generation as possible.
	And the result has been...
	That he has distributed tens of millions of food products to tens of thousands of Americans over more than a quarter century.
	And in that time frame, as the government's own witnesses admitted at hearings and trials, not one customer has ever complained to anybody, anywhere, at any time, about any aspect of Amos Miller's food.
	Nobody has complained about its quality, about its safety, about the accuracy of its advertising.
	No aspect of it has anybody ever complained to any government agency at any time in any way.
	Instead, everybody who's ever experienced his food that had an opportunity to testify, testified on his behalf and said how his food was often critical, essential, and necessary for their medical...
	benefits of they or their friends or their family or their loved ones or part of something important or significant It's just the highest quality food you can get.
	AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com.
	You can try it out for yourself.
	That has not stopped the government from constant, continuous harassment.
	And you might ask, why is it that they're harassing a guy who's never had a food recall in his life?
	Why is it they're asking a guy with the best safety record of any farmer in the country?
	Why are they trying to put him down?
	Why are they trying to suppress him?
	Why are they trying to prohibit ordinary people from choosing for themselves what food they put into their own bodies?
	Well, that's a question that kind of answers itself.
	Because in a world of corporatized, industrialized, mechanized, and increasingly monopolized food supply that is so contaminated, we have a chronic health epidemic in the United States with food that has Lord knows what's in it.
	It's the kind of food that could survive a nuclear attack.
	It'd be that McDonald's burger or Twinkie would probably still be looking the same 30 years from now.
	And those people don't want the mere example of an alternative.
	An alternative that's healthier and makes you feel better and that you like better, like Amos Miller's food products.
	And because he's Amish, they thought he was an easy...
	Target. The Amish don't seek legal relief or remedy in court.
	They'll defend themselves, but they don't sue anybody.
	They don't seek publicity.
	In fact, their religious tradition is to not be photographed, to not be broadcasted.
	So they thought, we're going to make an example out of him that will intimidate everybody else, and he won't be able to fight back.
	And ultimately, people on his behalf reached out to me.
	And 1776 Law Center, where you can continue to follow all the details of the case.
	If you doubt anything I'm saying, you can go there and read the court transcript for yourself.
	And so ultimately the trial court judge said that the state of Pennsylvania cannot prohibit people from outside the state of Pennsylvania from getting Amos Miller's food.
	That the permitting laws only apply to the Pennsylvania customer market.
	And that's it.
	And that's consistent with what the law says.
	That's consistent with the Constitution of the United States, which says that states govern food for their own customers, not for the entire world, because that would raise issues under the Interstate Commerce Clause, under the Dormant Commerce Clause, under the rights reserved to other states, the rights reserved to ordinary people, under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the First, Fourth, Fifth Amendment issues implicated in food freedom.
	And so the state was enraged and demanded that state trial court judge change his opinion four different times, and he refused.
	So then they went up to the Commonwealth Court, and the first thing they did is they asked for an emergency ruling shutting Amos Miller down.
	The judge who presided over that argument denied it, and she was one of the three judges on the panel.
	The other two judges, one of them is an older judge that's been there on the bench for a while, originally ran their elected judges as a Republican, but it seemed more of an authoritarian bent, and that's the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, which was designed to be a court to check state power, has often become, they just write the checks for state power, rather than be a check on state power.
	The third judge is the judge you mentioned.
	The third judge on the panel was the judge who illegally imprisoned two farm workers who worked on Amish farms when the Commonwealth Court doesn't even have criminal power or jurisdiction, and the court didn't even have personal jurisdiction over either one of them.
	So you have a Commonwealth Court that has already twice tried to interfere in the 2024 election and was slapped down by no less than the liberal Democratic Pennsylvania State Supreme Court because of how they went.
	Too far.
	Now presiding over whether or not the state of Pennsylvania gets to shut down Amos Miller and try to bankrupt him before he ever gets to a trial on the merits of this case.
	We will see.
	What was astounding were two things.
	One, that there was some confusion on the court as to whether this was a preliminary injunction or permanent injunction.
	When, by definition, it can only be a preliminary injunction.
	There's been no discovery in this case.
	There's been no trial in this case.
	Stop there, and just to flesh that out for people who may not know, is that the criteria for obtaining a provisional or interlocutory, if it's the same as it was in Quebec, you got provisional, interlocutory, permanent.
	And there's one element that's different on all three, where on the permanent injunction, you don't have to look at urgency or anything but the merits of the discussion.
	On a provisional, it's a little bit more stringent than an interlocutory, but you have to look at color of right.
	And it's at a stage where the file itself is not completed and has not been fully threshed out, which is why the threshold to get an interlocutory provisional is higher than on the merits, which would be the permanent.
	I mean, how do they not know or how is there ambiguity as to what type of injunction was being sought here?
	There shouldn't have been.
	I mean, it's obvious.
	In other words, they requested a preliminary injunction.
	They received a preliminary injunction.
	There's been no discovery in the case.
	There's been no trial in the case.
	There's been not even time to fully brief the case.
	So, at the trial court or the appellate court level, all of that's been rushed.
	That's the definition of preliminary, or as they say in Canada, provisional or interlocutory injunction.
	And the reason for it, so there's two different...
	Aspects unique to injunctions.
	For any injunction prior to a trial on the merits, the fear is, what if the court gets it wrong?
	Because the court is guessing in advance of trial what's going to happen at trial.
	And what if the legal standard puts a heavy premium on restoring the status quo ante?
	Just let's not upset the status quo.
	Let's not do something that if we're wrong...
	We can't undo it.
	And so you look at things like irreparable or irremediable injury.
	You look at public interest.
	You look at impact on third parties.
	Now, the reason the state was pretending that somehow this was no longer a preliminary injunction is because they've lost at every single stage on those other, what's called the four prongs, on those three other prongs.
	First prong is what's the likelihood you're going to win on the merits.
	That's the predictive prong.
	But the other three are, if we're wrong, who gets hurt?
	Who gets hurt in terms of the parties?
	Who gets hurt in terms of interested third parties?
	Who gets hurt in terms of the public?
	And the preference is to keep the status quo in that instance.
	The status quo before the lawsuit ever existed.
	And at the appellate level, it's to defer to the trial court.
	Say, we're not going to overturn the trial court.
	Even if we disagree with the trial court, if it was reasonable what the trial court did, we're not going to interfere at this interlocutory stage.
	And that's what this is.
	This is an interlocutory appeal of a preliminary injunction, which is supposed to have the highest burden known to man for the state to prove and meet.
	And one of the judges, the same judge who handled the emergency injunction, appeared very aware and cognizant of that.
	The other two judges, it was far less than clear they were cognizant.
	It's the most frustrating thing on earth where it only impacts the evidence that needs to be adjuiced before the judges.
	And they're somehow like, let's just skip to who's right and who's wrong and not the three other criteria which are typically weighed in favor of the person who satisfies those criteria.
	Even though the local Lancaster press continued to report false information.
	As they engage in a defamation campaign against Amos Miller because they know Amos Miller is Amish, he doesn't sue.
	So they can defame and libel him without consequence.
	That's why they keep doing it.
	In fact, this whole case started by the state falsely alleging that Amos Miller's food product had caused somebody to get sick.
	It was all false.
	They've had 10 years of investigating him.
	They've lied about him for years in these other cases.
	Then when you investigate, you find out there's no grounds for it.
	We get to the hearing.
	Well, where are these witnesses that supposedly got sick from Amos Miller's food?
	Guess what?
	They're not there.
	And the judge says, like, where are these people?
	You had me sign an emergency injunction that shut them down for six weeks because you told me there were these people that were badly sick.
	Well, where are they?
	And the state was like, well, they're not here yet.
	But we didn't actually find anything in the food supply that was consistent with the sickness.
	Oh, isn't that something?
	It even turns out something they've been blaming him for six years ago, we get the actual final records for, this is why they want judgment without discovery, judgment without trial, and that they've been lying about him for years, and they knew they were lying about him for years.
	That it turned out the person had the sickness six months before they were ever around Amos Moe's food.
	This was someone, by the way, had like fourth stage terminal cancer and they blamed that person's later death on on him.
	Had nothing to do with him.
	She never even ate the drink, anything related to him.
	And it turned out the underlying mysteria that they were trying to blame.
	She had six months prior when she was never around any kind of food of Amazon.
	And they knew this, and they hid it, and they lied about it.
	So when they got up, when the state's attorney got up at the Commonwealth Court, here at this sort of bookmark stage of the case, does he say any word, one word about food safety?
	No. Does he claim anybody would be hurt or injured if Amos Miller's food has continued to be distributed?
	No. The entire argument is one from power, disguised as one for safety.
	But now the mask is off.
	They don't care about safety.
	They didn't say one word about it at the oral argument.
	They just said, this is our power, and you better give it to us, or others will get out of line, judges.
	And the one judge, the older judge in the middle of the panel, who had been on the bench the longest, that's what I mean by older, she asked, oh, well, haven't people clearly gotten sick from Amos Miller's food?
	And it's like, please reread the briefs.
	No, no one's gotten sick.
	I was like, that's what's extraordinary.
	This guy has the best safety record.
	I'll put it up against any farmer in America.
	Definitely against any big industrialized food product.
	That's the reason why so many kids are sick today, and we have so many chronic diseases today, and we're bankrupting our governments with healthcare costs today, but to the profit of big pharma and big hospitals and big medicine and a lot of other folks, is because our food is such crap.
	There is no chronic disease epidemic in the Amish community.
	There is no record levels of anxiety and depression and stress in the Amish community.
	They're living healthier, happier lives than they ever have before.
	And maybe it has a little something to do with the fact that they eat their own food the way our founding generation ate it.
	And imagine being in a place today where, I mean, like one of the people on our board put it well, because they were shocked by the nature of the state's arguments.
	Like, they're saying our right to eat is actually a privilege.
	That we don't even have a right to eat.
	We don't even have a right to decide what goes in our own bodies.
	That's a state privilege dependent on their permitting.
	What I've been trying to figure out the entire time is Pennsylvania is now no longer even saying you can't sell this within the state because it's illegal according to state law.
	They're saying you can't sell it outside of the state.
	And I'm trying to think of something analogous.
	Like selling drugs outside of the state.
	Well, give an idea.
	As I explained, that would make every truck driver transporting food across the state of Pennsylvania criminal.
	Not only that, two things.
	They also define the word sale to mean deliver, to mean exchange.
	So to give people an idea, if Amos Miller took food to the Amish wedding, it's Amish wedding season in November, to someone outside of his immediate family, then that's a crime according to the state of Pennsylvania.
	You have to have a permit for that.
	Now, if you're a truck driver and you're transporting food or any part of the food supply across state lines in Pennsylvania, you're now a criminal unless there's a Pennsylvania permit for that food product.
	Even if you are bringing it from outside the state or transporting it outside the state.
	One of the defendants in this case is a West Virginia farmer who doesn't sell into Pennsylvania.
	But because Amos Miller has a legal interest in that farm, and they made this clear to state.
	They said not only does it apply if any part of the food supply ever crosses our lines, that's illegal unless it has a Pennsylvania permit.
	If you are a Pennsylvania resident, it covers you anywhere in the world you ever go.
	If you're a Pennsylvania resident and you have a farm in France, you now have to have a Pennsylvania permit to sell the food in France.
	That's how insane this is.
	And the court is sitting there contemplating this.
	Because that's how out of touch the Commonwealth Court is.
	I mean, they failed their basic task to be a check on the government.
	This is a specialized court in the state created for the sole and whole purpose of controlling the administrative state, of disciplining the administrative state, of limiting the administrative state, of looking out for the individual.
	And instead, they have become a rubber stamp.
	Of the administrative state.
	They should be asking these questions.
	I shouldn't have to be making it clear to them the consequences, the insane consequences of this decision.
	Because I pointed out, the state couldn't find one court case anywhere in the history of the entire country where any court had issued an order like this that said you, a farmer, cannot distribute your food or exchange your food without a state permit.
	To anybody outside your own family.
	I mean, and by the way, there's a separate food destruction order where they're destroying food that says he can't even feed his own family.
	He can't even feed his own, can't feed himself, his own farm food.
	Can't even feed his own pigs.
	That's how nuts this is.
	This is the biggest and most precarious power grab in the history of food politics in America.
	And we'll see if the Commonwealth Court has common sense or not.
	Because it's clear what the statute is intended to be.
	The statute says this is all about protecting the Pennsylvania customers in the commercialized marketplace.
	Nothing in there talks about regulating farmers, regulating the food supply, regulating people bringing food.
	I mean, under this law, they make it illegal for you to have a potluck dinner at your local church.
	That's how insane the power grab is by the state of Pennsylvania.
	So we'll see if the court has common sense or not.
	If they don't, we'll take it up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, take it up to the U.S. Supreme Court, because there's U.S. constitutional issues implicated.
	But if you never know, with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, unfortunately, the nature of the questions, one judge seemed on it, two of them seemed out of it.
	And so who knows what's going to happen?
	They seem like the one judge seemed shocked.
	Don't you admit there was all these health problems?
	Like, there's zero health problems.
	He has the best safety record of any farm in the state of Pennsylvania or in the country.
	They had 10 years to prove one single person out of the tens of thousands that have eaten his food have any complaint, and they couldn't find one.
	One! And yet you have a judge that's snoozing at the wheel, getting to decide the power of our freedoms in America.
	So it's why people running for state office in Pennsylvania should be talking about this issue.
	And the Pennsylvania state legislature should be improving on this issue.
	There's probably going to be a shock come Election Day in Pennsylvania for the institutions in power there as to who is going to win on Election Day.
	Part of it is because of what they're doing to people like Amos Milk.
	But if you want to figure it out for yourself how good his food is before the government tries to prohibit you from even getting it, amosmillerorganicfarm.com.
	I want to see what the Pennsylvania prediction is.
	I'm looking here.
	I thought that was Wisconsin and Ohio.
	And Georgia.
	And Arizona.
	Robert, um, sorry, if I looked like I was laughing, uh, it was because I saw this meme in our locals community and it made me laugh.
	Holy hell, we got some funny memes in there.
	Um, okay, amazing.
	And I will snip this clip it and we're gonna, you know, tag whoever thinks they need to tag, tag whoever you think needs to be tagged in this.
	Robert, for me, I mean, every can, anybody running for office in Pennsylvania should be talking about this issue.
	Do you really think, Mr. Congressman, do you really think, Mr. Senator, do you really think, Mr. Attorney General, do you really think, Mr. District Attorney, do you really think, Mr. State Representative or State Senator, that you should get to dictate what food goes into my body?
	Should I get to control that or should you?
	Can I get to buy food directly from the farmer like our founding fathers did and we've been doing for 200 plus years?
	Or do you get to dictate and determine what goes into my body?
	Because food freedom is a core question that is universally popular across Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Northeast, Southwest, Midwest, everywhere.
	Everybody agrees, I should get to decide what food goes into my body, not you, the government.
	And yet, it's these Democrats, the same ones running around saying they care so deeply about bodily autonomy, who are stripping us of our rights to have any good food available.
	I mean, right now, less than 2% of the food supply comes from farmers like Amos Miller.
	I mean, and consequently, we're the most unhealthy we've ever been in the history of our country from a food perspective.
	And they're trying to take that away, the 2% away, so that we're stuck with the crap, the commercialized, industrialized, Bill Gates-designed crap, fake meat disguised as meat, that kind of crap.
	And so this is about our core freedoms.
	If they own our body, they own us.
	We're nothing more than chattel slavery at that point.
	Well, all right.
	And speaking of one corrupt court to another corrupt court, although I'm not sure how corrupt it is.
	There's corruption at all levels.
	Ruben Gallagher.
	You've been talking about the race in Arizona.
	Ruben Gallagher is running against Cary Lake in Arizona.
	Is he the favorite right now to win?
	Oh, yeah.
	And the betting favorite's a huge favorite because what's happened is three things.
	One, I mean, this guy used to be a hardcore, known as a hardcore lefty.
	Quasi-commy.
	I mean, his dad was a drug dealer connected to the drug cartels.
	That's who this guy is.
	He comes from that side of Arizona politics, which runs deep.
	And occasionally goes over to the certain McCain-related side on the river, too, there in Arizona.
	And so Cary Lake, long time, you know, from Iowa, moves to Arizona, be a very successful reporter.
	They steal the gubernatorial election from her in 2022 with all kinds of shenanigans running for the Senate in 2024.
	The old McCain establishment still doesn't want anybody in Trump world to be successful.
	You know, like the Cheney family, they're busy endorsing Kamala Harris.
	Exposing to all my old conservative friends who insisted to me for years that these people were true conservatives.
	And I was like, no, they're not.
	They're frauds.
	They're fakes.
	They're phonies.
	They're corporate whores.
	They're war whores.
	That's who they are.
	Like, no, Robert, you don't understand.
	They care about the country.
	They love Jesus.
	And then they see Dick Cheney and the daughter in the McCain family endorsing Joe Biden, now endorsing Kamala Harris for president.
	So they can start writing those apology letters.
	So Carrie Lake is a telegenic, charismatic, well-liked...
	Natural for the modern media environment, and for that reason, terrifies all the right people.
	I feel like such an idiot.
	I had never heard the word telegenic before, but I would always use photogenic, but I guess telegenic works for television, and photogenic works for photos.
	She's just a natural.
	She's amazing.
	Anybody who's ever met her, you've seen her on TV, she's just as charismatic in person.
	So the media's so scared of her, they're running, they're locking her out of as much coverage as possible, running as much, they're basically what they're doing with Kamala Harris at the national stage, they're doing for Gallego at a state-level stage, you know, hiding his entire history and past, his ideological history, his corrupt history, his personal history, his familial history, all of it, and making up like he's like Tim Walsh going out.
	Pretending to be, you know, Mr. I love to shoot pheasants, you know, the kind of guy.
	Hopefully Gallego brings a gun when he's hunting pheasants.
	Something was acutely missing from many of Tim Walz's videos.
	The shotgun.
	Then they realized how stupid it looks, so they had to show him with a shotgun again.
	Yeah, no doubt.
	So Gallego is one of the most corrupt people running for office.
	But the media is doing everything possible to suppress it.
	And the courts have been complicit in this effort.
	And because he had a divorce, and part of that divorce record is public record.
	It would be part of the official court record.
	But it was all sealed and kept secret from the world.
	So answer me this, because this is what I don't know.
	I've never done any family law.
	In Canada, it's very rarely sealed, except for identities of children.
	They're always anonymized with...
	What is the rule?
	I mean, the rule is still divorce proceedings are public unless there's a compelling reason to make them private.
	It depends on whether the record is a court record or something that simply came up in the court process.
	To give you an example, the discovery in America is incredibly broad.
	I don't know if it's as broad in Canada.
	I know in Europe they find...
	It's outrageous how broad our discovery process is.
	I think it's broader, at least in Quebec.
	I still think it's even broader.
	Some provinces have a positive obligation of disclosure, but if it's remotely potentially relevant, disclosure will be ordered, and then unless there's a compelling reason where you have to get the court's authorization.
	I think it's more disclosure in Canada than in the States.
	Really? I think so.
	From a European perspective, America is the most invasive discovery in the world.
	But basically, if it comes up out of the discovery process, the Supreme Court said in Seattle Times that a court can issue a protective order, and most of that can be hidden because it's not considered part of the court record.
	It's part of the private litigants getting access to things between each other.
	Once it's filed in court, then it becomes part of the court record.
	Then the court can only seal it, keep it secret from the public.
	If there's a compelling interest in doing so, And the order, the protective order, the sealing order is narrowly tailored to that interest.
	That's the constitutional context.
	There's both the common law right of access to the courts and a First Amendment recognized right of access to the courts in most jurisdictions.
	And they're equivalent at the state level.
	Sometimes, like in Pennsylvania, specific requirements open access to the courts.
	Apparently it doesn't apply if somebody wants to listen to a Commonwealth Court argument after the scheduled time.
	But that's another issue for another day there in Pennsylvania.
	So because of that, there was really no good grounds to continue to keep his divorce file that was part of his court file, the public file, sealed in secret from everybody when he's trying to run for the Senate of the United States.
	And the Arizona Court of Appeals recognized that, didn't even meet the requisite statutory standards.
	He's just going to try to continue to play out the string of please, please, please don't disclose it until after election day.
	When people are going to find out, there's histories of this.
	He's one of the nastiest, take Kamala's husband, some of the things about, stories about Tim Walsh, throw in a little Bill Clinton, and you got Ruben Gallego.
	And a lot of the evidence for it is in that divorce filing.
	I mean, it involves affairs, sexual harassment, all kinds of abuse issues.
	I mean, it's just...
	The guy's a nasty guy.
	You wouldn't expect he's a cartel guy.
	He's going to be the senator from Arizona.
	It was reminiscent of Nathan Wade's sealed divorce pleadings in Georgia, but for different reasons.
	What was I about to say?
	Oh, well...
	The Court of Appeal, I forget what...
	It is the Court of Appeal said...
	Obviously it should be released.
	The Trump Court said it should be released.
	It's like, well then why hasn't it been released yet?
	Well, it's supposed to be released on October 17th and he's expected to petition for a rush, an emergency order.
	Hey Arizona Supreme Court, please let me get on the Senate while the media is continuing to lie here in Arizona to who and what Gallego is really all about.
	He's just trying to play out the string.
	You know if this was reverse, if this was Carrie Lake's file.
	It would have been leaked already.
	Exactly. It would have been on the front page of every Arizona newspaper.
	They would have had every Arizona TV broadcast station broadcasting it.
	They've been hiding it in Gallego.
	Gallego has a huge money advantage, which should tell you a lot about who's backing who in that campaign.
	And that's what he's relying on to steal the Senate seat in Arizona.
	In 2024.
	But this is truth that should have already come out.
	You have an open right of access to the courts.
	This is publicly compelling information that there's no good grounds he's even been able to identify for hiding this information from the public.
	Well, especially the Court of Appeal recognized that information as relates to the kids was properly redacted and there's no other good reason.
	And nobody's seeking.
	The newspaper that was seeking information wasn't seeking anything about his kids.
	This isn't like...
	The people seeking information in the Ricada case, for example, who are all about telling me about their roadmap and where the kids' rooms are and all that weird stuff.
	And it turns out one or two of them is a convicted perv.
	You know, shock, shock.
	That's not what it was doing here.
	This was a local Arizona paper that was like, we don't want anything to do with the kids.
	We want the stuff about Gallego.
	And was Gallego...
	For example, there's stories of harassment, stories of abuse.
	Did he abandon his wife while she was pregnant to have an affair with a staff member in ways that would raise sexual harassment questions while he was a member of Congress?
	Well, wouldn't voters like to know if that's who this guy is?
	Robert, can you believe it?
	I mean, it just makes me think of Doug Emhoff, the new measure of a man.
	That's what I'm saying.
	That's who he is.
	He's like Doug Emhoff.
	Who bones his nanny.
	I mean, yeah, he's impregnating and then forcing an abortion on his nanny.
	Going around on other women and harasses women at work regularly in a misogynistic way to brag about who and what he is.
	Smacking around other women.
	I mean, whatever they accuse Republicans of, that's what Democratic men are, right?
	The ones that are actually men.
	Or they're people like Tim Walsh, LARPing is a man.
	I mean, that guy puts the coach in Coach Sandusky, you might say.
	I'm following the disclosure.
	The account is called DocNetYouTube, Black Insurrectionist, I Follow Back, True Patriots.
	And I get there's fair questions about his sourcing.
	I know there's various stories and rumors.
	I do know there's been stories about walls for a while.
	And so we'll see what develops.
	But here, Gallego, this is court records.
	This is court-documented information that came from a nonpartisan source.
	This is information the public should know.
	Why is it being hidden?
	Why is it being suppressed?
	Why is the media complicit in suppressed?
	Why did it take a small, independent publication to try to unseal these records?
	Why wasn't the big Arizona newspapers doing anything about it?
	Why weren't the big Arizona TV stations doing anything about it?
	To give the shout-out.
	Garrett Archer's busy explaining, miseducating the world about election law, working for ABC News.
	Why isn't his ABC News station trying to get to the truth about Gallego?
	But hopefully we finally will get the truth.
	The people of Arizona will get the truth.
	October 17th, after the court simply did its job.
	But you never know with the Arizona Supreme Court still yet to maybe linger in the case.
	And it was the Washington Free Beacon that is the one who filed the request.
	Very independent, little smalls.
	But it shows the value of it.
	That's why I tell ordinary, you know, ordinary everyday people can make a difference, can do the FOIA request, the Open Records Act, the Public Records Act request, finding out, become self-educated, you become self-empowered, and then you can help change things broadly.
	Is there any legal way to leak that information?
	For anyone to obtain it?
	Would someone be held in contempt of court if they had access to it and then disclosed it?
	In all likelihood, yes.
	Unless, of course, you're doing it to Trump.
	Then you get no contempt.
	You get rewarded.
	Before we get into the next one, let me just read a couple of the rumble rants over here.
	Little Guy says, did you see that there was a potential third attempt on Trump's life?
	Yes, we talked about it at the beginning of the show.
	Shofar, Barnes, please tell me how you really feel about the McCain's.
	Sticks Hexton Amber thinks Carrie Lake won't win because the media has successfully tarred and feathered her thoughts.
	Oh, your thoughts.
	I thought there was a market for Arizona on Predict It.
	There is, and that's the assumption.
	I wouldn't...
	Trust that assumption.
	We'll see what happens when things come out about Gallego.
	We'll see how long they can keep the mythology up.
	That they project his traits onto her and her traits onto him.
	We'll see if they're able to sustain that.
	People who watched the debate saw a very different dynamic.
	Saw an incompetent Gallego and a very capable Carrie Lake.
	And Carrie Lake, I mean, I think her campaign could emphasize these issues even more, but she's one of the few Republican candidates that's talking about food freedom, talking about medical freedom, supports Paul Gosar's legislation, another congressman there in Arizona, to end all immunity.
	For the vaccine makers and big drug companies if they cause injury.
	So she's on the right side of a lot of big issues and would be a great advocate in the Senate.
	And that's why the big boys in Washington are cutting off all funding to her campaign.
	And so they're trying to starve her of money while the media runs cover for Gallego.
	It's a Kamala Harris on a smaller scale style.
	Assuming that that's always going to be what the voters decide is, I think, the kind of unsafe assumption that Kamala Harris has figured found out the hard way.
	IMB Chop says, My body, my choice.
	Amos Miller, Maha, 1776.
	We've got 80% free.
	Says, Robert, I'm interested in joining Shorts Picks, but I have zero experience betting.
	Any recommendation on getting up to speed?
	Well, if you go to sportspicks.locals.com.
	Yeah, sportspicks.locals.com.
	There's a bunch of...
	You can go to the content feed, go to the masterclasses.
	That has a bunch of introductions to sports betting and the rest.
	It's like, if you want the truth about January 6th, you can get a video, the Hush Hush, first ever Hush Hush video, at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Forecasting in advance, just a week after it, what we were talking about earlier today.
	And that was, what, three years ago?
	Almost four years ago?
	I didn't realize, yeah, there's a market for who's going to win Arizona, Democrat or Republican, which is Carrie Lake or Gallego, and it's Democrat is at an 81-cent favorite, and the Republicans at a 22-cent, so that's like 4-1.
	I mean, I wouldn't bet against Carrie Lake myself, so that's my view.
	And you can double down on your bets.
	You can sell that the Democrats are not going to win and buy that the Republican will and double your bet.
	All right, amazing.
	Now I didn't realize I have an interest in making...
	I want that to be disclosed now because I've got to bet on that.
	Oh, Robert, you introduced me to that.
	You shouldn't have done it.
	Okay, next on the menu...
	Well, speaking of various election corruption and fraud, the other big election news this week in the courtroom was the Biden Justice Department demanding to put illegals back on the ballot, back on the remoto-registration rules.
	You'll field this one for me because I'm still fixated on the Arizona of the 74,000 who didn't show their citizenship.
	What's the situation with this one and what state is this?
	So it actually involves a bunch of states, but the latest one is Virginia.
	So what happened is Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia was the latest one, went through and made sure that the people who reported they were not citizens On their DMV registrations, we're not being registered to vote.
	Because a lot of motor voter registration goes back to Bill Clinton.
	If you got your driver's license, you were automatically registered to vote in some states.
	But as part of that process, they ask, are you a U.S. citizen?
	There were a bunch of people who said, no, I'm not a U.S. citizen, who somehow ended up on the voter rolls.
	Quite extraordinarily.
	So these election officials find this out and they're like, okay, you can't be on the voter rolls if you're not a U.S. citizen.
	And like in Virginia, they go through a whole protocol.
	They double check that in fact they said they're not a citizen.
	They reach out to them and say, has that changed?
	Because you can still register to vote if that's changed.
	They ask if to confirm that or do you want to be registered to vote?
	You want to contest this issue in some way.
	And only then are they removed.
	And they're still allowed to come back on the voter registration rolls if, in fact, they are a citizen.
	So the only people removed were people who said, I shouldn't be on the voter registration rolls.
	I'm not a citizen.
	And who confirmed that a second time through a whole administrative process.
	Well, so those names get removed.
	Biden administration starts to go berserk, and they're suing everybody.
	And they're suing everybody using the National Voter Registration Act.
	And they're completely misapplying the law.
	And God bless people like Garrett Archer in Arizona.
	They're misleading people about the law.
	They're just parroting Democratic talking points without actually reading the actual law.
	And the National Voter Registration Act simply provided they didn't want voter registrars doing mass purges of voter registration rolls right before an election based on some, you know, a change of address standard.
	They wanted it to have something in place that's systemic, that provides an opportunity for people to correct and remedy, and so forth.
	The Biden administration is trying to reinterpret the law to say that the voter registration rolls are frozen 90 days out, and that even if everybody agrees somebody's name shouldn't be on the voter rolls, you can't take them off state government.
	That's directly contrary to what the plain language of the law is, directly contrary to what any legal precedent says about the law is, directly contrary to what the public policy behind the law is.
	The law is don't do sort of generic systemic purges that don't have a specific basis in state law, for example.
	But it specifically excludes and exempts any voter.
	who request to be taken off the voter rolls, or when a specific state law says they should not be on the voter rolls.
	Examples of that include people in the state of Virginia, if you're not a citizen, you have to be off the voter rolls.
	So having an honest, accurate voter roll cannot be a violation of federal law.
	And yet that's exactly what the Biden Justice Department is insisting.
	They want to freeze the voter rolls so that they can have illegals on those voter rolls.
	And they're suing, asking their friends in the federal courthouse to push that down on these states, including in particular Virginia, where for some reason they seem a little nervous these days.
	All right.
	Robert, I didn't ask you this earlier.
	What would you estimate the odds of Biden resigning before January, whatever the transfer of power is?
	Late, maybe.
	Early, no.
	But that's why there's a risk that Harris could become the 47th U.S. president.
	If only for like 48 hours.
	So be careful of that bet in the betting markets.
	Pick who's going to win the election, not who's going to be the next president.
	If it happens, all of this becomes even more valuable.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I'm actually thinking about it where if Kamala loses and Biden wants to do the thing and get the first female president or wants to pawn all of his failings onto her and let her be the face of the failed administration, he doesn't.
	And then he needs to get the pardons and everything.
	Okay, interesting.
	Okay, look.
	It'll be a disjoint segue.
	The Cake Bakers case got dismissed by the Supreme Court, right?
	On procedural grounds.
	Well, two things happened.
	Several years ago, he won at the U.S. Supreme Court on the Colorado law.
	But the ruling left enough carve-outs that they could keep harassing him.
	And that's exactly what happened.
	They kept harassing him.
	And so this decision went up to the Colorado Supreme Court.
	And they weaseled out of any consequential decision.
	I got mistaken on which Supreme Court it was.
	They dismiss it on procedural grounds on the basis that if there was a disagreement on the decision, they had to go through some procedural remedy before they could take it to the courts.
	Whether or not it's particularly relevant for the discussion, you could flesh it out in greater detail.
	The bottom line...
	This guy's going to be brought back before whatever the tribunal was that he was brought to the first time.
	It's all going to go back to the courts again, every step of whatever the levels of the court system is in Colorado.
	And so, yet again, this is as good as latches or standing.
	They're basically saying, okay, we're going to dismiss it on procedural grounds that don't address the substance.
	And they even specifically take the time in the ruling to say, we're not issuing any opinion on the merits of this case, meaning...
	Not necessarily it's going to have to go back through the court system and this guy's going to get harassed over and over again by the same activist litigant.
	They just have to start all over again because I think timeline-wise, they missed their time frame to preserve this particular complaint.
	So they would have to start from scratch in order to harass him again.
	And so there is hope that they don't do it again.
	But it tells you the mindset of the state these days.
	That they're either demanding you bake them a cake or they're demanding you not be allowed to bake a cake.
	If you're Amos Miller, you can't bake a cake.
	If you're in Colorado, you've got to bake the cake for whoever we tell you to bake a cake for.
	It's about control.
	It's not about safety, security, dignity, tolerance.
	It's not about any of those things.
	It's about power, pure and simple.
	Well, speaking of...
	I want to bring this up just because I want to highlight the fact that I love ratioing people on the internet, but you got a Democrat individual.
	Let me see who this person is.
	Boston. I don't know who the person is.
	Every single MAGA, every MAGA I've ever seen complain about immigrants taking American jobs would never do this.
	Let me see.
	First of all, a little confession through projection.
	Working in the fields, hard labor.
	I knew plenty of people...
	I mean, the...
	Everybody that works on Amos Miller's farm is a local Amish person.
	So he doesn't go out and hire a bunch of illegals.
	They proudly work from dawn to dusk.
	So this idea that farm work is so indecent, undignified, that you have to have illegals do it, or immigrants do it, just shows you their mindset.
	First of all, I took some pretty shitty jobs once upon a time for summer jobs, and it builds character.
	I had a bunch of friends who planted trees.
	Not much better than that.
	You go out, you lean over.
	And I just said to the guy, this is modern-day slave labor.
	What you're doing is espousing modern-day slavery.
	And he says, well, they get paid wages.
	First of all, if we want to follow that analogy, and I'm not affirming this, I'm just rebutting it.
	Well, slaves got free food.
	They got free room and board.
	That is a taxable income, according to certain accounting principles, with certain exceptions.
	So technically, they got remunerated, too, with slave wages.
	You hear Jerry Nadler say it, the fruit's going to rot in the fields if we don't have illegals picking it.
	He said illegals.
	You got Joel Osborne saying, who's going to clean your toilets?
	And you got this jacket.
	I don't understand.
	I don't understand how they don't see it.
	That they are basically promoting modern-day slave labor.
	They say, the job is so shitty, the pay is so low, the only way to get it done is by importing illegal immigrants, unskilled labor, who we can then exploit.
	Not purely Democratic, sort of uni-party element to this, because both Republican...
	It's what the elites have believed for a long time.
	Any job they can export, they did.
	Any job they couldn't export, they imported the people to do it.
	And that's how they see it.
	They don't recognize it any other way.
	They very much live...
	In their own environment.
	It's like a lot of these election cases and other things.
	They've convinced themselves of things that are just not connected to reality.
	Much like the Harris campaign in general is.
	And I think it just represents and reflects who and what they're about.
	And it's like one of the key counters.
	How did so many of these young people...
	That are changing their political viewpoints, that are waking up, that are challenging the Democratic Party establishment, that backed a lot of what made Robert Kennedy's campaign successful and being able to bridge into Trump world in the first place.
	A lot of it came from Bitcoin.
	Whoever Sasoshi was, I always get his name wrong, I think HBO Max has a new documentary suggesting it's this guy.
	Nobody really thinks it's that guy.
	But some genius decided how could you red pill the world against things like media bias, against this kind of culturally embubbled let-them-eat-cake universe that thinks that certain kinds of manual labor is beneath the dignity of any citizen.
	It's things like Bitcoin that you start by just being curious about it.
	And then you go a little further and you realize you can maybe make some money involved in it.
	And what happens is slowly but surely, you start getting politically red-pilled.
	You took that red pill at the Matrix, and you start to discover sort of deeper truths.
	You go down that Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole.
	And in the process, you become much more politically awakened to challenge, why does somebody at the Federal Reserve get to dictate and determine what interest rates are for the world?
	Why does the U.S. government get to have a monopoly, or the Federal Reserve in this case, not even really governmental, but is governmental?
	All of that nonsense, privately owned, but not really privately owned.
	Why do they get to decide what means of exchange I use to be able to buy a product or sell it?
	What if we use a different medium of exchange?
	What might that be?
	And in the process, they become politically radicalized and revolutionized.
	And that probably has a little something to do with why the Biden administration is waging all-out war on Bitcoin as we speak.
	So give us the update on this.
	First of all, McAfee didn't kill himself, but who did I interview that said that they actually could believe that he did?
	Because he was a wild animal that was going to be caged, or a wild soul that was now going to be caged.
	What's the latest on the guy who they're trying to extradite from Spain?
	Oh, yeah.
	So there's two big cases.
	So one is crypto.com has brought suit against the Biden administration and the SEC.
	And the other is the continued escalation of the extradition efforts against Roger Ver, colloquially known as Bitcoin Jesus.
	Leave it to the Biden administration to try to figure out a way to crucify Bitcoin Jesus.
	So for those that don't know who Roger Ver is, Roger Ver is one of the founders of the Bitcoin movement.
	And it sort of was a Bitcoin purist.
	And it was someone who believed in Bitcoin, not for its self-enrichment prospects, but rather for its collective empowerment and individual freedom components.
	That if you really understood what Bitcoin was at core, it was a...
	There was the aspect I'm talking about, monetizing and incentivizing people to explore alternative ideas about the world that would let them go down Alice in Wonderland's rabbit hole, that allowed them to take the Matrix red pill and see past the simulation.
	But the broader aspect of it was its capacity to functionally revolutionize the world and remove financial control from central banks and central planners.
	Indeed, any central intermediary at all, because it's based on democratizing, decentralizing, currentizing.
	And if you do that, you take away the ability of the banks.
	To monitor you, to control you, to govern you, to censor you.
	You take away the ability of the central planners to monitor you, control you, censor you, take away the value of your labor, depreciate the value of a product, inflate the cost of a product.
	All those things can go away if all of a sudden the central planners don't monopolize it anymore.
	And that's why Bitcoin was always this...
	Brilliant, beautiful, revolutionary tool by today's Thomas Paine in getting it.
	And it was a lot of the younger generation that over the last half decade has embraced it.
	The reason why Roger Ver is called Bitcoin Jesus is because he has been the principal supporter and promoter of the democratized decentralization effect of Bitcoin as a means of exchange.
	So, many years ago, he got harassed way back.
	I mean, this guy's been harassed over and over again.
	So, way back, it turned out, he did a little bit of time.
	Somebody's like, oh, Barnes, you don't know.
	He did time in federal prison.
	I was like, oh, I'll have to look that up.
	Guess what it was?
	Firecrackers! The wrong size firecrackers!
	Can you imagine the U.S. government spent money and time to imprison Roger Ver over firecrackers!
	Firecrackers! Man, that's how nuts our government is.
	He did time in federal prison over firecrackers about whether it was this regulation to fit that side of it.
	Unbelievable. So, after that experience with the U.S. government, Roger Ver decided, I think I'm going to choose a different government's citizenship rather than the United States.
	So he does.
	And then all of a sudden, the U.S. government comes in last year and indicts him.
	Wants to put him in prison for 20 plus years.
	Wants to effectively bankrupt him.
	Seeks his extradition from Spain, the same place John McAfee ended up dead in a jail cell.
	Ended up getting Epstein'd, like Epstein did.
	And by the way, McAfee himself predicted that would happen to him if he was ever jailed.
	He said, watch, I'll get Epstein'd.
	Our friend Amanda Milius, daughter of the great director John Milius.
	Is making a documentary on John McAfee's life as licensed by his wife, his widow.
	So Roger Ver...
	I was like, okay, what in the world are they...
	It's already suspect that they're indicting Ver to begin with.
	Because he's Bitcoin...
	So it's like, it's a coincidence this guy's Bitcoin Jesus?
	It's a coincidence this guy is promoting a...
	And not only that, not long after the indictment, you kind of got a sense of why he got indicted.
	His book got published.
	And his book is about fighting the intelligence community on trying to co-opt and depress Bitcoin.
	So I was like, oh, okay.
	So now things are starting to fit together a little bit better.
	But what's even more shocking, so the political motivation is obvious.
	What was shocking is when I read the indictment.
	I'm expecting something, you know, it's like all the Trump cases, right?
	You expect, they finally, I mean, they put up such a macroscopic, microscopic view on a guy.
	Surely that they got something significant, something real, something substantial.
	Not to oversimplify it, but the bottom line is that it's alleged that he sold Bitcoin to his companies or transferred.
	Here's the thing that should scream out to people.
	They're indicting him on things about paying taxes as a citizen for things that happened when he was not a U.S. citizen.
	So I was like, whoa.
	So that was the thing that stood out right away.
	I was like, hold on a second.
	So someone who's not a U.S. citizen didn't make money in the United States, and you're saying they owe a bunch of tax?
	On what they did with their own property outside the United States?
	And just so nobody thinks you're crazy, this is from the DOJ's website or Justice Department.
	February 14, he allegedly obtained citizenship.
	Allegedly. We know he obtained citizenship on that date.
	But this is the U.S. government.
	They tried to pretend he didn't do something when they denied him a visa a year later because they recognized that he was no longer a U.S. citizen.
	But they have to say allegedly.
	Because their whole thing is they're using the Roger Ver case primarily to suppress Bitcoin, suppress the people pushing for Bitcoin as an independent platform, as part of the broader Biden administration lawfare against Bitcoin.
	But that's only half of the equation.
	The other half of the equation is they want to use the Roger Ver case to establish extraordinary power.
	It's kind of like the Amos Miller case, but in the financial freedom context.
	And what it is, they're using him to say, we can put you in prison and create new tax policy through criminal law enforcement against individuals, even if you're not a U.S. citizen.
	We're going to claim you owe taxes, and we can lock you up for it.
	Right? It's like, hold on a second.
	Now citizenship is not a limitation on your tax power?
	I mean, that has all kinds of ramifications.
	But that's not all.
	And that's not even the least offensive.
	There's two other components that are equally offensive.
	One is, they're saying, what exactly is Bitcoin?
	So in this, they're saying Bitcoin is a capital asset that's treated like capital gains, or what is it?
	You dig in, and they're wanting to tax Bitcoin not as a capital asset, not as an income stream, as a property tax.
	They're saying you owned this much And at some point, you benefited from that ownership of property.
	So we're going to say that you didn't pay enough at the time of the exit tax, which, by the way, is a disguised property tax.
	And now we're going to put you in prison.
	So we're going to create a property tax through the exit tax, and we're going to enforce it through criminal means.
	So this is an effort.
	They've been trying to do this for a while.
	But this is what the Harrison proposal is.
	It's a property tax.
	For those that don't know, in the United States, at a federal level, you are not allowed to impose a property tax unless it has to be uniform in a portion.
	Any direct tax on a person or their property has to be a portion equally amongst the states and uniform in its rate.
	That's politically impossible in the modern world to achieve.
	Our founders intended it that way because they didn't want any head taxes.
	They didn't want any federal property taxes.
	They only wanted indirect taxes on foreign goods, like President Trump is talking about.
	When he talks about shifting to a tariff-based model, he's talking about shifting to the model our founders believed in was necessary to not only benefit the economy, but to protect freedom and autonomy from government control.
	The power to tax is the power to destroy.
	The power to tax is the power to control.
	That's what much of our tax returns are really about.
	They're ratting yourself out on a daily basis.
	Folks, they can print their own money.
	They don't need your check.
	What they want is your control, your subservience, your submission.
	And here you've got one of the most independent people in the world preaching and teaching people how to not be submissive to central planners and to individually empower themselves around the globe.
	And it's not a coincidence that he's the one that's being targeted, but if they want to use him as the example to establish an extraordinary new power to lock people up by making new tax policy through criminal enforcement.
	Because again, the exit tax is unconstitutional, always has been.
	I've dealt with this in multiple contexts.
	Whenever the IRS wants to argue about something, I say, okay, how about this?
	How about we find out whether it's constitutional or not?
	And then they always resolve it and say, sorry, we'll go home.
	This is the only case I know of where they're prosecuting somebody related to Bitcoin.
	When at the time that they're talking about it, they leave this out, they omit this from the indictment.
	2014, 2015, 2017.
	The IRS couldn't decide what Bitcoin even was.
	Is it a digital thing?
	Is it an actual asset?
	Is it an income stream?
	They couldn't figure it out.
	And now you're going to go to prison because the government can't figure out what something is?
	So that's problem number one.
	Problem number two is it's all while he's not a citizen.
	Problem number three is it's a disguised property tax, and they're trying to enforce this through criminal imprisonment.
	So this is a direct threat to everybody's freedom, and it's similar and comparable.
	What's happening to their efforts to crucify Bitcoin Jesus is the same as what crypto is fighting and crypto.com sowing the Biden administration.
	It's about using enforcement.
	It's like what they did in all the Trump cases.
	Using enforcement to set new policy.
	Not just to punish the dissidents they don't like.
	And to send a censorship message.
	If you're thinking about opening your mouth and challenging what we do, you might end up like Bitcoin Jesus.
	Look at how well we crucified him.
	We made the Romans look amateurs by comparison.
	That's what they're trying to do with Roger Ver.
	They're trying to do the same in crypto in general because they want to use criminal individualized enforcement to create policy that they could never constitutionally pass in the first place.
	Amazing. When do we find out if he gets extradited?
	I assume that's months away.
	So, maybe Spain will have some cojones, because they're supposed to have some cojones there in Spain, and recognize the unconstitutional and illegal nature of the process.
	I can guarantee, here's the other shocker.
	This is just like the Trump case.
	Guess where they got most of their info, if you read the indictment?
	It's private communications between he and his lawyers.
	This was actually, I didn't realize this case until I was looking at it recently.
	This was the case that went up before the U.S. Supreme Court that we talked about.
	Where the tax firm was saying, why is the court allowing any look at any attorney-client information based on it being for dual purpose, which is a bunch of hogwash?
	Just to remind everybody, never in writing, always in cash, that some of us don't keep...
	It's like that idiot who kept all his notes from Trump.
	I kept them in a Trump sedition.
	I mean, what kind of...
	If they come and subpoena Barnsley...
	Well, one, I'll go to jail before I turn my stuff over and they know it.
	But number two, there won't be nothing there when they do go looking.
	You don't got to keep everything in writing, folks.
	Just because you're a lawyer, you don't have to keep 500 CYA letters and notes and correspondence.
	But what's amazing is, you read the quotes from his lawyer, it's like, this is the evidence of someone trying to comply with the law.
	Not someone trying to not comply with the law.
	But it's like, what are they doing with his attorney-client files in the first place?
	I mean, they just violate all the rules.
	But they basically are using the Trump case as a template for how they can go after any dissident.
	We can set new policy.
	We can break all the rules.
	We can manipulate the venue.
	We can eviscerate privilege.
	We can target people we dislike as our sin goat sacrificial offering to the elite gods.
	And it's part of a systemic, systematic problem with this administration.
	But Roger Ver, he's not in jail right now in Spain.
	McAfee was in jail in Spain when he...
	Probably Spain figured out, don't trust the U.S. government, number one, when they come saying, let's extradite somebody.
	Number two, they should be worried.
	Hold on, a tax case?
	You want to extradite somebody for a tax case when he wasn't even a U.S. citizen during the time period that you're trying?
	Well, hold on a second.
	They could do that to anybody in Spain, couldn't they?
	They could do that to anybody anywhere.
	I mean, imagine if tomorrow Russia decides they can tax the whole world and they can issue an extradition request and have us brought there, or China.
	There's a reason why we have...
	Territorial limitations on these powers.
	This is why Trump is talking about, I'm going to get rid of this altogether.
	If you're outside the United States, I'm not going to tax you anymore.
	Only crazy countries do that in the first place or even try to.
	But that at least is on citizens, not on non-citizens.
	So it's just extraordinary.
	But clearly the Spanish courts smelled a rat early on.
	Granted him bail despite the request initially by the U.S. government, I'm sure, to try to detain him and imprison him pending trial proceedings.
	And if they follow through conscientiously in ways the British court mostly failed to do in the Assange case, then his extradition should be rejected.
	And my guess is, well, there's probably even more government misconduct.
	You know, I wouldn't be surprised if we later find out people lying here, lying there.
	Every extradition case I've ever looked at, the government always lies.
	The U.S. government always lies.
	I mean, there was an egregious one in Panama I was once part of, but they always, they can't help themselves.
	Remember how often they lied about Assange?
	And they said Assange did this, and Assange caused this death, and it turned out all to be bogus, all to be false, all to be fake.
	So I'm sure...
	It's probably not a coincidence.
	Roger Ver is affiliated and associated in the public mind with people like Julian Assange, a very independent freedom advocate for people that has been obviously effective at getting under the skin of the deep state, the administrative state.
	But it's just a case to pay more attention to because of how problematic it is and how they're trying to use the case, not only to punish dissidents, not only to suppress financial freedom in Bitcoin, Create new policy through selective criminal enforcement in ways that would impose a property tax on the entire world and tax people who aren't even citizens, who aren't even in the United States.
	It's as crazy a case as you can possibly imagine.
	Biden administration then has learned to master crazy cases.
	What do we have left on the menu for tonight?
	We have the crypto suit against the Biden administration.
	The Second Amendment win in the state of New York.
	Banks doing what banks do well.
	It's my drug dealers.
	It's my bank.
	TD Canada, baby.
	A vaccine mandate ban finally gets affirmed and upheld in a federal court.
	And then a brief preview of all the big cases up before the Supreme Court.
	Okay, so we'll do the crypto one in a second, but let me just see here.
	MKUltra1 says, Spain has now a far-left government.
	Not sure how well this will work out for him.
	Randy Edwards says, My understanding, after China cracked down on crypto mining, operations switched to Ukraine due to cheap energy.
	Russia soon invaded Ukraine, and Biden, DOJ, went after crypto founders.
	See also World War I. Interesting.
	I'm not your buddy, guys.
	I heard a meme, funny meme, a while back.
	That Satoshi Nakamoto is actually four Japanese companies, Samsung, Toshi, Nakamichi, Motorola.
	Because that's the anonymous name used by the creator of Bitcoin.
	And then we've got Alex Jones has often said unnamed people courted Infowars for lucrative business ventures to dig for info about his bank's predecessors or his predecessors or as to damage their relationship.
	Will Alex finally name them?
	That was his counsel that that happened.
	By very high-profile, powerful people.
	So, yeah.
	They were constantly trying to buy them off, and when that didn't work, they went to demonization and lawfare.
	Then we got the ClearSight, says, because Anton is amazing.
	All right.
	Crypto suing Biden?
	Yeah, Crypto.com.
	So, the SEC's new rule.
	So, they try against Ripple.
	Their whole thing is to treat everything like a security.
	Everything's a security.
	Maybe the book's a security.
	Who knows what's a security of them are?
	So all of a sudden, they decide out of the blue, under the Biden administration, they're going to treat crypto like a security.
	Why? Because they want to regulate it out of existence.
	Because they want to suppress it.
	They want to censor it.
	They want to control it.
	They want to manipulate it.
	They don't want it to be available and accessible for ordinary people to change the world for themselves and others.
	Is physical gold and silver in America not...
	That's not a...
	It depends on the manner and method in which it is traded.
	It can, in certain instances, if you actually have a secured instrument, but it by itself is not a security.
	Which is an example.
	If it's traded in a particular place in a particular way, then it can become a security.
	But they recognize Bitcoin is not a security.
	They recognize that Ethereum and other cryptos are not a currency.
	But they've decided that all the other digital tokens that are blockchain-based, those are...
	Those are digital assets.
	And so now they're all securities.
	And if you don't register with us, the SEC, we can put you out of business tomorrow.
	If you're involved in any of these other dangerous various forms of blockchain-based technology to help the medium of exchange break through the monopoly of the big banks and the central planners.
	And so crypto.com said, screw this, we're suing.
	They sort of took a page out of Roger Ver's book and fought back and didn't just lay down.
	And so that's why I say Bitcoin Jesus tends to be a good example in many contexts.
	In the same capacity as what he is doing in challenging what the Biden administration is doing, Crypto.com has brought suit against the SEC for declaratory relief that the SEC is abusing its power.
	Guess what one of their key points is?
	This is part of a systematic effort by the Biden administration and the current administrative apparatus that's hostile and adverse to Bitcoin.
	To weaponize the legal system and create new policy that they couldn't get passed through Congress.
	That they didn't even have constitutional authority to do in the first place.
	And that in fact violates the very terms of the Administrative Procedures Act.
	Guess how the SEC is trying to circumvent the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act?
	Oh, we're not.
	This isn't a policy.
	This isn't a rule.
	This is just trying to put you out of business.
	Ha ha ha.
	That's their official protocol.
	So now it's being challenged on all those grounds.
	And we'll see because it's kind of absurd.
	Security is supposed to be a stock market on Wall Street.
	It should have always been limited to that.
	Whenever they extended and expanded beyond that, I always thought that was dangerous and precarious.
	Always ask, who are you giving power to?
	They're always going to say it's for your safety.
	It's for your good.
	It's for your health.
	It's so that you don't get deceived or defrauded.
	No, it isn't.
	It's so they can have power over you.
	That's what it's about.
	And this is the latest egregious misuse and abuse of that power by the Biden administration.
	And hopefully, if they get the right court, that's always up in the air with these kind of things, then they should prevail.
	But there might be a new administration coming in that puts an end to this nonsense altogether anyway.
	Monsieur, I see a good meme in the Babylon Bee.
	Howard's turned under fire for exploiting mentally challenged guests for cheap laughs and it's got a picture of...
	Kamala Harris, not Beetlejuice.
	That's funny.
	All right, let's see here.
	This is one of my banks.
	TD comes from Canada, Toronto Dominion.
	So they're going to pay $3 billion for allowing drug cartels to launder money.
	Ordinarily, I'm skeptical that the bank is guilty.
	But they've agreed to pay this amount.
	And allegedly from the allegations, there's pretty damning evidence that employees knew what the hell was going on, that these cartels were depositing cash well exceeding.
	What I don't understand, I can't transfer money between my TD bank accounts without having to register and respect daily limits.
	These dudes are like depositing tens of thousands of dollars cash.
	They got the DMs of people...
	Over a million in a single day.
	Apparently they said, how is this not money laundering?
	And another person inside the bank said, oh, it 100% is?
	It's pretty wild.
	I don't understand how...
	Allegedly they were bribing the employees with gift cards and whatnot.
	And so, you know, pretty serious stuff.
	But you have to have that at an institutional level.
	Because what highlights the scam, these same banks are eager as soon as Trudeau calls up to freeze a trucker's account because they're at a politically non-permitted protest.
	And like you said, you have difficulty just doing this little thing to that little thing.
	That exposes how policy-driven this is, how systemic this is.
	People should go back and research the history of BCCI.
	This is one of the reasons why Bitcoin drives them crazy.
	Bitcoin is an option out, right?
	Like, they always accuse Bitcoin and crypto of where all the dark web and dangerous activities go and where Ross Ulbricht does stuff and blah, blah, blah.
	They've accused other people, like one of the Bitcoin advocates in New Hampshire, Friedman.
	They accused him of everything known to man.
	They did a rigged trial, stuck him in prison related to it.
	You dig into the file and it's nothing like what they're saying it is.
	It's because this is what the banks do on a regular basis.
	It's because they want to control it.
	I call it the pirate safe harbor.
	I used to tell some folks they were putting money in Panama.
	I was like, understand the reason why Panama's banks are protected is For drug dealers and arms runners and human traffickers, like it was for a long time in Miami, it was the Colombian marching band that built most of those high-rises in Miami.
	That's where the loans came from, from the local banks.
	And so, is that they want to monopolize it.
	They don't object to the drug trade, human trafficking, arms running.
	They object to not controlling it.
	They object to not monopolizing it.
	That's where the Lord of War went AWOL before he was able to get traded for a WNBA player by Vladimir Putin.
	He wasn't sticking on the CIA script.
	It's like, you can be an arms runner for Russia as long as you're an arms runner for us.
	As long as you're part of the club as the movie Lord of War properly portrayed.
	And it's loosely based on that guy's life story.
	So what you have going on, what these little scandals expose, you'll see a little news story that will vanish.
	Three billion here, five billion there.
	It will be when some schmuck stumbled across something they weren't supposed to, and they'll agree to look good for face value.
	We're disciplining the banking system.
	We're making sure this isn't happening.
	When in fact, they're doing the government's bidding.
	They're doing the central planners bidding.
	They want to control.
	Money is information.
	Money is power.
	That's why they want to control and manipulate Bitcoin and want to censor and suppress its utility for ordinary everyday people as a medium of exchange.
	You can read Roger Ver's book if you want to hear about the whole history of it.
	So it's the same dynamic here.
	And people go back and find the documentaries on BCCI.
	Or if you want to dig a little deeper, see the connection between money laundering, savings and loans, and the savings and loan scandal.
	In fact, it might bring us all the way back to Arizona and John McCain.
	Do we head over to locals now-ish?
	Yeah, we got a Second Amendment case.
	Courts going on strike in California.
	A preview of SCOTUS and a vaccine mandate ban.
	Let's do the Second Amendment here.
	That was coming out of New York.
	That had to do with the government prohibiting...
	Lawful carrying of a firearm on public property, accessible to the public, unless the firearm carrier had express written consent of the...
	Hold on, is it private property?
	No, I'm sorry, it's private property that's publicly accessible.
	Unless the firearm owner had the express written consent...
	Think about, where is that?
	I'm trying to think of...
	Shopping center?
	Every restaurant, every grocery store, every mall, every place you could go shopping.
	Soft targets.
	You're on private property, but it's open to the public.
	They were basically trying to eviscerate people's rights to carry a weapon in self-defense.
	Because that law, New York law, is where 90% of people would need to have a tool of self-defense.
	And a open to the public.
	Private property facility.
	Because that, again, is every restaurant, every office building, every shopping mall, all of it.
	That's how, you know, leave it to New York to figure out a new creative way to try to ignore Bruin versus the state of New York.
	But now, and now that I said, as I was talking about it last week, now that I noticed, you know, sometimes in buildings it says, no firearms beyond this point.
	And that is the purpose, whereas if there's a sign that says no firearms, then a firearm owner cannot enter that property with a lawfully...
	It depends.
	That's not always clear.
	But this law was, you can't ever go there with a gun until you get their advance permission, which was practically negating.
	Yeah, they were quite clear that they said there was no historical analog for such a prohibition.
	In fact, it was quite to the contrary that this would effectively...
	It would eviscerate it.
	I mean, unless you're at a public park or on a public sidewalk or in your own car, everywhere else you would go that you would want your self-defense available quickly to you is private property open to the public.
	Office buildings, restaurants, malls, shopping centers.
	Grocery stores, etc.
	Tropical Rocket over in Rumble says, totally laughable that a public ledger would be the place that criminals would want to launder money.
	Yeah, exactly.
	No, they always prefer the banks, and the banks prefer them.
	And the government prefers it that way.
	Fantastic. Okay, do we do the rest of this over on...
	Is there one more you want to do on Rumble before we head over to Viva Balls?
	We got the court clerk strike.
	We got a sneak peek preview of all the big...
	We can preview those over at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Tomorrow, we'll be on at 2 p.m. Eastern Time with Richard Barris on What Are the Odds?
	There's a chance it's the last Monday we get to do it before Election Day, depending on how things work.
	I may be in a court case the week after.
	Waiting to see and determine.
	But that's People's Pundit Daily on YouTube and Rumble and on Locals.
	He just did a polling survey of the Midwest.
	Did a polling of parts of the country.
	He's got a lot of fascinating results.
	Accurate results supported by the Public Polling Project.
	No secret purchasers of that information to compromise its quality or accuracy.
	And we'll be giving out all the different betting picks.
	Or some of the betting picks.
	I'll give them some free betting picks and the betting markets.
	We'll talk about what's going to happen with the election, Senate, the House, the White House.
	All that over 2 p.m. Eastern at People's Pundit Daily on Monday.
	Now I'll read a few of the tipped questions over in vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	Crash Davis, Robert, Senator Mike Waynes Mullins of Oklahoma.
	Jan 6 was a second-term congressman.
	On Jan 6, Congressman Mullins was protected by the Capitol Police officer who murdered Ashley Babbitt.
	Mullins witnessed her execution.
	Mullins on C-SPAN bragged about how he hugged the murderer and provided cover to the FBI as reward.
	McConnell made him the new senator to Oklahoma.
	Mullins is anti-MAGA trash.
	Why has no one challenged this piece of crap?
	That's news to me.
	But I am going to actually, hold on one second, just screen grab that.
	Have you seen where Congressman Gates stated he believes Epstein was killed by a foreign state?
	Well, if there's one foreign state that would do it, it might be, I was going to say, but all the figures might point to Mossad.
	Everybody wanted him taken care of.
	I mean, pretty much, and we'll see what happens with P. Diddy.
	I mean, the stories and rumors keep circulating.
	Oh, and the charges are getting worse.
	We'll see how it's going to go.
	Have been reading Ned Ryan's American Leviathan curiously Barnes' opinion of Ryan and if he's read it, the book.
	I have not.
	So if the claim is to protect their citizens even if they are outside the state, is that not the equivalent of Pennsylvania not allowing abortion and having authority over a citizen who goes to another state for abortion guilty of breaking Pennsylvania abortion law?
	Yeah, yep.
	And then we'll end with this, and then we're going to go over to Locals.
	Gentlemen, absurdly enough, I was driving Uber in Monterey and picked up a gentleman from Pennsylvania who told me about California Assemblyman Wiener and was completely oblivious about Amos Miller.
	Well, unfortunately, look, there's a lot of news to be paying attention to in the world.
	Well, and the institutional media just keeps lying about it.
	Okay, sorry about that.
	All right, so let's do this.
	We're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Tuesday, amazing interview.
	It's going to be 1230.
	Tomorrow I'll be live.
	What's going on next week?
	I'm going to be with Luke Rutkowski Wednesday evening, so I'll give everybody...
	I'll put that on blast.
	Probably usual suspects on Wednesday.
	Thursday. I've got a doctor's appointment.
	Okay, good.
	We're going to end it now.
	We're going to go over to vivaboardslaw.locals.com.
	I think the link is already being shared in Crumble, but just in case, let me go give it one more time here.
	We have NeuroDivergent2 as our mod there.
	Link. Come on over to Locals, people.
	And otherwise, we will all see you tomorrow.
	Ending now.

▲