All Episodes
March 16, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
02:27:08
Ep. 255: NO CONSTITUTION IN SEATTLE! Trump Invokes Alien Act! Hail King Carney! Green Card Revoked!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I think it's Pauline.
I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
For which reason?
Because you're fascists.
Rebel News is a fascist organization.
You don't think that he should disclose his relationship with a convicted sex trafficker?
He's standing beside someone.
No, I've been seeing also another photo hanging out in the ground.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Get away from me.
You don't think that he should actually be accountable of certain things that he did?
He's the Prime Minister now.
What did he do?
Just answering the question to disclose the relationship.
I know what rebel news is.
I have no respect for you.
It's yellow journalism.
Turn the camera off.
So you're ready to just call names to someone?
Thank you for the finger.
Give the finger to me and call me a fascist.
Our message on our truck.
For those of you who don't know, that is Alexa Lavoie of Rebel News.
And she's awesome.
She's the one who got shot in the leg, point blank, not with a gun, with a tear gas canister gun during the Ottawa trucker protest.
Donning her journalism, media, and credentials and microphone that said Rebel News.
And I don't know if it was RCMP. I forget exactly who it was.
Unleashes on her upper thigh with one of those...
It's like a can of tear gas into her leg.
That's Ottawa.
I'm fairly certain that's Ottawa.
I don't want to make a mistake.
Hold on a second.
That is Ottawa, right?
Let me just play this for one more second.
I think it's Pauling.
I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
I don't know if that's...
It's got Mr. Smoke in the backdrop.
Encryptus, can you double check if Mr. Smoke is in downtown Ottawa?
It really looks like Ottawa.
Maybe Mr. Smoke.
And what's that other thing we got back there?
I don't know what that is.
Whether or not it's Ottawa, that is representative of the Ottawa attitude, people.
Rebel News, you heard it there, people.
It's in Ottawa, right, Mr. Smoke?
Yes.
Yes, it is.
It's a fascist organization, people.
Rebel News.
How a media company could be fascist?
I guess technically it could be fascist if they have an unholy alliance with the government because, you know, Mussolini-esque fascism is the marriage, or I guess it's a three-way between government, media, and big corporations.
So I guess, you know, if Rebel News was like the CBC, state-funded, with a holy alliance, then I guess they could be a fascist entity.
Idiotic.
This is what's going on in Canada, people.
We're going to get into it even more tonight because it's wild.
And before we even get into the show, good evening, everybody.
Viva Frye.
I did a parkour race today.
I mean, it was sort of like in a playground with my kids, with my kids' parkour instructor.
And I think I did very well.
If you haven't seen it, you can go watch today's vlog where I talk about the rogue activist judges blocking Trump's attempt to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which we will also talk about tonight.
So I got my exercise in today.
But if you haven't been following what's going on in Canada, it's not encouraging.
It's actually exquisitely discouraging.
And another element of it...
Hold on a second.
Get me out of here.
That's not the one I wanted to bring up, but I'll bring it up now in a second.
Another element of what's going on in Canada.
Boycotts and protests against...
Elon Musk.
I'm going to bring this one up anyhow here.
Art Candy.
Art Candy.
Spaces host trying to find common ground.
Dubbed a, quote, liberal pundit by Afternet.
Smack talker.
The country is doomed if we don't communicate.
Oh, it's hilarious.
It's always the people who virtue signaled the hardest in their avatars that act like the biggest assholes on the internet.
I will be the first to admit.
I am saucy on Twitter, but I'm not going to write in my profile, be kind to each other, when I'm calling Mark Carney a three-passport-carrying whore.
We're still a few minutes into this, so I won't get into the MFing whores.
But Art Candy posts, they're protesting Elon, Musk, and Tesla up in Ottawa, Canada.
Love our Canadian neighbors.
And then you go to the post.
Look at this.
First of all, this is the most lackluster group of jackasses I've ever seen in my life.
Second of all...
What the f-?
And Cryptus, tell me when the eight minutes are up so I can drop some F-bombs.
What in the name of sweet holy hell is going on?
The woman's wearing an M95 face mask.
We're in 2025, people, and she's outdoors.
And this is the level of abject insanity that's going on in Canada.
Now, in fairness, and credit to Canada, what do we got here?
A half a dozen jackasses?
No, we got maybe a dozen.
We got a baker's dozen.
What's it called?
You got a stingy baker's dozen.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.
I'm not counting that kid on the right.
Who the hell brings their kid to a protest, anyhow?
This is what's going on in Canada.
And, like, it led to an interesting discussion.
Because I've long said, you know, if leftists, lefties, capital D Democrats, capital L liberals didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
I gave up after a certain point with Unlearned 16, not because I have anything against her.
She was on last week.
We had a good discussion.
You know, I was like, do you really think Elon's going into the green energy for the sake of the environment?
I don't care.
I don't know.
I will never be able to know someone's intentions behind their outward actions.
You can suspect and you can accuse, and sometimes I do.
But the idea that you have your alleged green energy-loving, climate crisis-obsessed idiots wearing M95 masks outdoors five years after COVID, you have them Protesting an American company in green energy that is supposedly, by their own rules, reducing greenhouse emissions, which are the be-all and end-all of the climate crisis conundrum.
Picketing and protesting the guy that's saving the environment.
That leads me to believe that you are all a bunch of rapacious idiots.
And by the way, they are protesting the American company operating in green energy.
So that what happens as a result of that?
So that they benefit China.
China EV, China battery makers, the greatest single contributor of greenhouse gases on earth.
Now, I personally do not believe that green vehicles, EVs, are better for the environment than coal-burning vehicles or gas-burning vehicles.
I don't believe it.
All things considered, you lefty buffoons, you think that the cars get themselves over here, that the minerals just magically appear like unicorn farts.
You know, those rare earth minerals are extracted in the most Violative of nature circumstances in third-world countries that you don't see.
You mine them from third-world countries where you've got people engaged in human slavery, operating under the most horrendous conditions.
The runoff and environmental pollution is disastrous.
Then you gotta go mine them, get them, refine them, turn them into batteries.
Then you gotta ship the batteries over to the car factories, assuming that they're even manufactured in America if the vehicles themselves are not made overseas, and you gotta ship the cars in.
You think all that happens without burning a shit ton of fuel?
You know what the number one polluter is if you go by greenhouse gases?
Ocean Freightliners.
And that's what happens when it's done.
What do you think happens with those batteries when they break down?
People chuck them everywhere, they go into landfills, they break, they leak, you get all sorts of nasty chemicals spilling all over the place.
So I don't believe that they're any more environmentally friendly than the traditional...
Gas burning cars.
But operating on their own rules, by their own rules, they are.
And so these idiots are protesting, boycotting, picketing, imposing 100% tariffs on the American employment company, operating in green energy, reducing carbon emissions and greenhouse gases so they can then divert all of that money.
And pollution back to China.
When you shut down the economy of Canada because you don't want to produce oil locally, you're not preventing pollution.
You're outsourcing pollution.
You raging jackasses.
That's what's going on in Canada.
Good evening, everybody.
We're going to have one hell of a show tonight.
Barnes is going to go ape poopy on his experience in Seattle.
We're gonna get there.
We got a great show and I got some other stuff that I want to talk about.
But before we even get there, in fact, let me make sure because I'm totally neurotic.
I'm fairly certain I checked off that box.
Yes, it does.
This video contains a paid promotion, people, because it does.
And that is The Wellness Company.
Now, I've figured out how to get past the not having audio on the B-roll.
I uploaded it unlisted to Rumble and now this is the B-roll.
So we started pulling grants and we could see that there was funding going to aerosolized COVID vaccines, but that wasn't the most shocking discovery that we made.
This is what led us to the discovery that our government's funding research on transmissible vaccines or self-spreading vaccines.
They're developing vaccines that would essentially act like a live virus where it could basically replicate itself into new hosts.
Now, people, the globalists will never stop.
They are pushing more airborne vaccines, no needles, no permission, just exposure.
The last administration quietly funded grants for aerosol vaccines, a delivery system that could infect us without consent.
millions were forced into the mRNA psyop.
Cases of a number of adverse events, myocarditis, blood clots, immune damage have skyrocketed.
Eight states are in the process of banning these shots.
The Trump administration needs to make sure this tyranny hasn't been released on the public.
Dr. Peter McCullough of the Wellness Company, Has created the ultimate spike detox with four times the natoconase plus bromelain curcumin to help break down the spike proteins and support your body's natural recovery.
Experience the formula approved and used by Dr. Peter McCullough, a top freedom fighting cardiologist who risked it all.
You head over to TWC. Support your body's natural recovery.
Now I hear myself.
Experience the formula approved and used by Dr. Peter McCullough, a top freedom fighting cardiologist.
That's me.
Now I just lost my train of thought.
Yeah, you go to twc.health forward slash Viva.
Code is going to get you.
I'm going to make a mistake on it.
It might be 32 bucks off in free shipping.
Check it out.
The promo code will get you a good discount on it for our viewers.
And then the question is...
Check it out.
Link is in the description, people.
Oh, lordy.
Who invented the mRNA?
I think that was Malone.
Not necessarily McCullough.
Viva having technical problems?
No, that wasn't a technical problem.
That was just I forgot to minimize the screen, and then I went to play the next video over on Rumble.
So, got into a bit of an interesting discussion with a number of people.
By the way, if this is your first time here, welcome to the channel.
We start on Commitube, which is YouTube, Rumble, Twitter, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
We vote with our feet and vote with our dollar and head over to Rumble.
By the way, next week, this is what I should have let off with.
Next week, if you haven't heard the big news, if you haven't watched Steven Crowder, I think they're going to mention it this week.
Rumble is launching something of a network-type lineup all day long, where all of the...
I just say...
I'm on the lower rung of that ladder, but some of the more prominent live-streaming, commentator, news-covering peoples on Rumble...
Are gonna go back to back to back to back to back all day long.
And it's gonna be basically like network television where you're gonna have the best shows, the best programs, the best livestream commentating all day long, basically from nine to 10, nine in the morning to 10 at night.
I don't know what the exact order is.
I could just say that Crowder's in the lineup.
Russell Brand is in the lineup.
Tim Pool is in the lineup.
The Quartering is in the lineup.
My time slot is gonna, my new time slot is gonna be four to five, but next week I'll be doing three to four plus.
Exceptionally next week.
And then the week after that, it's the official lineup.
So it's going to be amazing.
Now, Verax1 says, they better be careful.
You get sued for honking in Ottawa.
This is true.
Hardy har.
And then Tani O'Haley says, I heard a family law judge in Los Angeles when challenged that they weren't doing...
What they weren't doing was constitutional.
Say, constitution smonstitution.
The constitution doesn't apply to family law.
I reported him, but nothing was done.
How can we get these judges...
We're going to get to that actually when Barnes gets here, because he's had that experience now in Seattle.
We're watching that happen now in the Dexter Taylor case out of New York.
And what we're watching with the Tina Peters in, oh geez, Colorado?
It's Colorado, right?
Is wholesale violation of civil rights.
Nothing more and, let's just say, nothing less and a whole hell of a lot more.
Over on Rumble, we got Viva.
Did you hear that Dr. David Weldon was sacked before confirmation by Murkowski, Patty Murray, and Senator Cassidy from Louisiana?
I did not hear that at all, actually.
Let me make sure that Barnes has the link and make sure that he comes in, and then I'm going to talk about something.
Banj.
Yeah.
You got the link, question mark?
Smiley face.
And let's see what's going on over on our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
Stingray with a $5 tip says, could Trump claim that the ADL has no standing?
Laughy face.
Well, the ADL, that's going to the case involving the Alien Enemies Act or the Enemies Alien Act.
The Alien Enemies Act.
ADL is...
Now that you mention it, they're representing...
They're not the council on that.
They are...
Acting for it on behalf of the gang members that were deported to El Salvador, from what I understand.
This is what I wanted to talk about in respect of the lineup on Rumble that's coming.
It's a very interesting thing.
Not to say that I was zooming in to see where I was in here and I didn't see my name.
And yes, the ego part of my being was a little bit disappointed that I didn't make it in here yet.
This is a post from Media Matters for America.
Angelo Carasone, president and CEO of MMFA, which if they have an acronym of a name that sounds like mother effers, this is the one.
Dump Trump organizer formally stop Beck onward.
Tweets are mine alone.
Interesting.
Put out a whole thread here, by the way.
And what's amazing, and it wasn't even my observation, but I've made it my own information now.
I'll get to it in a second.
What you can see here is clear.
I'm reading the tweet.
What you see here is clearest illustration of why things are so messed up and why it cannot get any better until this asymmetry is addressed.
Put simply, right-wing narrative dominance.
My org, MMFA, but he's only speaking for himself, people, did this study and has been sounding the alarm for years.
Some thoughts.
And so you look at this.
And you look at the numbers, you got, I mean, the two biggest ones, I guess the second biggest is actually Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, who by all accounts is a good Canadian boy.
He should be blue.
You look at all these names, Charlie Kirk, Joe Rogan, Russell Brand, Tucker Carlson, Dan Bongino, Candace Owens, Patrick Bett David.
I saw Nick Fuentes.
Yeah, right in there somewhere, 3.4.
I didn't see my name, but I am who I am and I can't be bigger than I am and I will never be seven feet tall.
On the one hand, my first response to this was, it's not asymmetry in messaging.
It's not narrative dominance.
What it is, is rewarding of people who respect basic science and basic intellectual integrity.
You're not losing the narrative symmetry when you push idiotic ideas that push everyone out.
And I said, you're not going to say...
You don't get to say boys can menstruate and girls can have penises and think that people are going to listen to you for much longer.
And it's not an asymmetry.
It's a market responding to your shit product.
But then someone said, like, Viva, Rogan and Brand should be blue if they hadn't terrorized those two out of the left.
And some might even say Rogan now should still not be red, even though he endorsed Trump because he saw no other alternative, because he's still quite...
Quite very much on the policy aspect of things, or I should say socially liberal, maybe fiscally conservative.
I don't even think he's that.
But the whole point is that you push out your most prominent voices from your radical, cult-like, and I say cult-like because I don't necessarily think it fits the criteria of a bona fide cult, your cult-like members, what are they called?
Apostates?
You throw them out and then you say, well, why isn't anybody here?
Why don't we have any prominent voices?
Because you're a bunch of idiots who tyrannize, brutalize, and alienate your biggest, most prominent voices.
So congratulations, MMFA. The only cool thing that I noticed with the MMFA is Media Matters for America, Viva Frye.
I want to see, like, there was something I came across and I actually saw that Media Matters actually reported on me.
Mildly favorably.
When it was...
Oh, cripe.
I forget what it was now.
And they actually said, you know, Viva was saying, don't run with this.
Oh, it was the story of the black insurrectionist tweet about Tim Walz.
And they were like, even some voices on the right, some conservatives.
Look at these.
MFers.
Yeah, MMFA stands for Massive Motherfucker Association.
We're out of the first eight minutes?
Yeah.
MMFA, look at this.
The ones who accuse others of spreading disinformation and slander are the ones who spread disinformation and slander.
Right-wing media figures are spreading salacious and unsupported accusations against Tim Walz from an account known for creating viral hoaxes.
This is coming from the side of the aisle that ran with that crazy lady who said that she was...
Very much exploited by Donald Trump.
And then the left goes and says, oh my goodness, there's a story breaking that Donald Trump, there's a woman who said that when he was on Epstein's Island, yada, yada, yada.
So I was going down to the bottom here.
Some right-wing figures uncritically promoted the anonymous and baseless accusations.
And then you scroll all the way down to the bottom.
Some right-wing media figures urged others to stay away.
Listen to this.
Right-wing commentator Bill Mitchell stated he would not discuss the story until the facts are confirmed.
QAnon, I mean, they've got to even defame the people who are doing the right thing because they can't even give them credit.
If they were to say, look at these big right-wing accounts who are actually doing the right thing, they wouldn't be able to get away with their headline.
Right-wing accounts are spreading salacious disinformation.
Nick Sartor.
Right-wing social media figure.
That one's mild.
These allegations hold no water unless the accuser goes public.
QAnon figure Jordan Sather.
While I think it's totally possible Tim Walls did these things, I'm highly skeptical.
Conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich wrote the same account.
Mike Cernovich is a voice of reason, a conspiracy theorist.
Oh, what's that conspiracy theory?
You know, the one who played an integral role in blowing open the Epstein case?
Sons of bitches.
Then we got that one.
Rumble streamer David Frye, known online as Viva Frye, called the alleged supporting evidence questionable and underwhelming in a very, very meaningful perspective.
Well, thanks, Media Matters.
Now, I love you guys now because you spoke nicely of me.
Oh, oh, oh.
That's what's going on in the world today.
Robert Burns, sir, I think I see you in the backdrop.
Get ready to rant.
Robert.
I know it's going to be good, because I know the week you had, and if anybody doesn't know the week Robert had, then you don't watch the Bourbon with Barnes's back over on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Robert, you are back home, it looks like.
Yes, indeed.
How good is it to be back home?
Well, yeah, always good to be back home.
The soon home will be in Tennessee.
I'll be moving this summer, so that'll be fun.
But good to escape the insanity that has become liberal democratic jurisdictions like Seattle.
Are you moving?
I won't pry.
Tennessee permanently?
Yeah.
Oh, cool.
Moving back home to southeast Tennessee.
Some people in the chat are going to start haranguing us again.
We are...
Thinking about doing, we are doing something at some point.
Oh yeah, the annual 1776 Law Center fundraiser will be this summer in and around likely Florida.
I thought about some other places, but most likely South Florida, but it'll be at least an annual tradition.
There'll be other meetups and other things we do as well.
But the fundraiser to support 1776 Law Center, we'll have a dinner, looking at adding some CLE events.
Uh, and things of that nature.
Probably do, uh, maybe do a little, uh, for those that want extra bonuses, there might be like, uh, separate bourbons with Barnes at, uh, cigar bars in South Florida.
Uh, separate, uh, fishing with Viva, uh, for those that want to do those.
Uh, shark fishing.
So we'll make it like a whole weekend set of events so that people get real value.
That'd be fantastic.
That's fantastic.
Okay, awesome.
And, um, you're gonna, both you and I are gonna be at Hunley and Grobert's event in Vegas for your 51st birthday?
Yeah, the America's Untold Stories are doing their meetup event here in Las Vegas, and they're honoring us so that, you know, happy to be there to support them.
They do good work.
You can find there over at unstructured.locals.com is where you can find all of Mark Robert and Eric Hunley's work, breaking down all kinds of fascinating stories about crazy cases and crazy histories.
The conspiracy theories and everything else thrown in.
So they're always a lot of fun.
Alright, Robert.
We'll go over what we have on the menu and then I'm going to let you rant and rave about your week in Seattle where apparently the Constitution does not exist.
What do we have on the menu for tonight?
Yeah, we have the case that led to one of the most circulated tweets I've ever put out or posts I ever put out on X. About Senseless in Seattle, which took it to a whole new level.
The state of Washington was also doing crazy stuff all week.
They were in the news for all kinds of reasons.
Trying to take away parental access rights and the school system.
Trying to...
He threatens sheriffs that if they help the Trump administration, that the attorney general of the state of Washington might get them arrested if they simply enforce immigration law.
That combined with what Judge Parisian said in the case of State v.
Benshuf, which Senator Cruz and a wide range of others expressed concern about, amongst other things that's happening in the judicial branch, where a state court judge prohibited the Constitution from being referenced in court in America.
We'll get to that case.
We have the number one voted on topic at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, who's the show notes producer for the show, is judicial reform and the history of judicial reform in America.
The Judiciary Act of 1801, the Judiciary Act of 1802, the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, the famous statements of Andrew Jackson about the Supreme Court, the famous statements of Thomas Jefferson.
about the judicial branch, the actions of FDR, and what now must be and may need to be the actions of President Trump, as Mike Davis of the Article III project, Senator Mike Lee of Utah, Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, finally acknowledged the same thing, that something has to be done about the rogue, wayward judicial branch, of which what I experienced in Seattle is simply one more sad exemplar or illustration.
For Senator Cruz's people, I will be actually getting the transcript and the audio recording of the hearing.
The court wouldn't allow anyone else to record the proceedings, wouldn't allow the proceedings to be broadcast.
So that's why, why is it that these judges always like to act in secrecy while pretending they're doing it publicly?
And in between, the same judge threatened members of the gallery.
During the proceedings.
Because she didn't like how they were looking at her.
This is the insanity that's happening in our liberal democratic jurisdictions.
We've got the Alien Enemies Act.
What does that mean?
We've got federal judges ordering President Trump to give secret...
Classified file information to big corporate law firms that serve the interests of the deep state against the president's elected will and the American people's will.
We have another federal judge ordering that he import terrorists back into America.
We have another federal judge ordering him to spend billions of dollars on foreign organizations and foreign institutions and foreign individuals.
This is what's triggering the concern.
That the judicial branch has gone rogue full scale.
So in the context of that, we'll be discussing the judicial reform efforts as well.
We've got the green card cases.
The people who think that a visa gives them a right to do anything they want.
But on the flip side, those that seem to want to actually deport people for speech might need to review the cases concerning Harry Bridges.
We'll be discussing that case.
Nationwide injunctions in the context of birthright citizenship is going right to SCOTUS and may be decided this week.
We'll discuss that case.
Professor Alan Dershowitz, before the Ninth Circus, which is what it should be labeled these days, more and more, Court of Appeals, they dodged a Supreme Court review, but they still made a bad ruling on the issue of sanctionable conduct.
And last but not least, the Smith-Munt Act.
What is that?
What is it concerned?
Why is there discussions of reform and remedy about it?
We'll be getting into that as well tonight on Viva Barnes for the people.
Well, I guess we're going to...
I mean, I don't know.
We'll start with what happened in Seattle because it'll segue into everything.
It's now at least three courts where I've heard of judges saying, don't bring in the Constitution.
It doesn't exist here.
In New York, Dexter Taylor, don't bring in the Second Amendment.
It's the state of New York.
It doesn't exist here.
Seattle.
There was another one, I think, in San Francisco.
I'm not sure where that one was.
Tell everybody exactly what happened.
First of the things first, when you order the, you're going to get the transcript or the audio of the hearing, you do have access to audio recordings, right?
They'll give you CDs so you can actually hear what went down.
They are supposed to have audio recorded it.
So not all courts do that.
Federal courts, for example, have no audio recordings.
Well, at least.
None they make available to anybody.
They only allow transcripts from the official court reporter, of course.
That's, in fact, I am filing a brief tomorrow before the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the Court of Appeals there in Pennsylvania, in the McGinney case, where a woman was criminally prosecuted because she tape-recorded her own court proceeding that documented fraud by the court reporter.
That's what these judges are trying to hide and cover up.
Corruption and fraud and abuse of power in the judicial branch.
That's why they don't want to have their proceedings broadcast to the world.
But they're supposed to have audio recorded it, but they haven't been producing those audio recordings in a timely manner so far, as well as having a transcript.
So I'm ordering both.
Obviously, we're filing an appeal in that case once the sentencing occurs.
The judge was really kind.
She scheduled the sentencing on my birthday, April 11th in Seattle.
So yes, we should have an actual transcript.
People were there, though, in the courtroom listening in live time from our NUNC video and others from our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
And despite, you know, many of them being familiar with the problems of the judicial branch, they were still shocked to hear a judge say that overtly.
And I'll explain how completely outrageous it is.
But Senator Cruz was like, a judge didn't really say this.
Yes, Senator.
The judge really said it.
The judge said that the Constitution of the United States could not be mentioned in her courtroom in the Venture case, period.
Even though the statute...
As a matter of law, makes the Constitution a complete defense to the charges.
The statute itself explicitly does.
The jury instructions emphasize in the notes, include all of these whenever the constitutional issues are present.
The model penal code the law is based on requires that the jury be instructed on the constitutional limits of the law and the full defense that the Constitution provides any defendant.
In such a case.
So this comes right from the law itself.
There's no dispute about this, no question about it, no controversy about it.
And yet the judge refused to give that instruction.
Indeed.
So this is a case in which Kurt Pensu alleged to have committed felony stalking and gross misdemeanor harassment based on his speech and petitioning activity.
So that's the concern is the second part of that.
Normally a stalking case concerns just behavior.
Harassment, just behavior.
It's violating trespass rules, right?
Things like that.
You keep showing up physically in places you're not supposed to be.
It is not typically supposed to be predicated on anything that is constitutionally protected.
If I may, the argument there is going to be, like, stalking is sending emails, making phone calls, following people, etc.
They're going to say that by virtue of the fact that in addition to those things, he also filed suits and tried to have them served on people who were the...
Object of the no stalking order, that that violates the order?
So the concern from the very beginning, so through most of American history, we have had no criminal laws prohibiting stalking.
No criminal laws prohibiting harassment.
Through almost all of our history, this is foreign to American constitutional history.
In the late 1980s, early 1990s, is when these laws started being imposed.
In the name of protecting victims of domestic abuse.
But that was quickly being usurped.
By feminist and statist who had other objectives.
But from the get-go, courts were concerned that they were going to try to criminalize constitutionally protected conduct, which you can't do.
If the stalking or harassment charge is based on speech, press, association, expression, petitioning the government for redress of grievances, which includes reporting crimes of other people, whistleblowing, filing lawsuits, serving legal papers, etc.
Then that's a violation of the Constitution.
And so court after court after court found the original stalking and harassment laws unconstitutional all across the country.
New Hampshire, Vermont, Colorado, Maine, you name it.
So the way the model penal code and scholars got together salvaged these statutes.
They said, okay, we see what conduct we're trying to deal with.
We're trying to deal with very specific conduct, not words, not petitioning.
So what they said was...
No constitutionally protected conduct can ever be criminal stalking.
No constitutionally protected conduct can ever be criminal harassment.
And they told the legislatures, put this in the statute itself.
So that's why the model penal code says put in the law.
It's a complete defense if you're engaged in constitutionally permitted conduct.
So the point is they want the person who keeps staring at you in the window at 2 a.m., right, in order to scare you.
Not the person who's serving you legal papers at 10 p.m.
Not the person whose speech you don't happen to like, right?
So if it's the act of texting them, that's one thing.
If it's based on the content of that texting, that's a whole different thing.
So the second level you salvage the constitutionality of these laws is the true threats.
Which we've talked about in many, many contexts.
The Alex Jones case, and that was misapplied there.
By the way, it's going to relate to one of our later cases.
One of the most famous true threats cases is Harry Bridges.
By the way, it means the Constitution does extend to non-resident aliens in the United States, non-citizens in the U.S., but we'll get to that.
But what they did is, like, for example, in the late 1960s, somebody's at a Vietnam War protest.
Says the very first thing they're going to do when they get their gun is they're going to put LBJ in their sniper.
Look, I'm a very tolerant to the freedom of speech argument.
That would have crossed my threshold, I think.
I know.
The Supreme Court said no.
Said that's not a true threat.
It said it has to be an extreme risk and highly likely to occur.
So this is where true threats jurisdiction applied.
So true threats is...
I come up to you and say, I'm going to kill you tomorrow.
I'm going to do severe bodily harm.
And it's a realistic threat.
It's not one of those, I'm going to take you down.
You know, I mean, we're about to hit March Madness.
Great time of year.
College basketball tournaments here in the U.S. You're going to hear, you know, fan bases attack each other.
Say, we're going to crush you.
We're going to kill you.
Right?
That's completely rhetorical.
Right?
So it has to be realistic threat that a reasonable person would perceive as likely to cause bodily injury.
If I can, just stop me with the LBJ one.
This is in the aftermath of the assassination of JFK. And he says, I'm going to put you in the...
That could not be more true of a threat, except if he had specified the date and time.
Correct.
And the Supreme Court said that couldn't be...
Even though there was a federal law prohibiting threats against the President of the United States.
So because of that, that's how robust the constitutional protections are.
If you have any stalking or harassment case, the court has to instruct the jury to separate out the constitutional conduct from the unconstitutional conduct, the constitutionally protected from the unprotected.
And that requires true threat instruction.
That requires constitutionally protected speech.
Defense instruction.
Then the third level is intent.
Remember, we discussed this in the Colorado case two years ago.
Went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed Colorado.
And what happened was these courts were lowering the level of intent.
They were saying, well, it's a threat if some reasonable person would perceive it as such, even if you didn't perceive it as such, the defendant.
And the Supreme Court said, no, no, no, you can't put people in prison for things they didn't intend to do.
You have to have at least a level of gross recklessness.
So those are the three instructions that are required to be given in any stalking or harassment case.
It's recommended in the Washington pattern jury instructions within the notes.
So like a lot of your pattern jury instructions will lay out in the pattern instructions, the instructions that apply to every case.
And then in the comments in the notes section, they'll say, if these facts are present in your case, add these instructions.
It's right in the Washington instructions.
So it's written the Washington law.
The Washington state law says it is a complete defense that if the allegation concerns violating a court order, that the court order was unconstitutional or violated any law or rule, simply like a rule of service or process.
The complete defense.
Second, it's a complete defense if you're engaged in constitutionally protected conduct.
The way they do it is they say the course of conduct component of harassment or stalking.
Doesn't apply or doesn't include free speech or other constitutionally protected conduct.
So that was the entire defense for Ben Shoof.
All the allegations, it's very unusual.
So, for example, they only have one time that he ever physically saw either one of the so-called victims or was physically present with them.
Only once in four years.
And it was a one-minute interaction where he asked where his son was.
That was literally it.
That's not stalking.
That's not repeated following for purposes of harassment.
All they had otherwise were texts asking where his son was at and otherwise lawsuits.
All of the evidence against him was he's filing lawsuits trying to get his son back.
He's filing lawsuits trying to get his house back.
He's filing lawsuits trying to get his car back.
He's sending process servers.
In fact, to give you an idea of how insane it was, the other main piece of evidence cited by the prosecutor in closing against Ben Schufe Was that they alleged he sent his son a pizza on his birthday.
Pizza on his birthday.
So the other defense in stalking and harassment cases is that you had any legitimate purpose other than harassment.
In other words, do you have some reason to be talking to this person?
In other words, why is it, for example, husbands and wives follow each other all the time?
Does that mean one of them can be accused of stalking tomorrow?
And just to highlight, to make the distinction clear that it's the substance and not the act, if he were to file a lawsuit that says, you violated the contract, you owe me $500, fine.
But if he files a lawsuit that says, I'm going to kill you tomorrow, that would be the stalking part.
And they're basically saying by virtue of the fact that he was trying to serve lawful, otherwise non-threatening lawsuits or have service affected, that violated or that qualified as stalking.
Correct.
That they were trying to make petitioning the court for redress of grievances a crime.
In fact, the jury was instructed that him reporting other people's criminal behavior was itself a threat, an illegal threat.
Can you imagine?
I mean, whistleblowing is now a crime in the state of Washington, according to the instruction given to the jury.
What were the actual facts of that specific?
Like, I'm curious to even know.
So he reported a bunch of what he considered criminal behavior.
Some.
Undoubtedly was.
Some disputedly was.
Let me get to the part that was disputedly was.
He considered, what happened is they had his son take the COVID vaccine and get booster shots.
I would qualify that as assault.
Assault on a minor.
Without the son's informed consent and without him even knowing it was happening.
They didn't even tell him any of the side effects.
In fact, they lied to the son and told him that there were no side effects.
At all.
He said that the CDC's listed side effects that he had been told about by his dad was fake from his dad.
His dad had made it up, even though it was right from the CDC's website.
So he considered that criminal abuse of a child, an assault of a child, and a violation of universal code of human rights.
But let's go to the crimes that there undisputedly were committing.
The mother of the child had gotten to a relationship with another woman.
And they go around as global prostitutes.
They run a global prostitution ring, is what it appears to me, because they're out promoting other prostitutes all around the world.
By the way, none of this evidence was allowed to be introduced.
All that was introduced was the fact that he had reported them for criminal conduct.
What criminal conduct they reported for, the jury wasn't allowed to know.
But what the jury was told is it's an illegal threat.
To report or tell someone you're going to report their criminal conduct.
This means right now Bill Gates could have anybody he wants criminally prosecuted in the state of Washington.
Because how many people have said that Bill Gates should be referred for criminal prosecution?
Me.
A bunch of us.
I mean, that's how nuts it was.
So that's where the First Amendment and the Constitution comes into place.
Right before closing argument, the government asked the judge.
Said, Judge, don't allow him to talk about the Constitution in closing, are you?
And this was part of the jury instructions.
The judge refused to give any of them.
The judge was so lazy.
The judge asked for me to submit my jury instructions.
She never read them.
How do I know she never read them?
Because she was unaware of exactly the language we were objecting to, which was right in our written objections.
Not only that, the judge was so lazy, she had never read the government's instructions.
How do we know?
Because the government's instructions had a bunch of typos in them.
The government's instructions had left four instructions out accidentally.
The instructions failed to include key names and information in them.
It included brackets that were supposed to be stricken.
The judge had to do that live in front of the jury.
The first time she actually read the jury instructions is when she's reading them live to the jury and discovering all the screw-ups.
That's how lazy this judge was.
And she's rated at places like Roving Room, one of the worst judges in all of America.
And I got to witness it firsthand.
She was threatening members of the gallery, threatening me, threatening local counsel, threatening the defendant, all kinds of things.
So in the context of this, they would say right before closing argument, after they've already got the jury to be completely wrongly instructed on the law.
No true threats instruction was included.
No reckless intent instruction was included.
No constitutionally protected conduct instruction was included.
No theory of the defense instruction was included.
It's basically yet another Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, where there's no possible defense then because there is no defense anymore.
You completely eviscerate.
She eviscerated the evidentiary defense before trial, saying you can't talk about all the criminal activity these two people were involved in, even though it's the number one complaint.
And so you think he's crazy talking about it because you don't know what the actual crimes were when they, in fact, admitted they were engaged in those crimes on a routine and regular basis and are clearly being politically protected by the corrupt law enforcement in Seattle.
But on the flip side, the legal defense has constitutionally protected conduct.
And she completely eviscerated it right before it got up in closing, said I couldn't even talk about it.
Not only was it not in the instructions, the one thing I could not mention in closing argument...
Was any reference to the Constitution of the United States?
Her exact words were, this is pretty darn close to an exact quote, the reference to the Constitution has no place in my courtroom.
That is what a judge is saying in America today.
The Constitution of the United States has no place in the Seattle King County Superior Court's courtroom.
A courthouse named after Martin Luther King.
Martin Luther King is spinning in his grave.
With how embarrassing the King County Superior Court process is.
Did she, I mean, I don't know how hard you can push it and just repeat it in the list.
Did she threaten to hold you in contempt if you did repeat it?
By implication, I mean, she was repeatedly doing that.
So, for example, earlier in the case, another party who wasn't party to the case filed legal papers and served them on the two so-called victims.
Which was the mother and the mother's new girlfriend, fiancée.
Had nothing to do with me.
Had nothing to do with Mr. Benchoof.
She threatened everybody related to that.
That was the first time I realized they really think filing lawsuits, petitioning the court for redress of grievances, is a criminal act.
I mean, I was just shocked.
I was like, you're kidding, right?
And I even said, Your Honor, these people have a right to petition.
The government, for redress, have the right to serve legal documents.
They actually have the obligation to serve legal documents.
And she's like, well, that's just like your opinion.
I mean, literally.
That's just your opinion about the Constitution, whatever.
That's just like your opinion.
It doesn't apply here in my courtroom.
I mean, that's the kind of insanity to witness live.
And some people ask, why did I talk about this case?
Why did I highlight the case?
Two reasons.
One is, this is what's happening in all liberal democratic jurisdictions.
And now we're seeing it at scale by the federal courts against President Trump.
The point was what was happening to Trump in the buildup between 2020 and 2024, what's been happening to the January 6th defendants, what's happening now to Trump administration is not an anomaly.
Liberal Democratic courts are trying to stage coups against the constitutional government in this country and trying to eviscerate our constitutional rights and remedies, of which Mr. Ben Shoof's case is simply one exemplar.
The second component is how much is an attack on the family.
So they're not only attacking his right to petition the court for redress of grievances, the right to report criminal behavior by others, treating both as a crime.
But the other thing this whole case was about is your fundamental right to care, custody, control, and contact with your minor children.
The other courts in Washington were unconstitutionally prohibiting him from talking, talking to his own teenage son who was desperate to talk to him.
A teenage son who had attempted suicide after he had been excluded from talking to his father for an extended time period.
So his father was particularly concerned with making sure his son knew he cared about him.
And it has always been a defense in America, and a specific defense in the state of Washington, that if the underlying court order is unconstitutional, you don't have to obey it, and you cannot be criminally prosecuted for it.
Here, they're saying they can take away your parental rights and then put you in prison if you protest it.
That's what's terrifying.
This is not only targeting political dissidents.
If Mr. Benshub had been pro-vaccine, he's never here.
If Mr. Benshub had been pro-mask, he's never here.
If he'd been pro-lockdown, he's never here.
In fact, the guardian ad litem, court official in Seattle, specifically said his viewpoints about the vaccines are outside Seattle's mainstream, and on that basis, he shouldn't be allowed to have contact with his son.
That's how insane Seattle's getting.
Remember, liberal Democrats believe that we should be locked up and quarantined if we didn't take the vaccine.
That our parental rights should be stripped from us.
Well, they're actually doing it in the state of Washington.
And when he's objecting to the constitutional process, they're making that a crime as well.
That's how dangerous this case is and how impactful it is.
And it's not a coincidence.
The same week, the state of Washington's legislature passes bills restricting all kinds of parental rights, trying to make the state the parent instead of the parent.
And you have the Democratic House Committee caucus chairman saying, I'm sick and tired hearing parents say about their right of access and saying it like that.
That's the tone which he used.
This is how nuts.
And it's the same week.
The Attorney General of the state of Washington is threatening every local cop and sheriff in the state that if they help the Trump administration deport dangerous illegal immigrants, it will be the sheriff who goes to jail.
It will be the local cop who goes to jail.
If Hermit Dillon and the Trump Justice Department do their job, there's a bunch of judges, a bunch of prosecutors, a bunch of politicians in Washington who belong in prison.
That's who belongs in prison, not Kurt Benchu.
These are rogue judges that have long since forsaken their oath.
We only take one oath.
And that oath is to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And if you're in Washington, the state of Washington.
That's it.
They're not honoring it.
They're not abiding it.
And they're so used to abusing power, they're shocked when anybody like me shows up and pushes back at all.
But when you have courts convicting people, like what happened in New York, like what happened in D.C., Like what happened in San Francisco, and now has happened in Seattle, where the Constitution is the one thing you cannot reference in a case where the law itself makes the Constitution undisputably a complete defense to the charges.
Then you know how insane the judicial branch has got.
People are asking, like, procedurally, what would be the mechanism?
When to send Harmeet Dillon, when she gets sworn in, can pursue...
Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights.
It's in the federal law.
And the argument is, and I don't think it's a very tenuous one, that the states are fundamentally and systematically violating civil rights from due process to excessive punishment to deprivation of other valid defenses.
And Tina Peters is another case where I don't know that they actually said at any point in that case that you can't mention the Constitution.
But I do know that she was deprived of her defense, which was her swearing to uphold the Constitution, which is exactly what she thought she was doing by whistleblowing on the election improprieties.
What's the actual mechanism?
How would it technically work?
There's multiple mechanisms available.
One, just look at what the Biden and Obama administration did.
Any conservative or other law enforcement group they didn't like at a local level, they used the Civil Rights Division and the Justice Department to crack down on.
They've given you the roadmap for exactly how you can use it.
To crack down on these systematic and systemic violations of civil rights by state actors.
So the Civil Rights Division has civil power and criminal investigative power.
It has both.
And I think a mixture of both is probably appropriate.
You can also defund them.
It's one thing to be a sanctuary city and say you're not going to voluntarily help.
It's quite another to criminalize somebody who voluntarily helps.
It's quite another to facilitate aiding and abetting.
Illegal criminal activity in that state.
And I think that's what's happening.
As Mike Davis pointed out, I think federal judges are now complicit in that.
And they're not immune from these laws, unaiding and abetting.
When we get into the alien...
No, the enemies...
Alien enemies.
Of 1798. When we get into that, we're going to find...
It's wild what the judge was actually ordering in that.
Yeah, we're forcing the President of the United States to bring a terrorist into the United States.
Well, I mean, crystal clear.
That's what the judge said.
Didn't care.
The person was designated a terrorist.
Said, you're going to fly him right back here.
They were on route to be deported.
I don't even know.
I don't know how they circumvented the judge's order without, you know, there being contempt.
The planes landed in El Salvador.
This is the...
They moved to stay the court's order, I believe, before it could be enforced.
And then it's going to be just a direct constitutional confrontation at some point.
But we'll get to some of the judicial reforms and remedies and relief available.
But the Civil Rights Division is one part of that.
But Congress has a lot of power.
The president has a lot of power.
And they're going to have to exercise it.
The reason why I'm putting the Benchoof case on blast is this is happening systematically, but there's not enough corrective remedial action taking place, not enough public outcry by people with decision-making authority taking place.
Every conservative or constitutionally oriented legislative or any other level of official in the state of Washington should be screaming bloody murder about this case and other things happening in that state, and they're not with regularity or consistency.
Or putting it on blast to the degree it needs to be.
Because most people, when I explain what happened in this case, they're shocked at every level.
I talked to left-wing defense lawyers who were shocked.
They said it's the worst instructions ever given in the history of any stalking or harassment case in the history of America.
What was given in the case of Benshiv.
Because no true threat instruction, no reckless intent instruction, and no constitutionally protected conduct instruction, and exclusion of all evidence.
Concerning constitutional activity.
For example, petitioning the courts to enforce your right of care, custody, and control of your child is a two-fold constitutional right.
And then when you're speaking about it to another person, it's a third right.
And then when it has religious components, which it did in this case, it's a fourth right that's being implicated.
This judge took all of them away and denied him even allowing him to tell the jury about it.
That's how nuts it was.
So it's where we're getting, and I think that's where Congressman Gingrich, Mike Davis of the Article III Project, Senator Mike Lee, Elon Musk are all on the right path.
It's time to confront and constrict the rogue judicial branch, the states through the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, and the federal courts through many tools that are available.
Cutting budgets, they can do the same with local and state governments.
These rogue and local state governments that don't want to enforce immigration law?
Fine.
See how well they get by without any federal funds.
Good luck with that.
The state of Washington would be broke tomorrow without lots of federal funds from outside the state.
So it's time to start using the power of the purse, using the power of the sword, using the power of the constitutionally authorized power of the presidency to confront.
This rogue judicial branch, which is trying to stage a coup against constitutional liberties in America at every single level.
It's an interesting thing because I say it doesn't seem that there's enough of an appetite or even an interest.
I think not enough people are familiar with the actual facts in Ben's hoof.
I say it's not a prominent enough individual for people to get outraged.
When it came to Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump, then they're like, oh my goodness, I can't believe it.
And saying, like, this has been going on with other people, you know, smaller people with smaller bullhorns forever.
And there doesn't seem to be the appetite.
Extraordinarily egregious within the last 10 years in the Trump era.
And so we've got a serious, the greatest threat to constitutional liberty in America are rogue state judges and rogue federal judges.
The greatest threat to constitutional governance in America.
Is rogue state judges and rogue federal judges.
They've got to be hemmed in.
And we have a lot of precedence for this historically.
So back, we'll start with Thomas Jefferson.
Actually, we'll start before that.
Some of my old family, in fact.
Ancestors, in fact.
Back at the time of the debates around the Constitutional Convention, pretty much every Barnes was part of the anti-federalists.
Because unless there was a Bill of Rights added, we weren't interested.
The first constitution was just a coup.
Read Charles Beard's Economic History of the U.S. Constitution.
And it was an attempt to usurp all of our liberties.
And it was thanks to noble advocates like George Mason, like some Barnes's of Rhode Island, and some others that said, no constitution unless the Bill of Rights is added to it.
The Bill of Rights is what is the most celebrated part of the American Constitution.
There are some other good ideas in the rest of the Constitution, but it's only a redeemable structure of government thanks to the Bill of Rights making certain things crystal clear about the rights of the people, the rights of the states, and the limited power of federal government.
The Bill of Rights drafted by James Madison, or primarily written by James Madison, They really came from George Mason from the Virginia Bill of Rights in the late 1700s.
And he deserves more credit than Madison, to be frank about it.
Okay, what was his name again?
George Mason.
So the George Mason University, still in the state of Virginia.
I'm going to ask a stupid question then.
I mean, what did they import over from England?
What did England have by way of the equivalent?
So to a degree, the Virginia...
Bill of Rights and the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights and the Pennsylvania Declaration of Constitution, which both informed the U.S. Bill of Rights, do derive going back six centuries to the Magna Carta.
Certain principles of trial by...
But like the Anti-Federalists pointed out, the judicial branch has too much power in Article 2. They're like, there need to be better restraints.
These judges are going to abuse their power.
Because remember, originally, jury trials were not protected in the original Constitution.
That only comes from the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights says you have to do trial by jury in civil cases.
You have to do trial.
They had trial by jury for criminal cases in the substance of Article 2, but only the amendments add jury trial rights for civil cases.
But they said, look, here's all the risk you're going to have if you let this elite body of politicians have concentrated power.
And their concerns came to fore right away.
At the Judiciary Act of 1801, the Federalists got whooped in the election, as they deserve to.
Thomas Jefferson won.
By the way, Thomas Jefferson, as vice president, decided an electoral dispute that made himself the president, just FYI. For those that said, oh, there was no such constitutional history of that.
Yeah, it goes right back to the very founding of our country as to the power of the vice president in that role.
But what happens is, on their way out, the Federalists say, let's stack the courts.
So they create a whole bunch.
They create...
They reduce the number of justices on the Supreme Court.
They, you know, wherever we heard that before, they go in and they expand the number of circuit courts.
They expand the number of district courts.
They do, and they appoint a bunch of midnight judges.
And what do they do once they get that power?
Well, they immediately run in and try to criminally prosecute all the people they don't like, all the anti-Federalists, all the new Democrat-Republicans of the Thomas Jefferson.
Presidential election.
They represent the ordinary person and the true civil rights believers, civil liberties believers, individual liberties believers that were part of our elected structure of governance at the time.
And Jefferson has some beautiful, beautiful quotes about the nature of judges and the nature of the judicial system.
You can go back and watch it.
So if anybody tells you, oh, their founding fathers wanted the judges to rule all over us all the time, and their philosopher kings are much smarter and brighter than us, and blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.
And they said, you know, McCulloch versus Maryland, da-da-da.
Read what Thomas Jefferson thought of the McCulloch versus Maryland decision.
I'm on the Jeffersonian side.
So, but what do they do?
They go and pass the Judiciary Act of 1802. That says, you know what?
What you did last year?
Screw you.
We're putting new courts in new places.
We're getting rid of the courts you try to put in certain places.
We're changing budgets.
Every Supreme Court justice, you're going to get off your rear and you're going to ride circuit across the country.
So they restored what the first group tried to do in weaponizing it.
The next year...
They still weren't getting the message because Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was running around weaponizing his judicial power because back then Supreme Court justices even presided over trials.
And he was targeting the political opponents and said so explicitly to grand juries.
So Thomas Jefferson said, Congress, doesn't this seem sort of seditious, sort of bad behavior of Supreme Court Justice Chase?
And Congress is like, yeah, you're right.
And they impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase.
And he came within an eyelash of getting removed.
Because remember, federal judges, unlike everybody else, can be removed for simply not engaging in good behavior.
Don't have to prove a crime, no high crime or misdemeanor, none of that.
Not for judges.
You can remove them for simply not engaging in good behavior.
Violating your constitutional oath is the sine qua non of bad behavior.
Not engaging in good behavior both on and off the bench or specifically on the bench?
It's broad.
It says...
During good behavior, you get to stay a judge, but only during good behavior.
That is a broad, broad, broad brush.
And so what happens?
Chase survives, but he gets the message.
And all of his pals get the message.
And between the major budget changes that changed which judges had money and which ones didn't, which districts they had jurisdiction in and which ones they didn't, all of those key core changes that took place as to how many judges even existed in a certain area.
All of a sudden, they backed off for a good, good long while.
Until Andrew Jackson.
And one of the judges appointed by those exiting Federalists was that corrupt, hap, Justice John Marshall.
Chief Justice John Marshall.
You go to law school, like, oh, the great Chief Justice John Marshall at McCulloch v.
Maryland usurped the power to declare.
He said, only us on the Supreme Court.
Only the philosopher kings, anointed and appointed to these positions, can decide what is and isn't the law.
What is and isn't the Constitution.
There's no basis for that at all in the Constitution itself.
No basis for it in Congress's authorization either.
Congress has given plenary power over the court systems below the Supreme Court of the United States.
To give you an idea of how Thomas Jefferson smacked him around, he canceled an entire term of the Supreme Court.
He said, nah, I don't think you need to meet this year.
You can get together next year if you're going to engage in these kind of shenanigans and try to overthrow a presidential election.
So if everybody says Trump can't do this, Thomas Jefferson did a lot more.
So they come back around to Andrew Jackson, and it's Chief Justice Marshall who actually puts in motion the denial of the Indian removal, even though he'll try to opt out of it and push it back onto Jackson later on.
What happened is, Chief, there's a land dispute that arises out of Ohio, in the Ohio Territories.
And the issue is, who has legal title?
One group acquired legal title directly from the tribes who occupied those lands and were recognized as the sovereign over those lands at the time in which title was given to them.
Another one was given title to a successor who had no such claim at the time.
However, dear Chief Justice John Marshall had most of his estate.
Tied up in the latter category of land grants.
So what do you think Chief Justice Marshall decides, this orator of the law, this diviner of the Constitution?
He decides that there's no such thing as Indian tribal land.
Then Indians, Native Americans, they don't got no idea what land is.
They don't know what it is, wandering around doing crazy things.
You know, the smoking their peyote.
So they don't have a concept of land ownership.
As my old Indian law professor Richard Monette would say, Nothing did more damage to Indian tribes in America than Indian-loving liberals.
And Marshall was the origin.
But of course, he didn't disclose his massive conflict of interest that he lined his pockets because by Indian tribes not having recognized legal title, he made sure that his legal title was guaranteed and all his riches secured.
It's based on that doctrine that Georgia takes away certain Cherokee Indian tribal rights in Georgia that leads to Indian removal, that then he says, oh, I'm not sure about that particular act that leads to Indian removal.
It started with Marshall himself.
But the other dispute that all the liberal historians don't like to talk about is the Second Bank of the United States.
Just like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson was not a fan of a centralized banking system.
He said all it will do is enrich it and profit an elite class of banksters at the expense of the American people.
And he said to him it was clearly not constitutionally authorized.
Supreme Court disagreed.
And it was more in that context than the later Indian removal context to which it would later, almost a half a century later, be attributed to.
It was actually in the Second Bank of the United States context that Jackson said Marshall can make his decision, he can enforce it.
So there's the Jacksonian direct challenge to elicit actions by the judiciary.
The next major challenge involves FDR, the liberal democratic hero, who when they were striking down the New Deal, FDR came out and said, I think the Supreme Court is really busy these days and they could really benefit from some more judges.
So I'm going to put about six of them on there.
All of a sudden the Supreme Court stepped back, said, ah, you know, the New Deal is just fine now that we think about it.
And so anybody who tells you there hasn't been a long history of contest between the branches of power that date to the origin of this country, that date to the very concerns the wise anti-federalist raised during the constitutional conventional debates, will be lying to you.
The Congress has extraordinary authority.
Congress can take away the jurisdiction of any court in the country below the Supreme Court.
They can eliminate it.
If they want to.
Eliminate it entirely.
They can restrict their jurisdiction any way they want, any time they want.
But by what percentage of a vote would have to be achieved in order to...
It's a majority.
It's a majority vote out of Congress.
Congress has given this pure legislative plenary power over the court systems below the Supreme Court of the United States.
Plenary power they exercised in the Judiciary Act of 1801 and the act that reversed it in the Judiciary Act of 1802. So from the very founding of our country.
For example, they took away the District of Tennessee and added a District of New York.
Jefferson comes in and says, screw you, we're taking it away from New York and we're giving it to Tennessee.
All of those things, the geographic power a court will have, the substantive power the court will have, the procedural rules the court must obey, how appeals can be done, whether Supreme Court sessions even happen, all those within the control of Congress.
The second structure that Congress has is the power of the purse.
They can just defund the judicial branch anytime they want.
See how long these judges are so super proactive if all of a sudden they lose their clerks and secretaries and all the other patronage they've been liberally afforded over the last half century or so.
And just to flesh that out so people understand, you could not defund the judges themselves, but rather aggregate budgets that go to other things other than the judge's salary.
Right, everything except the judge's salary.
Judge's salary you can't change, constitutionally.
Everything else you can't.
And just because you're paying the judge's salary doesn't mean you have to give him any power.
You can give him zero power.
As, by the way, has happened in the past, back to the founding of the country, when they took away power from some judges and gave it to others.
I mean, they did that routinely.
They reassigned judges.
They said, by the way, this circuit doesn't exist anymore.
Now this circuit exists.
You're going over here.
So, you know, maybe all those D.C. judges.
I think Juneau, Alaska is a beautiful time, beautiful place.
I think passing a law that requires all judges from the District of Columbia reassigned to the District of Alaska and that they have to be there in person.
They have to physically reside there.
There's actually a law on that and they could expand that law.
And there's some other wonderful little places that they could send them across the country to give them a proper education.
So they can change all of their jurisdictional powers through Congress.
They can change their budget anytime they want.
Then the third thing they can do is, as we've talked about, is they can impeach and remove them.
And even if you don't think you can succeed in removing them, the history is simply impeaching them wakes them up.
I woke up the whole...
But you pick a couple of high-profile ones to wake up.
And the problem in terms of state court systems, the problem after the Civil War was state judges...
And state law enforcement was conspiring to systematically steal elections.
You know, where have we heard this before?
Judicial complicity in stolen elections.
And suppression and denial of civil rights and civil liberties and weaponizing legal system for lawfare against political dissidents.
In other words, all the things we're experiencing right now happened between 1866 and 1890 in the Deep South.
And that's why we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1871. That's why the 14th Amendment went through.
It was to stop rogue state judges and state law enforcement from systematically violating the civil rights and civil liberties of people within their jurisdiction, most commonly for political purposes.
And you might think it was only being used against ex-slaves.
Not true.
In 1900, there were fewer voters in Mississippi than there were in 1860. That isn't because any slaves were voting in 1860. The white population had doubled in that time frame, and yet the vote went down.
Why?
Because they systematically denied poor and working class whites, as well as any dissident, the ability to access the election political system.
So it was the wholesale, whole-scale disfranchising of the American population that the civil rights laws empowering the Justice Department were designed to correct, remedy, and prohibit.
So Harmeet Dillon, who should be confirmed within a week or two at the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, Pam Bondi already there, Kash Patel already there at the FBI. I mean, at least they're taking some corrective action at these politically motivated swattings that are occurring.
I mean, we have an InfoWars reporter shot down dead outside the front of his house.
And the only thing all the people have in common that have been swatted or have been literally murdered...
Like that reporter was.
And there's a give-send-go for his family that you can help and look up.
We'll link here.
But is that they are on the Ukraine hit list of USAID. Funded, by the way, Ukraine hit list.
Money went from the U.S. taxpayer to USAID to a Ukrainian media organization, NGO, that put Americans, including the Vice President of the United States, on a hit list.
And now several of them are being killed.
This is, yeah, assisting Jamie White's family.
Jamie White, investigative reporter for Alex Jones and Infowars, murdered outside the front of his house.
And the only thing he has in common with the other people that have been targeted for swatting and other events like that is that he was one of the top people on that Ukraine hit list, who our current vice president, J.D. Vance, is still on that hit list.
That's how insane that is.
But for when you have these rogue state actors, Then you use the civil rights power that the FBI has.
Go back and watch Mississippi Burning.
What's that about?
The FBI investigating civil rights violations in the Deep South.
Now the civil rights violations are happening in liberal democratic jurisdictions.
They're happening in D.C. They're happening in New York.
They're happening in Chicago.
They're happening in Twin Cities.
They're happening in Washington.
They're happening in California.
They're happening in Oregon.
Those are some of the most egregious examples.
They're not the only examples.
Happening in Austin, Texas, happening in Atlanta, Georgia, happening in conservative jurisdictions with liberal state capitals and liberal counties, and that it's happening systematically.
So what needs to happen is a wholesale effort by Congress to completely restructure and reform the judicial branch and what power it has and doesn't have.
Use its power of the purse to take away a lot of money from the judicial branch that has shown it cannot use that money in a constitutional manner or to enforce constitutional principles and precepts.
Get rid of the District of Corruption.
Get rid of the Southern District of New York.
Start reassigning judges en masse.
Give a right of any individual defendant to transfer to the venue of their residence or citizenship, any case, civil or criminal.
And start to substantively limit.
The power of federal courts and shift that power to juries, which they can do.
Shift that power to states, which they can do.
And then as it relates to the states, and start impeaching several judges.
Impeach this rogue judge who said you have to import terrorists.
Impeach the federal judges who issued insane, politically motivated rulings against President Trump when he was ex-president in New York in that crazy, bogus rape case.
Impeach!
Chief Judge of the District of Corruption, Powell, who's always been insane.
Julie Kelly has gone into great detail how so many judges in the District of Corruption routinely and repeatedly and flagrantly violated the constitutional rights and liberties of America.
Just pick some of them from across the country that are the worst bad faith actors and bring impeachment proceedings.
The ones that have engaged in criminal conduct?
Indict them.
There need to be some indictments.
There need to be some impeachments.
Even if the impeachments you can't get them removed, at least go through the process of impeaching them and forcing them to answer to the inquiry in the Senate.
Take corrective protective action.
Otherwise, we're running into a direct constitutional confrontation.
This is all because Justice Roberts didn't do his job and Justice Barrett is a traitor.
They'd done their job.
The courts would have already been disciplined and wouldn't be doing this.
Well, you say that it's true, except even in the Bruin decision where the Supreme Court does render their decision on Second Amendment rights, you still have lower, I say, state courts overtly violating it and then similarly saying no Constitution here.
I mean, think about the arrogance you have to have to be Judge Parisian in Superior Court of King County in Seattle, Washington, to say in front of a group of onlookers, That you as a judge know are skeptical of what you're doing.
You're not going to talk about the Constitution in my courtroom, Mr. Barnes.
I mean, think about the arrogance that requires.
That's what should scare people.
This isn't just about violating civil rights and civil liberties.
It's the arrogance that comes with it that they think there will be no bad consequences to them for their rogue behavior.
That's why there has to be consequences.
Or we're in serious, serious trouble.
The judge's name, this is the judge, Suzanne?
I'm not trying to...
Yeah, Judge Suzanne Parisian.
You can look up on Robing Room.
And if you think, hey, Barnes is exaggerating, go to Robing Room.
A bunch of people that come from across the political spectrum, one after the other, reviews her as one of the worst judges they've ever dealt with.
First of all, when you say arrogant and pop, her last name means Parisian in French.
Parisien.
Which is quite funny, speaking of arrogant and pompous.
I'm such an idiot, I was still thinking it was the other judge.
I don't want to make a mistake.
The crazy sentencing.
It was also nuts.
Their willingness and readiness and eagerness to systematically violate the rights of dissidents, for the state to take over the role of the family, to make it a crime to report other people's crimes, to make it a crime to simply petition the court for redress of grievances, including asserting your constitutional right to parent your own child.
This should be shocking to people.
Some of these things have never happened at this scale in the history of this country.
And that there has to be protective, proactive action now, or we're going to be stuck with a very dangerous system.
Yeah, I mean, you can look it up.
She has the lowest possible rating of any judge.
She's a disgrace.
And every lawyer went after the other.
Every litigant that's ever dealt with her describes her as one of the worst judges they've ever dealt with in their life.
This one might be related to the ongoing...
No, it can't be related to the ongoing trial.
No, it's not, because it's a government litigator who's talking about denial of rights of women.
So that she's just biased, period.
That she's not competent to be a judge, period.
But liberal advocates are putting these kind of people on the bench because they'll do the liberal agenda.
Let me just read a couple of these.
This is fantastic.
She's a disgrace to the legal profession, malicious, erratic, sociopathic, and incompetent.
Doesn't read a word of the pleadings or listens.
Go down.
This judge is objectively terrible, does not belong on the bench, as many of my colleagues agree.
She's biased and lazy, clearly conducting no legal research.
Next one.
I do not think she read the files.
Next one.
It is unfathomable how such a morally depraved individual could be appointed a judge.
A pure psycho.
You can ask yourself, how is this judge on the bench for 13 years?
A decade plus?
Getting prime gigs and prime cases?
How is that even happening?
It's happening because they're serving the ideological agenda of the Liberal Democratic Party.
And that's what's terrifying.
When we're to the place that they thought they could lock up and bankrupt the past and future President of the United States, that should have been a screaming warning sign to normie conservatives.
But clearly it wasn't.
I mean, it took rogue action after rogue action by federal court after federal court for finally, Senator Grassley...
And others to say, hold on a second, we do got to do something here.
And I get it.
Senator Grassley and others don't want to throw out everything.
But you got to look at, this is getting insane.
I mean, when you have federal judges who think they get to decide what's classified and what's not, they get to decide who gets to keep a secret and who doesn't.
They get to decide who has access to classified material and who doesn't.
They get to decide who gets to come into the country and who doesn't.
They get to decide how money is spent or how it isn't.
They get to decide who works for the executive branch or who doesn't.
They have long lost the script.
They need to be impeached, indicted, removed, withheld of power, budget taken down, every reform available.
It's time that every possible proposal is on the deck.
Roberts had his chance.
Chief Justice Roberts blew it.
He had a chance to save the court system.
He failed.
So now, Justice Roberts, you're going to lose a lot of the power in your court system.
Get rid of the FISA court altogether.
It's never done anything constitutional or conscientious.
Is it really a coincidence that the federal judge ordering Trump to import tariffs and give money to foreigners was on the FISA court?
That unlawfully and politically allowed illegal spying to occur with President Trump.
Hold on, let's save this one for when we get into the details on Rumble.
Robert, I'm just going to screenshot and share some of those judges' reviews.
Those are hilarious.
Everybody, start making your way over to Rumble.
We've given more time than we needed to to Commitube.
There's 3,500 people.
Get your butts on over.
One last component while you're still on the Commitube.
So, people have been asking...
As part of the new Rumble lineup, you're going to be on every day at 4 p.m.
Eastern, I believe.
Yes.
That's a Monday through Friday.
Our show will stay at 6 p.m.
Eastern on Sunday.
Our show stays on Sunday.
I'm going to ask for some modalities.
I'm just going to figure this out because I don't want to, on the one hand, step on other people's toes who are going to be live at the same time.
I'm going to start doing pre-recorded interviews.
My weekly daily show will no longer be at 12.30.
It's going to be at 4 to 5. And then we'll have our local stuff afterwards and people will go and continue watching if they're so inclined on Rumble.
Except this week, exceptionally, because the quartering is keeping his original time, albeit 3 o'clock.
So it's going to be phenomenal and amazing.
What was I about to say?
Holy cow.
I'm just reading some of those.
Whether anybody's taking odds on whether the judge tries to lock me up on my birthday in Seattle.
Can you do it remotely?
Hold on.
Let me read a bunch of the super...
The Rumble rants over on Rumble before we get out of here.
Or at least go over to Rumble.
Sad Wings Raging.
Says McCarthy was right.
Just took...
Just look at our judicial system to see the truth in that statement.
Randy Edward.
Argument is the judge did not put his order in writing.
Judge...
This is Wanora.
Says judges have...
Aided and embedded the use of forged documents to foreclose on millions of homes in the USA since 2005. King of Biltong in the house says, looking for some healthy snacks to add to your diet?
Try our Biltong, almost 15% protein, packed with B12, creatine, iron, zinc, and much more.
Go to BiltongUSA.com.
Code Barnes for 10% off.
Jeffrey Frenchpads says, commies gonna commie.
I won't read the rest of that.
Wenora says, I was told by an otherwise nice and cordial but harried older judge in Minnesota.
More sincere than MN Nice.
During the farm crisis, not to bother him with the Constitution because he had enough problems.
Barnes, can Trump use the administrative furlough to downsize government agencies?
Sportfish 177. Ask Barnes if any of these judges' decisions can override a president's executive order until they get away with it in a second.
We're going to get there over on Rumble.
Would you be willing to host a Crowder and or Crowder's lawyers bill?
For sure, I'd be.
In fact...
Now that I'm going to be mingling with...
We've invited both Crowder and half-Asian Bill, as he's colloquially known, or as Crowder calls him, on the show anytime.
Happy to do a crossover.
Happy to be on with them.
Absolutely.
And I think we can make that happen sooner than later because now that we're all going to be part of one daily lineup.
Trump can deport bad guys even without the Alien Enemies Act.
So what's the advantage for using it?
The act, Cheryl Gage.
Hold on, we're going to get to that right now.
V6 Neon.
As of midnight here in the UK, we'll be in a position where any media platform could be fined a percentage of their global revenue for what USA would be First Amendment.
Free speech gone in the UK. Online Safety Act includes jail.
Sounds like Canada.
Question that I posted on the video you posted earlier.
Could those gang members be classified as invading combatants due to them being classified as terrorists?
Hold on.
Rivka the Jade Gamer, Media Matters for America.
Wonderful organization.
Eye roll.
And that's it.
Okay, then there was one question over on...
Hold on.
I had one that I screen grabbed on Commitube.
Hold on.
It's in the backdrop on my...
Unless Encryptus sent it to me.
Let me see here.
Oh, it was...
I forget what it was.
Hold on.
Let me bring it up.
It's in the backdrop here.
The book is John Grisham Framed.
It's a true story.
It's a collection of a bunch of real people who are completely framed by our legal system.
And it highlights the common themes that you see with a lot of those kind of cases.
But the problem is becoming more egregious because of the political prejudice of many of our courts.
Viva is easily the best guest on that list.
Fight me, says James.
No, so this one was Matthew Hammond over on Commitube.
Today, 41 years ago, Gary Plosh did nothing wrong.
Gary's ex-wife said she would have driven Gary to the courtroom if he told her what he was going to do.
That was the guy who took out the individual who abducted and did bad things to his son in the videos.
Imagine, you think something's wrong with your son, you go to the court system, and that's what they put you in prison for a decade for.
For going to the court system.
If I am...
God, this is not a fear hiding a wish.
This is just a fear and what would happen.
If I found out that someone had administered something to my child without my permission, it would never have happened.
It wouldn't be a family law issue.
It would be like a school doing it when the kids are...
Don't tell your parents.
There would be a very, very, very big problem.
With that said now, everybody, get your butts on over.
We're 3,000 on Commitube.
24,700 over on...
Rumble.
Get that...
I want to pull Matthew McConaughey.
Those are rookie numbers.
Get those numbers up.
I'm joking.
Thank you all for being here.
Commitube, come on over and I'll put some clips from the remaining portion tomorrow on Commitube.
Updating now.
See you there.
If you're coming, the link is in the pinned comment.
And if you're not, see you later, peeps.
We're going to Rumble and Locals.
Bada bing.
Okay, Robert.
We didn't really get into the weeds of the details on this case.
I'm going to post this as a standalone segment.
The...
The Alien Enemies Act, 1798, is a 227-year-old piece of legislation that has been invoked, I think, three times, and the last time was in the commie terror of the 50s or the 40s.
It allows the deep, I want to say the deportation of, it requires being in a state of war or being invaded by what they call enemy, not enemy combatants, but there's a term for it.
The question is, America is, quote, obviously not at war, at least they haven't declared war by Congress, but these could be regarded as something of an enemy invading force.
Not the joke, I don't know that anybody heard this, but we discussed this with John Eastman in the context of the birthright citizenship debate.
If you regard it as an alien, an invading force, you could then say, well, any child born of this invading force does not benefit from birthright citizenship in a bid to deport them.
Trump is invoking this act in order to preclude or allow for the deportation.
They are called Trenna de Araguena.
I don't know what it means.
It might be a region.
Someone in the chat will tell me what that TDA means.
He ordered the deportation of them.
Within two hours on a Saturday, the judge is Judge Boesberg, who was intimately involved with a number of the Jan 6 cases.
He was intimately involved with...
Oh, the...
I want to say the Steele dossier, but I'm not necessarily certain of that.
Yes, because he was one of the signatories on the FISA wards that approved a bunch of the illegal spying on the Trump campaign.
And I was getting...
I thought I was getting confused between Perkins Coey and having their clearance revoked.
They were intimately involved with the Steele dossier, Mark Elias in particular.
This is an activist judge.
He's the Chief Justice of...
You forgot to introduce Mark Elias.
I won't do it.
Criminal...
Money launderer!
Criminal money launderer!
I need to have like a...
Okay, I'm joking.
A vivid disclaimer.
This is Robert Barnes' opinion, not mine.
Although it's a stated fact, according to Robert Barnes.
That's a joke.
Alright, so Boesberg is this activist judge.
He's the chief judge of the District of Columbia.
Within two hours, says no.
Issuing a temporary restraining order, which is going to be in effect for two weeks, and turn the freaking planes around.
This is where I was thinking maybe Trump was being smarter than the judge.
It's like, oh, I'll have 10 planes up in the air.
You don't know which two they're on.
So order the wrong two back.
And we'll bring those back.
They ended up in El Salvador in prisons there, from what I understand.
That's Alex Jones reporting.
In the El Salvadorian president.
Credit to the Alex.
By the way, El Salvador president, Lebanese background, ancestrally, comes from a left populist tradition, which is very common in Central Latin America.
And here he is, one of Trump's best allies, because he locked up all their crazy criminals so they could have some degree of peace in El Salvador.
And he's like, hey, our system's working pretty good, President Trump.
Send them all down for a very cheap fee.
We'll warehouse them for you.
And credit to him, smart guy, also embracing Bitcoin in the financial revolution, other aspects of that.
It's an amazing thing.
I don't know very many El Salvadorians, but I do know the anecdotal evidence is that within a matter of a very short period of time, all of El Salvador has turned around.
Some proponents of force.
About 70 years of civil war and nasty violence in a cartel-driven country.
And you contrast that to the bonus case we're talking about tonight.
The Philippines, that almost became a cartel country, and the guy that helped prevent it become a cartel, a drug country, is now sitting in The Hague somehow.
Arrested by the International Criminal Court for doing his job about the cartels there.
But we'll get to that a little bit later.
So the act is 227 years old, 1798. I guess the question is, contextually, what the heck was the context of that law being introduced in the first place?
Well, as usual, you can usually blame the Brits.
The Brits always have some bad ideas.
So Benedict Arnold, the famous traitor, Benedict Arnold.
Did the raid on Richmond in 1781, and it reminded everybody, what do we do if there's a predatory incursion?
If there is an invasion by, or on the behalf of, or at the behest of, or simply from, a foreign nation or government?
That's important.
You're going to hear a lot of liberals pretend that there has to be an actual invasion by a foreign government, or war.
There doesn't.
One part of the Alien Enemies Act...
Is for war.
Another part says if there is either an invasion or a predatory incursion or merely attempted invasion or merely attempted predatory incursion by a foreign nation or government.
Why is or government there?
Because of the Benedict Arnolds of the world who might not be doing it authorized by the British government.
So...
It's that they're from a foreign nation that co-poses a national security threat.
That's kind of it.
Here, Trump has specifically targeted a very particular...
He hasn't done it with every gang.
He hasn't done it with all the Mexican drug cartels or any of the others.
He has specifically isolated the Venezuelan gang, TDA. And the reason he's done so is because it's been an open secret.
We've talked about it.
Years ago, the Venezuelan President Maduro decided to pay back the U.S. for imposing sanctions on his government and for trying to do a coup, overthrow his government, by sending their nastiest, most vicious, and violent gang members, which had become, by that point, the most violent gang in the world, surpassing MS-13.
Because what they saw was MS-13 originally established its power.
By being the most violent gang in the world.
So like, how do we replace MS-13?
We'd be more violent than them.
We'd be more extreme than them.
They would come in and take over whole neighborhoods.
And take over entire criminal networks.
Because their violence was just so off the charts.
It was like what we were seeing in Cancun about a decade ago.
Where, you know, heads were on stakes.
Bodies were hanging off of bridges.
It was, you know, when the cartels went nuts in Mexico, the more violent one.
And so he picked Maduro deliberately in the Venezuelan regime.
It's pretty obvious.
Sent them up into the United States to pay back Biden for his sanctions.
So you couldn't have a more compelling example of an invasion or predatory incursion than what...
And this is the gang that's been taking over places in Texas, places in Aurora, Colorado.
This is the same gang.
They come in and take over the entire criminal operation by being the most extreme, most violent, and they did it at a minimum with the wink and the nod of the Venezuelan government, who also were just trying to get rid of their criminals, right?
Venezuela had a horrible crime problem for about a decade.
How better to solve it?
Hey, we'll just say there's a lot more greener pastures in the U.S. And they used George Soros NGAs and USAID money to get them here.
And just to read what it means, the train...
Of the Aragua train, which is the region, the gang itself started in Tocaron Prison in Aragua, evolved from a local prison syndicate into a major player in organized crime across Latin America, led by figures like whomever these figures are.
It's known for activities like human trafficking, extortion, drug smuggling.
What did, even in the context of the law- You see it, they're described as a, they're so relentless that they're like a train off the tracks and uncontrolled coming through.
That's who they are.
That's who they fashion themselves as.
So to me, do they fit the definition of a predatory incursion?
Yep.
Were they sent or did they come from a foreign nation?
Yep.
Do they pose a risk of national security?
Yep.
What does the Alien Enemies Act say?
The President is given, quote, the Supreme Court of the United States, exact quote, very great discretionary powers under the statute to get rid of these bums.
And yet here you have this rogue judge in D.C. Who thinks he can rewrite the law himself and force the President of the United States to allow foreign terrorists, this is a foreign terror organization at this point, this gang, into our borders.
And it tells you how nuts the courts have given.
Credit to President Trump, who didn't turn the planes around.
Hey, Judge Boat, you want to turn the planes around?
You get on a plane, get down there and do that.
When you get elected president, you let me know.
You have it.
But this is all because Justice Roberts didn't do his job to save the courts from themselves.
And it's because Congress hasn't stepped into the breach and the Justice Department hasn't stepped into the breach at doing something about these rogue judges.
Including, I mean, Chief Judge Howell was similarly doing insane rulings this week.
This is the nutty judge out of the District of Corruption who tried to rig cases to prosecute President Trump, violating his attorney-client privilege.
Violating his constitutionally protected privilege as the Supreme Court of the United States would itself ultimately recognize.
That's who this lunatic judge is.
She goes around giving political lectures about how horrible Trump supporters are.
I mean, this is a nut job who has no business on the federal bench.
Never did.
She needs to be impeached tomorrow.
She should have been impeached yesterday.
Tomorrow is better than never.
If he orders the planes to turn around, they didn't turn around.
They're in jail in El Salvador.
Had he flown them to the jurisdiction of Guantanamo Bay?
I mean, would that...
The court's power to do anything about that has always been an open question.
And I think that'd be an issue.
I mean, if you ask me, take him and drop him off at Boatberg's house.
Just drop him off.
Just drop him off.
Say, hey, that judge really loves you.
Come on in.
You think Judge Boatberg would take him?
Or do you think he'd go absolutely ballistic?
So the judge just wants him in your neighborhood, not in his neighborhood.
That's who these people are.
And so these judges that have been the worst need to be impeached.
It's the only...
That's part one.
Part two, for the love of the good Lord, get rid of the District of Corruption.
The District of Columbia doesn't need its own legal system.
The swamp should not be allowed to judge the critics of the swamp or protect the swamp.
So the swamp should not have its own courthouse or its own court system.
I do like it.
Hold on.
I like that.
Yeah, drop him off at the judge's house.
I mean, it's awesome.
I mean, he ordered the plane back.
Okay, I'm sending him to you, Judge.
Good luck.
The other thing is, judges should not have U.S. Marshals under their custody.
They should have no executive power of any kind.
They should be completely dependent on the executive branch for all enforcement power entirely.
There should be no collection remedies.
Available to them outside of the legal system.
And they should not have the U.S. Marshals assigned to them.
Shouldn't exist.
Congress can change that tomorrow.
Congress can take away a lot of their law clerks, take away a lot of their budgets.
They don't need these fancy court buildings.
Come on.
So they need to do all of those remedies as well as take away certain jurisdictions, take away certain authority from these judges in the first instance, clarify that they have no business in the immigration world.
They never did.
Outside of very limited context.
Which we'll get to, because that relates to the Hamas, alleged Hamas supporter, who is being subject to deportation for green cards, because apparently some student visa immigrants didn't realize that a visa to come here and study is not a visa to come here and disrupt our elections.
It's not to come here and try to overthrow our government.
It's not to come here and stage violent rallies.
Now, whether this gentleman did that or not is still an open question, but there are certain things that are protected and there are certain things that aren't.
But one broad position, I've heard nobody in the media mention this comparison.
There is a president who, in the last half century, has used these aggregate powers to completely kick out people on student visas based solely on their residents, by the way.
Not even based on any conduct they did.
Said, if you're from Iran, you're out of here.
And that president was named Jimmy Carter, the great human rights president.
So the idea that this hasn't...
And I don't remember any legal scholars at the time saying, oh, no, you can't do that somehow.
They were all silent and mute.
But there is one thing that people should be cognizant of, and that's Harry Bridges.
Okay, now hold on.
Before we even get there, one last question on the judge.
He issued the TRO the last 14 days.
It's a fait accompli.
I mean, they're going to appeal the decision and they're going to get to whether or not this law can apply to what Trump wants to do by way of designating entities, terrorist organizations, for the purposes of then being able to qualify them as predatorial invaders.
Yeah.
I think, especially, I'm not a big fan of using that terrorist designation.
I've been a long critic of it.
Not changing my opinion now simply because Trump's utilizing it.
Trump's clearly within his legal authority to do so.
That's different than whether I think it's a great idea.
If there's one group it really belongs to, really attaches to, it is this group of TDA. It is them.
Any study, just listen to people from Venezuela, from all over the political spectrum.
This group is horrific.
Horrific.
You're talking about one of the most violent, vile gangs in the world.
I mean, nasty doesn't even get close to it.
They make sociopaths.
They make Hannibal Lecter look like an amateur.
I mean, that's who these people are.
They are vicious.
They are vile.
They get their power by being the most violent and most extreme.
So these are people that President Trump has 90% level of support for doing what he's doing public policy-wise in this category.
And he has clear legal and constitutional authority.
Now, contrary to what some people are saying, Somebody here legally that is a resident alien on an established green card does have First Amendment rights, and some people are forgetting that aspect.
Now, that doesn't mean that they have the rights to the degree they can engage in illegal behavior or some other things, but there's some people that assume that there's terrorist support organizations as grounds to expel them, so if you're able to prove that, you can...
For that purpose, they don't have the same degree of First Amendment protection as American citizens, but they don't have none.
And that's thanks to the one individual who managed to get more cases to the Supreme Court of the United States as an individual than any individual in American history.
And that's beloved Aussie, former Aussie, turned American, Harry Bridges.
Okay, who's Harry Bridges?
I don't believe I know anything about this.
We've mentioned a couple of his cases multiple times, but we didn't go into great details to him because he was unnecessary for the case.
Bridges v.
California, the great First Amendment right to go to the courts, established by the Supreme Court of the United States, is Harry Bridges.
There's a 1945 case where Harry Bridges is up again where they tried to deport him.
There's a later case where they tried to prosecute him for allegedly lying in order to get his citizenship.
And there was a fourth case involving Harry Bridges.
So, Harry was one of the...
I call Harry kind of the Hoffa of commies.
And what I mean by that is, I think if you study Jimmy Hoffa, you can watch the David Mamet screenplay about Jimmy Hoffa, other aspects of Hoffa.
I think Hoffa's a more complicated figure than his critics acknowledge.
I understand Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s perspective.
Hoffa allegedly put a hit on his whole family.
I get Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s hostility, like I get his dad's hostility.
However, I always thought Hoffa was more someone who used the mob to empower the Teamsters than used the Teamsters to empower the mob.
And so I get that's a controversial take, but that's always been my view on Hoffa.
I've always thought of Harry Bridges the same way.
Like, you study a lot of Harry Bridges' history.
Now, admittedly...
I was introduced to Harry Bridges by reading about his great case, telling a court to go, and having a Supreme Court of the United States say he had the constitutional right to do that and you couldn't hold him in contempt for doing it.
That case was the Harry Bridges case.
He was the labor leader who said the judge can, with his order, to try to stop a labor strike.
I mean, the guy had cojones times 10. So he was a great longshoreman.
Uh, uh, organizer in San Francisco.
Uh, so he came from dock working in Australia, came over here in the twenties, became one of the great dock workers of back when San Francisco had real blue collar workers like Seattle.
Seattle used to be a real city with real people.
Now it's just a bunch of commies, commies and home.
Get this Seattle King County courthouse.
You have to get through the, the pack of homeless out there dealing drugs right in front of the courthouse, right in front of the courthouse.
You have to get through them.
They just jaywalk anytime they want.
Traffic jams and accidents happen all the time because they've taken over the city.
They commit crimes whenever they want.
They had a repeat sex offender that they kept letting out who was homeless on the streets down there.
Welcome to Washington, Seattle.
But Harry Bridges was an old-school labor advocate.
For that reason, a lot of powerful people didn't like Earl Harry.
And they alleged that he was a commie.
Now, there is some evidence that he allied with some commies.
But how much he was ever a real commie was an open question, because he seemed to care far more about the local union than he cared about international communists.
It appeared he more used the commies than vice versa.
That's why I call him the Hoff of Commons.
But so the case that involved whether or not, because at the time he was a resident alien when he told a judge to go, mm-mm.
And so what happened is the Supreme Court had to determine, first, whether or not you had a constitutional right to do that to a judge.
But also, whether or not a resident alien who was not a naturalized citizen had that right, because that's what Harry Bridges was at the time he did it.
And just to make sure, he told the judge to fuck off.
That's what he said?
He said the judges issued something.
It was like Andrew Jackson times 10. Judges issued an order.
I don't care.
We're not going to obey.
Okay, so it wasn't literally like...
A swear word.
It was just defiance of the judge's order.
He probably threw that in a few places.
You knew Harry Bridges.
Harry Bridges was like the Molly Maguire.
Great film, by the way, with Sean Connery about the Molly Maguires.
Reminded me of some of my coal miner family members going back in the day.
On another side of the family.
But so what the Supreme Court said is even resident aliens have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Okay, and there's no inference.
I'm not trying to steel man or straw man.
The argument in favor of the deportation of Mahmoud Khalid is that he has, and not to mistake it here, poses a potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequence, his continued presence in the States.
And that's the exact language of the statute.
There's no question, as self-defense has pointed out, that the statute authorizes...
What the Trump administration is doing entirely.
Question is, is it constitutional?
If the sole and whole...
Now, here's what the Supreme Court has also said, that you can selectively prosecute for deportation immigrants for political reasons.
So the First Amendment...
That's why I say they have First Amendment rights, just not as much as the U.S. citizens do.
What you said is they can selectively prosecute.
They can selectively prosecute if their motivation is that...
As long as they find a different immigration violation.
What they can't do is solely deport them solely for their speech.
That's what the Supreme Court, at least by implication in the Bridges case, Bridges v.
California, established.
And they repeated that in another Bridges case in 1945. By the way, they came back and tried to indict Harry, claiming Harry lied about being a commie.
The Supreme Court overturned that case.
They went after Harry for 15 years and he didn't care.
That's why I have respect.
Like, okay, maybe he's got a little commie in him, but at least he's a fighter.
At least he stands up to corrupt actors.
At least he stands by his principles.
I'm wondering if by continuing the lawsuits, they couldn't deport him until they resolved those lawsuits.
It's a good way to make sure that you can see it a little longer.
And he kept getting all the lower courts overturned over.
And that's because old Supreme Court Justice Murphy, old school guy from Michigan.
Who loved individual rights and individual liberties.
Was one of the great dissenters in the Korematsu case.
He writes a great concurring opinion in the Harry Bridges case.
In the 1941, I think, is it the 41?
It's either the 41 one or the 45. I think it's the 45 one.
About the immigration.
And I recommend people read, if you want to know the background, Murphy lays it out.
Murphy's like, look, all the most powerful corrupt institutions in this country are after this guy.
So that's why we're going to protect him.
And that was back when you had people like Douglas and Hugo Black on the Supreme Court who were willing to stand up, at least occasionally, to corruption in government.
But so if the only basis is his speech, he is in fact protected as a resident alien in the United States.
Now, there's also differences dependent upon what status you are, right?
So there's green cards for student purposes.
That's more limited purpose in which you are allowed to be here, like certain tourist visas, etc.
This is what they said was resident aliens, people who have that legal status within the United States, they have at least some First Amendment protection.
And so now, as a policy matter, I do not favor deporting people based on their speech.
I just don't.
As a matter of policy, I think it's a bad path to go down.
If, however, this guy, as I've long said, I've separated out the BDS side, the side that's engaged in illegal activity.
It's kind of going back to the Ben Jouf case.
Illegal activity versus words.
If you're going after somebody because of speech, I don't agree with it.
Now, you may be legally entitled to in certain instances, but that doesn't mean I think it's good public policy.
If you're going after them because they're organizing violent interruptions of college campuses, like taking over buildings, doing violence to those buildings, threatening students, intimidating students, harassing students, things that go beyond speech.
That's important.
Beyond speech.
Beyond association.
Beyond expression.
Beyond petitioning the government for redress of grievance.
Then I think it's completely fair game to deporter.
But you've got plenty.
You've got so many bad students.
I hope the Trump administration focuses on the truly bad students.
The students who are here to undermine our country.
Not just anybody that's anti-Israel.
So there's two things to this.
So as the story was breaking, I was just asking non-judgmentally, like, what is the evidence for what they're accusing him of?
And then everyone's like, oh, he said I love Hamas.
I was like, okay, just video.
It's impossible that someone who's so prominent on social media, there'd be no videos of it.
I think what I got is the...
I think Megyn Kelly did a breakdown where she did try to highlight...
The admissible evidence stemming from her legal background.
This, well, this was, I'll play the whole, it's a minute, it's the second half that's more important, but this was, call it the worst or the most damage.
Now, here's the other thing.
Why is this guy a British spy?
Why is he even an American?
Why did he get a green card in the first place?
Why do we got British people that are getting money from the British spies in America?
That's the part I don't like.
Well, there's so many nuances to this, but apparently he got his green card on an expedited basis because he fell in love and found a woman and then married her.
She was American.
But, you know what?
I'll play this.
I'll play it.
I'll play the whole thing.
Here, listen to this.
As far as the evidence goes, this was the best of it.
Why can't I not play this?
Here.
Okay.
I'll get the audio in a second.
Am I not able to manipulate?
I can't manipulate the damn thing here.
Encryptus.
I'm going to send it to Encryptus.
We'll bring it up.
This was, as far as I'm concerned, the worst one.
I don't know if it's not my fat fingers.
Well, I mean, some of these people, to respond to the Glenn Greenwalds and Michael Tracys of the world, some of these people were actually putting out stuff like giving to Jewish students, celebrating October 7th, showing images of people parachuting in.
Okay, that's my example of harassing conduct.
If you're targeting Jewish students to say, remember this?
That's like cross burning on somebody's lung.
No longer really speech.
If it's just, hey, I think you should divest from Israel, that speech that I don't think...
Public policy-wise, we should be overly concerned with.
So I was just asking for the evidence.
Everyone was like, he said and did this.
Here's a video which masks people.
I don't even know how they knew it was him.
And so the most damning one, if Encryptus can bring it up, because I can't seem to manipulate my keyboard, was him basically saying, we're here for as long as it takes, and if the NYPD and other authorities come in, we will have other means to achieve our end.
Something along those lines.
Ah, well then, yeah.
Welcome to Gaza, buddy.
If you're going to organize illegal activities while you're on a green card, you're too stupid to be introduced into America.
You're really dangerous.
You're just too dumb.
You're able to weasel your way into a British intelligence, weasel your way into some idiot marrying you, some lefty marrying you, and then you go on tape?
How you're going to occupy a building illegally?
I mean, well, you've got to be an idiot.
I mean, like I said, I don't mind criminals.
I don't mind stupid people.
I mind when they marry each other.
When you get stupid criminals.
They're the worst.
This guy's a Darwin Award winner.
This is a video you can't deny that it's him.
And there's no argument that maybe it's not him.
Okay, this is what he said.
Gathered thousands of students here.
They actually gathered thousands.
They're not treating this as an anti-war movement.
An anti-war movement that actually gathered thousands of students here.
Hold on, just wait for people.
Thousands of students across the United States.
Okay, here.
How far are you all willing to go here on campus?
We're going to go as far as we need to, to pressure the university from, to pressure the university.
To divest from the occupation.
This is up to the group, to the leadership of the group, to decide how far they will go.
But now it's clear that the students will remain here.
They will stay here until they achieve their demands.
Okay, so that is...
All right, so he wins a free one-way ticket to the Gaza Strip.
No, but the thing is, I think he's from Syria.
I think he's from Syria, actually.
I don't even think he's from Gaza or maybe his parents are.
I think he'd probably prefer to go to Gaza right now than Syria.
Nah, his buddies are probably in charge there in Syria.
He might like some of those folks that are in Syria.
There's other evidence out there that people think is him, whatever.
If that were the most damning, is that in your view?
Because it's coordinating illegal conduct, illegal activity, criminal activity.
You're dumb enough to say it on TV. He's trying to back off a little bit.
He's like the elected group that does it.
Okay, but you're the spokesperson for them.
Okay, that's a problem.
What he could have said was, I have no role in that.
They're going to make their decisions.
We will comply.
What I would have always said is we'll comply with the law, etc., etc.
But clearly this guy is...
The objection ordinary Americans have is, why are we giving green cards to American universities to people who hate America and want to overturn America?
Yeah, I agree with that.
Now, to me, if you're engaged in free speech...
Even if you hate America in your speech, that you're really celebrating America by your speech, because it's free speech here in America.
So that, I've never minded.
But organizing illegal activities, like the takeover of campus buildings, to obtain another political agenda, that's just not politically protected conduct under the First Amendment for these purposes.
So that's not petitioning the court for redress of grievance.
No, and Glenn, I'm not picking a fight with Glenn because I like him.
I just disagree with his assessment here is trying to compare it to this other guy whose name is Davidae.
What's the other guy's name?
Shai Davidae.
He's comparing it to some Israeli students who have been very aggressive in their advocacy.
Yeah, well, I know.
And then I asked him for the most egregious videos of Shai Davidae breaking the law or, you know, causing a problem.
I know no evidence of that, right?
No, and I didn't get anything.
There's a New York Times article which purportedly mentioned it, which he referenced me.
He says, go read the New York Times article.
And I did.
And even in the New York Times article, it says, the statement from Columbia University didn't specify what behavior led to the decision to temporarily limit his access to the campus of this guy.
And I haven't seen a video of him that...
Nearly, proximately relates, or at least compares to what we saw.
To a legal activity.
All right.
We'll see what happens with them.
I think they're right to...
But here, Trump is trying to fix a problem the Biden administration created, and the Obama administration created, which was, we were giving out...
I mean, what is it?
30%, 40% of students at Ivy League are foreigners?
We should not be giving out these green cards.
People should have to prove...
They're loyal to American-American values before they step inside our country.
Period.
And that is where everyone's like, Viva.
On the one hand, people said, Viva, you're Jewish.
You want him gone.
Then everyone's like, Viva, you're on a visa.
You don't want people being able to be kicked out.
I got a little nervous with some of my tweets.
You know, like, if I don't support Biden and Kamala, if she had gotten elected president...
Well, you fall within the Harry Bridges protection.
That's Supreme Court protection.
Speech.
It's just, don't go out and organize illegal behavior.
How hard is that?
This dude got into Columbia, and he couldn't figure out, don't record yourself on TV committing illegal behavior?
I mean, I'm sorry, I have zero sympathy for the dude.
Robert, it's a harsh, not even a segue, but an anti-why.
I'm curious.
Lawrence, what's the prognosis?
Vare, Assange, Snowden, these guys still need to be put on blast.
It's in abeyance at the moment, so we'll see.
Now, Roger Ver, they've scheduled his motion to dismiss in May.
Still plenty of time for the Trump administration.
To join the motion to dismiss and dismiss it.
So for those people who don't know, Roger Ver, Bitcoin Jesus, he's being criminally prosecuted for supposedly owing tax when he was no longer a citizen on money he didn't make in the United States, on money that most tax scholars thought was not taxable.
And the IRS, after the IRS, wouldn't even tell him whether he owed any money or not.
That's how nuts.
This is a guy that the federal government previously imprisoned because of his criticism over Waco.
And what did they imprison him for?
Buying the wrong fireworks.
The wrong fireworks, people.
He was burned over a year in federal prison over fireworks.
This guy's been politically targeted over and over and over again.
Huge supporter of financial freedom through Bitcoin.
The democratization little d of Bitcoin.
To challenge central banks and central planners.
So he has very powerful adversaries.
Wrote a book called Hijacking Bitcoin.
You may agree or disagree with his political premise, but it's not a coincidence that within one month of him writing that book, criticizing the intelligence agencies, he gets federally indicted by the Biden administration.
President Trump is already committed to no longer even taxing this kind of Bitcoin investment that they're trying to tax here.
Bitcoin wasn't even seen as a taxable transaction back at the time Roger Ver left the country more than a decade ago.
He gave up U.S. citizenship so he could advocate for U.S. freedoms and liberties without the risk of being locked up, and they decided to try to lock him up anyway.
So if President Trump is serious about honoring his commitment to financial freedom and the crypto community, there's no better person to pardon or dismiss all the charges against than Roger Ver.
And remember, he fits the three key components of weaponized lawfare, illicit lawfare.
Novel theory of prosecution.
No prosecution based on the exit tax like this has ever occurred.
No prosecution like this based on Bitcoin has ever occurred.
It's as novel as it gets.
Novel theory of criminal conduct.
Second, you have selective prosecution.
You have similarly situated people who are not prosecuted.
Once again, all kinds of people have left the country.
Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands have left the country over the past 15 years.
None of them were indicted on exit tax disputes.
And similarly, you have all kinds of people that had Bitcoin and crypto over the last 15 years.
None of them were prosecuted.
As Roger Avere is being prosecuted.
So novel theory of prosecution, selective prosecution.
What's part three?
Government malfeasance and misconduct because they're always lying, cheating, thieving, and stealing any time they're doing something they know is wrong.
And here, high-ranking U.S. attorneys in the tax division of the Justice Department deliberately lied to U.S. courts, grand juries.
And foreign courts and foreign officials falsely stating that Roger Ver had not complied with the advice of attorneys and accountants that the government had already illegally and unlawfully obtained his attorney-client privilege communications, which actually proved his innocence.
So they lied about it and claimed he didn't rely on it when in fact he did.
Everything Roger Ver did was precisely what his attorneys and accountants advised him to do, which is a complete defense under American law to criminal tax charges.
So you've got government lawyers lying to everybody they can, fraud on the courts, fraud on foreign courts, fraud on foreign officials, fraud on grand juries.
You've got a novel theory of criminal prosecution, and you've got selectivity in the prosecution.
Roger Ver's case should be dismissed.
End of story.
Others similarly, Snowden, Assange, think President Trump has an opportunity to make a statement.
And last but not least, where is Brooke, where is Rollins?
Where is Pam Bondi?
Not only on the Epstein files and the P. Diddy files, which credit to President Trump, came out today and said he's going to work on lighting a fire under them to get those files out.
But why don't we yet have them joining Brooke Jackson in the Brooke Jackson versus Ventavia case?
This is the case that exposed Pfizer for committing a massive multibillion-dollar fraud on the American people, as well as causing the deaths and disabilities of millions of Americans by putting out a vaccine that wasn't a vaccine, that they claimed was safe, that wasn't safe, that claimed it was effective, that wasn't effective.
They claimed it prevented COVID-19, both infection and transmission, and it didn't either.
They lied to get the money from the American taxpayer.
Brooke Jackson exposed it as a whistleblower in early 2020. Why hasn't the U.S. government joined the case rather than continuing the Biden administration's effort to suppress the information concerning the illegal, fraudulent behavior, Pfizer?
So, I mean, so far, Bondi is a little bit slow to the uptake.
Cash Patel, God bless him, a little slow to the uptake.
Dan Bongino just started, so I'm not going to, you know, rag him for...
I don't think he starts until Monday.
But, Dan, it's a lot of good work to do.
Let's get to work, everybody.
You don't want to be one of those memes of Chris Farley screaming, where are the indictments?
Where are the legal claims?
Where are the impeachments?
And why aren't they joining dismissal of the case against Roger Ver, joining reinstatement of the case of Brooke Jackson against Ventavia and Pfizer?
Just going to tweet out to Pam Bondi and then share the link around.
Please and thank you.
Post.
We got a trio of cases yet, plus a bonus.
The nationwide injunctions in the birthright citizenship context may be decided by the Supreme Court this very week.
Dershowitz goes to the Ninth Circuit on sanctions involving the Kerry Lake case and the Smith-Munt Act.
They're talking about reform.
Does it authorize the U.S. government to propagandize the American people?
And last but not least, they're arresting the president of the Philippines and sending him to the Hague.
For crimes against humanity, while Pfizer just lines their pockets committing real crimes against humanity, the Filipino former president who simply cracked down on drug cartels who are trying to take over the country and make it a narco state, and now they're trying to lock him up in the Hague.
Okay, I'm going to say two things first, Robert.
We have 28,000 people watching on Rumble, and for some reason there's only 1.62 thousand thumbs up.
I don't care.
That's just a very bad ratio, people.
Get your fingers in there and do that.
Number two, I just shared the tweet.
Pardon, intervene in Brooke Jackson whistleblower.
Pardon Roger Veer and prosecute some rogue judges.
That was my number three.
I had to come in.
That's it.
That's all good.
Prosecute rogue government officials.
You know, whether it's rogue FBI, rogue judges.
Prosecute some rogue government officials who've been visiting a nightmare on all of us for the past decade.
Free Roger Veer.
By dismissing, at a minimum, dismissing the case.
Pambani has the full authority to go into the government and dismiss it.
His motion to dismiss is all the massive government misconduct that took place in the case.
Step in.
Why are you joining the Joe Biden corruption train?
Get off the Joe Biden corruption train.
Unhook the Trump administration from the Biden corruption train by dismissing the case against Roger Ver, joining the case in support of Brooke Jackson, and holding rogue government officials and judges accountable.
And it's not for lack of attention to Snowden or others, but Roger Ver is on a very, very tight timeline because his extradition has been greenlit.
Correct.
I mean, they could kidnap him at any time, take him to MDC. Which is one of the more dangerous federal facilities in the entire country.
Where McAfee does?
Who knows?
I mean, remember, the last guy to stand up to them in this context was John McAfee, and he ended up dead.
All right.
Well, speaking of what the heck is going on with Duterte?
He's on Crimes Against Humanity for what?
For killing drug dealers?
Yeah.
Yeah.
For allegedly killing drug dealers.
Hold on.
I was like, when is that a crime against humanity?
There was a joke against humanity to kill drug dealers trying to take over your government.
There was a joke in the chat that says that Europe is pissed off that they killed his drug dealers.
Were these extrajudicial assassinations?
Were they like cold-blooded murder?
Or were they, you know, were they- I mean, all he did was he authorized the police to do self-defense involving conflict with drug dealers.
He's like, and he took the gloves off.
He said, look, they're trying to make a narco state here like they were doing in El Salvador.
He goes, folks, you got carte blanche.
Go at it.
And what happened?
He took one of the most dangerous cities in the country as mayor and made it one of the safest.
And now, the backstory is politics.
Well, someone said it was his political rival that turned him in.
Not really.
It was supposed to be his ally.
So it's the old Marcos family from the Philippines, which have had long disputes with Western European authorities.
They united with Duarte.
I'll get his name mispronounced.
I think it's Duarte.
I'm going to see how it's pronounced.
I'm going to say Duarte.
Why not?
But his daughter was vice president along with Marcos running for president.
And now they've split since then.
Marcos decided no longer wants their support, but knows that if he tried to indict him in the Philippines, the jury would definitely acquit because he's one of the most popular people in the Philippines ever.
So what did he do?
He cut a secret deal with a corrupt international criminal court out of the Hague.
Pursuant to the Rome Statute, which Duarte had pulled them out of that.
And Marcos, to my knowledge, had not joined it back again.
So what he did is he just basically allowed a major public official to be kidnapped, dragged to The Hague, where he'll be tried for crimes against humanity.
What was always going to happen, some of us were long critics of the International Criminal Court.
My friends on the left realized the problem with the International Criminal Court when they selectively targeted dissidents, dissident presidents who didn't like the EU, for example, or didn't like NATO, and going after the Milosevic and others related to the Balkan conflicts, and then went after Putin later on.
My friends on the right recognized the risk of the ICC when they went after George W. Bush, and then now most recently went after Netanyahu.
I have long said the International Criminal Court is a joke.
It's an attempt at globalist elite power usurping all sovereignty around the world in the name of Nuremberg cases when the real Nuremberg case is what happened to the entire world in 2020. I'm going to ask this stupid question because I hadn't been following the story.
They have possession over...
It's Duterte, by the way.
Hold on.
He came back from Hong Kong.
They kidnapped him at the airport and dragged him back to the Hague.
You have to say it with a very deep accent.
So they kidnapped him and they took him into custody.
Yeah, they dragged him and flew him off before he could ever fight it in the Philippines because Marcos had a wink and a nod with the authorities at the ICC. How is this not an international crime against the sovereignty of nations?
It is.
I mean, that's what she said.
The vice president of the Philippines, the daughter, said this is an absolute violation of core sovereignty principles that we had pulled out of the ICC so they don't have jurisdiction to begin with.
This is just kidnapping.
The ICC just going around kidnapping.
It's the same, you know, a week after they bar the person in Romania wants to win the presidential election from running for the presidency of Romania.
After Vice President Vance went over there a month ago and said, don't do that again.
If you're going to have values and athema to America, then America is not going to be spending its blood and treasure defending you.
But also, what a message that's sending to Netanyahu, who was contemplating coming to Canada, where they said they weren't categoric about not letting the ICC detain or arrest.
Oh my goodness.
That's shocking.
It's very dangerous.
I mean, we should have been out of the ICC, never supported the ICC, should have opposed the ICC, should do further sanctions.
President Trump has already talked about sanctioning any support of the ICC, opposing it, opposing any money for it, removing any money that was possibly going to it.
Remember Jack Smith?
Famously came from the International Criminal Court.
The rogue prosecutor of the deep state used to go after President Trump to try to corrupt our elections here.
There need to be consequences to this.
He was a strong ally of President Trump.
So it's also a shot across the bow to President Trump.
So it's a deeply disturbing case that reveals once again why the International Criminal Court shouldn't even exist.
And America should do everything possible to eliminate it from existence and have nothing to do with it whatsoever and start to sanction countries that support it or join it.
That would wake them up a bit.
I mean, look at what Trump has done with tariffs.
They play games on something else, and he's like, well, you know what?
20% of your economy depends on this.
So how are you going to survive?
Are you going to back off that attempt to undermine American freedom and liberty around the world?
And so, I mean, I think it's a constant, continuous concern, and this case is just one more illustration of abuse of power by globalist courts.
Something irritates me.
I don't get the notification when people gift memberships over on Rumble.
Sad Wings Raging gifted another 10 memberships.
Ah, thank you.
Very good.
Thank you.
And I'm sorry, it's not because I don't want to.
I'm going to read through those chats, and then we're going to get to the tip questions in locals.
It doesn't come up in the...
What they call the donation where I can tag things.
So, Sadwings, thank you.
And NeuroDivergent, thank you for bringing that to my attention.
Now, speaking of rogue courts and rogue judges, Robert, people seem to have forgotten about the madness of Carrie Lake in all of the madness of Donald Trump and the rest of the world.
And I forgot about it until you sent me the link and I'm reading this.
Holy shit.
Dershowitz was personally fined.
He was sanctioned.
Personally, for his legal representation of Carrie Lake in her contestation of her election challenge, in a case which was, even if she lost the case, which I think it was absolute horse crap that she did, I don't know how they even go from, all right, you petitioned the court, you lost, in a case that there were anomalies, whether or not you think they were definitive.
Then they say, you lost, we sanction you and your lawyers, Dershowitz, for his professional capacity as a lawyer, personally.
And then the court, they overturn it, but only on a technicality saying the sanctions were justified, but there's no precedent.
So we're not holding Dershowitz personally liable for the $12,000 in whatever court costs.
And what that really was is they were terrified that if they left a sanction against Dershowitz, he'd get the Supreme Court to take the case.
And completely gut everything that they were doing.
And can he not still do that?
Because they upheld the principle.
He can, but he has no incentive to do so because the penalty against him is now removed.
So, he was trying to make First Amendment principles.
He was also, as the judge who dissented in that, also dissented in the earlier decision, saying the lawyers did nothing wrong.
Carrie Lake did nothing wrong.
And pointed out what the night circus was doing, what the district court was doing, was flagrantly violating people's rights for politically motivated prejudice reasons.
But that's what's happened.
It's another illustration.
When you have courts willing to attack Dershowitz, and notice, they said, oh, well, we think the judge did it for good reasons.
No explanation at all.
That's a telltale indicator that these judges know they're lying.
They're lying Ninth Circuit judges.
Lying judges.
Fraudulent judges.
Should be removed from the bench for bad behavior.
Because when you see judges fail to provide any factual explanation that rebuts Dershowitz's critique, you know that they know that they're liars, that they're frauds, that they're phonies.
Like a lot of these fakes in robes are doing.
And so the credit to Dershowitz for continuing to fight it, discredit to the Ninth Circus.
For not fully overturning this illicit attempt by the federal courts to punish its critics and those who expose fraudulent elections.
They agreed with the judge that he followed the law by imposing sanctions, but then they reduced the sanctions to nil because there was no precedent.
I mean, it's such a bogus to a cat carve out so that they Dershowitz won't have the motivation in the Supreme Court won't have the incentive to take the case and reveal it for the political weaponize lawfare that it is on.
Unreal, by the way.
By the way, my mother-in-law is staying with us for a few weeks and it's her...
I'm not allowed to say what year.
I know how old she is.
It's her birthday.
So if you hear, happy birthday in the other room.
Okay, so Dershowitz...
Happy birthday to Mama Frat.
No, no, this is Mama Val.
This is on my wife's side.
My parents, not that they're not boycotting the U.S. at all.
Their dog had a medical issue, so they can't come down to Florida.
I was like, everyone should come down to Florida, get the son, and drink that sweet, sweet Florida orange juice.
Robert, speaking of abuse of rogue judges and all this other crap, Trump issued the executive order stripping Perkins Coey.
These are a bunch of corrupt corporate deep state law firms.
Somehow still we're getting access to classified information.
And Trump finally put an end to it.
Yeah, or did he though?
The Ninth Circuit...
No, sorry, that's the other one.
That's Judge Howell.
Dear Judge Howell came running into the...
To save him.
This is the same judge that rigged the legal system, rigged the grand jury.
To illegally and unconstitutionally indict President Trump to try to prevent his election from the presidency.
This is one of the most corrupt judges in America.
Chief Judge Beryl Howell.
A disgrace to the federal bench.
And here she is trying to reinstate power.
And she even said, oh, these poor corporate law firms who happen to bravely and boldly stand against a dangerous President Trump.
What a fraud.
She's a disgrace to the bench.
She should be impeached.
Then she should be removed.
Then she should be indicted.
Then she should be imprisoned where she belongs.
I've got to read it to you because it's so wild.
I just say, like, what was the role in Perkins Coie in the Steele dossier?
They played a...
Perkins Coie...
They are the money launderer.
Mark Elias was the partner at Perkins Co.
who fraudulently and falsely and perjurously told the FEC... That the steel dossier was for legal fees of the Hillary Clinton campaign, when in fact it was part of an illicit smear campaign and coup against the President of the United States to interfere with the 2016 presidential election and to violate the civil rights of ordinary people.
Well, they were allowed to continue to have...
Unlimited access to classified secrets that they could monetize for their Democratic pals and allies while people who made memes were sent to prison in the Eastern District of New York.
That's how insane it was.
That's why President Trump went out of his way to the Justice Department to make a speech at the Justice Department last week to remind them that he has been the victim of repeated civil rights violations and that it's time to clean up.
The Justice Department and the FBI, and that's what Judge Howell doesn't want to allow.
It blew my mind, A, that this discretion is just, it seems purely discretionary, and how dare anybody say that he can't exercise his discretion as to who gets access to what?
Yeah, what's classified is for the president.
He decides whether it's classified at all.
He decides who has access to it at all times.
That's his exclusive authority and power, other than like FOIA. And even there, he's given large amounts of authority to determine unilaterally what is national security.
And so the idea that a law firm, a big corporate law firm, is legally entitled, has an entitlement to classified materials that they can personally monetize for their self-enrichment, and they admitted to the court how dependent they are for their law firm revenues.
Robert, and Michael Sussman, the one who got off, he was acquitted by the skin of his teeth.
He's a criminal.
In my view, I don't care that he got acquitted.
I know the evidence.
He was a lawyer at Perkins Coie.
He's the one that leaked it to the FBI, lied about meeting with the FBI, billed the Clinton campaign for that, dead to rights, in D.C., got acquitted.
And the D.C. jury did jury nullification because all they had to say was...
He's against Trump, and they voted not guilty.
Holy hell.
They say he's with Trump, guilty, not Trump, anti-Trump, not guilty.
That's how corrupt...
That was my point to Mike Davis today, when he was like, hey, maybe we could make these changes with D.C. courts.
I was like, you got a jury problem still with the D.C. courts.
The D.C. jury should never be allowed to judge any case.
They're constitutionally incapable of doing so, impartially.
Let me get through as many of these as I can.
McCarthy was right.
Just look at our judicial system, the truth of statement.
Do you remember when we were in the drug war in the 80s?
Says Lucy the dog.
And that set the precedent for a lot of these dangerous invasion of liberties.
24,000 and only 1,000 thumbs up.
We can do better.
Forced name change.
Hands to one P. Just pull up the act and it's short and easy to understand.
Alt Scone says 2015 South Arkansas was checkout in Kroger's when cashier was rubbing his shoulder.
Mass flu vaccination earlier that day.
At her high school, she was confused when I asked her about parental consent.
Holy crap.
Force name change.
Do any of the Americans in this chat remember electing any judge to run your country?
No, I thought not.
Can a judge be removed through petition from the masses?
No, but we've talked about this with Barnes.
Force doctrine 101. Whoever is best at applying force and violence is in charge.
Those who do not practice making violence are ruled by those who do.
Lady Kildragon, if you had five minutes with President Trump, what issues would you suggest he needs to take care of?
I think we got that with the Pam Bondi question.
Linda WPHD, Chris Farley, for God's sake, arrest somebody.
That's the Chris Farley meme of him yelling.
Oh, for God's sake!
Okay, I got it, I got it.
Viva, please pull up the video of Duterte, Duterte, crushing all of the drug kingpin supercars in the Philippines.
He has bulldozers wrecking the drug dealers supercars.
It was so good.
Uphill Rider, Uphill Rider, tagging himself, and free Tina Peters, gold star grandmother.
And I'll give an example.
This is applicable to Ben Schiff, it's applicable to other people who said, okay, what do you do if you can't pardon them because the interpretation, there's a dispute about this.
But the current interpretation is that the federal constitutional pardon power doesn't extend to state crimes.
There's an argument that when there's an underlying issue of federal law, that maybe it does.
But that's left for another day.
But here's what they do have the power to do.
Tina Peters is a whistleblower.
That's what she is.
And the Justice Department could issue a habeas petition, request a habeas petition for her release by a federal court into their federal custody as a whistleblower witness.
To expose corruption in our elections in violation of federal civil rights.
And thereby get her released from the hellhole she's at in a state prison where her life is at risk on a regular basis.
And they could get her out of there and get her to a safer jurisdiction outside of the state of Colorado altogether.
That, I believe, they have full statutory and constitutional authority to do.
They could do the same with Benchu.
They could do the same with many others.
So some of these people that are in the state cases that have been railroaded...
There's nothing prohibiting the Justice Department, the federal government, from using its federal power when these people have whistleblower testimony, which is undisputed in most contexts in most of these cases, to make sure that they are not being railroaded by rogue state judges.
Again, that's what the Civil Rights Act is there for.
It was to deal with rogue state judges and rogue state law enforcement.
Incredible.
Let me read a bunch from our locals community, and then we're going to see what is left for the show.
Art Satana says, in a debate heavy on stats and lawsuits, I focused on the stories of the mRNA injured in a web concept using the hashtag walkaway campaign successful template.
Despite its limited demographic, it had impact.
Imagine expanding it to everyone affected worldwide, spiked as the human element needed to win public opinion.
Please review spiked on my local's post or read the email I sent to Robert Barnes, LLP, and let me know what you think.
Let me screen grab this and I'm going to make sure to get in touch with you.
We're getting back to the Friday afternoon locals supporters only discussions with a local supporter.
So we're getting on and this sounds like a good one.
Cookie45 says you are the greatest.
That's to both of us, Robert.
Stingray.
Could Trump claim the ADL has no standing?
That was in the gang member case.
Posted a clip original set.
Posted a clip.
In original session notice for tonight's program from ABC about the $1 billion being cut from USDA, supposedly affecting school and food banks.
Looking for your thoughts on this, as I am aware that the article is not completely forthcoming.
Do either of you know what the real story is?
Had great replies from our very smart community, but looking for your opinion.
That's from Shailena.
Robert, do you know anything about that?
So what's happening is, anytime any money is cut, liberals are going out and saying that it had this great noble purpose.
And that great noble purpose will not be met.
And you can safely assume that's garbage.
And then we got, I heard a family, this is from Tannehill Haley.
I heard a family law judge in Los Angeles when challenged that they weren't doing what was constitutional.
Okay, I got that one as well.
Circa, August 2022. What is this?
Alex Jones, Rumble News Network.
Oh, here we go.
Wait a minute, what is this?
I think this is somebody else's version of it.
Huh.
That's an old picture of me right there.
Is that Ben Carson asking me how that happened?
Anyhow, okay, fine.
Robert, what do we have left?
We're going to get back to the tips in a second.
Two topics.
Nationwide injunctions are going to be at SCOTUS as early as this week in the birthright citizenship context, but it would impact all these other insane cases.
And the Smith-Munt Act discussion of whether it should be reformed.
Does it allow government propaganda in America?
Well...
We're going to do this over on Rumble, on Locals.
Everybody, here's the link to Locals.
I will publish it tomorrow.
You'll get it all tomorrow if you don't want to come over and join us on that platform.
But let's do that because I want to have that standalone of the Smith-Munt Act because I know I've got questions because a lot of people are talking about it these days.
Everyone who's going to migrate, come on over and migrate.
And if you're not, no worries.
But let me just bring up...
A few more of these while everyone does think about that.
Let me just get it bigger here.
Just for the record, most of the rest of Washington is appalled by Seattle, King County, the Puget Sound area, says Jay Clayson.
Good to hear you moving back to Chattanooga.
Barnes have been planning to get out of Colorado and move to Knoxville.
Any thoughts of an area in Tennessee?
It's all beautiful.
I recommend the rural parts.
I love Chattanooga.
Otherwise, go rural.
Could Trump revoke the visas of foreign-born judges?
Family members such as Chuck?
I assume foreign-born judges are naturalized citizens.
That's a whole different animal.
Sounds like a good way to punish corrupt judges.
I would imagine you couldn't be a judge unless you're a naturalized citizen, but who the hell knows?
Thank you, RNB and Viva from Suzy C. Session says, if you told the founders that they could have only four legislators representing all 13 colonies, they would have scoffed and balked.
They just fought a war for representation in government, and that would not do.
Yet we are, because of Congress's 435 seat limit, we approach 1 million people per representative.
Fix it, repeal the...
It's become an unrepresentative Congress.
Pasha Moyer says...
That look you give the judge, an activist judge, that's your best J.D. Vance.
Someone's taken my face and made it, taken that image and made it into a J.D. Vance meme.
He's got to have the most memeable face on the planet.
It's fantastic, but that's getting close.
Shofar, Robert, am I? I am living in the crazy state.
Keep fighting.
That's why we all need to support 1776 Law Center, and we need a branch in Seattle and in Olympia, Washington.
Judges need to start going to jail.
Z Kitzman, cynical RN, I am.
All in favor of impeaching these rogue judges, but what happens when it fails and they get the message?
The fact that they don't get removed is not itself reason to not impeach.
The impeachment itself will send the message.
Now I'm going to see if it's going to allow me to do this.
We're going to update to local supporters only.
If you want to know what's going to happen, come on over.
And if you don't, you'll wait until tomorrow.
I'm going to update the stream, people.
Rumble, drop a thumbs up and make sure you subscribe before you head out.
Tomorrow's the new schedule.
Robert, what do you have for the rest of the world before the next week goes on?
The tomorrow should be on with Richard Barris, People's Pundit, on Rumble, on what are the odds?
We're going to be breaking down some of what's happening around the world, breaking down why some state parties, like the California State Party and some other parties, are often at odds with their own political bases.
And sort of do a roadmap of what are the odds in the current electoral environment given what has happened over the last several months.
We'll have some brief coverage of the elections to come in Romania, in Ecuador, in other parts of the world, in Australia, Canada, over at sportspicks.locals.com.
I'll have already a bunch of bet predictions up for all these elections, including the Canadian elections.
And this week is March Madness!
So Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, college basketball tournament.
One of the greatest times in American sports.
And I'll have a bunch of picks up at sportspicks.locals.com.
Last year, huge profits on March Madness.
Hopefully we hit that again.
So it should be a lot of fun.
That's what's coming up this week for me.
Get to decompress a little bit from all the insanity of the last couple of weeks.
And I would say, I presume, I mean, I think I know that you're betting against the liberals.
I can't believe that they're at 50-50.
And I can't believe that the chances of a majority conservative government are only at 25% or 23% today.
Yeah, I think there's some good betting odds there.
Some good betting odds.
In Romania election, despite the shenanigans, some good betting odds in the Ecuadorian election, despite the shenanigans.
So I got some bet predictions up on the Epstein documents and some other politics.
A lot of profits over the last several months during Election Day and then the pardons and then the Trump speech and some other stuff and the German elections.
But the big one will be a lot of college basketball picks.
It will also help people that are in their families with their work.
To beat the brackets for bragging rights sometimes.
Sometimes a little bit of cash.
Part of a bracket pool.
We'll have our own bracket pool up at SportsPix.
But also we'll give recommendations so people can use to help give them a little cheat sheet so they get an edge so they can get some bragging rights over their family or over their friends or over their co-workers.
Always do that.
Always a fun time of year for me.
It's been fun.
This is the first thing I ever bet.
I won pizza money from Roman's Road Pizza at Grace Baptist Academy in the 7th grade, betting all the 11th and 12th graders.
I was successful year-in-year app, and that's what inspired it in the first place.
All right.
Everybody, get your butts on over, and if not, we'll see you tomorrow.
Now it's going to be local supporters only.
Update stream.
I'm going to have to go manually do it.
All right.
Rumble.
We're ending it.
Thank you all for being here.
And now we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.
All right, locals, this is the exclusive portion of the stream.
Export Selection