All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 3, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
01:14:50
Robert Barnes Before Court of Appeal in Brook Jackson's Qui Tam Fraud Lawsuit Against Pfizer
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
My name is Brooke Jackson.
I was fired in September of 2020 for being a whistleblower.
I was working on Pfizer's phase three pivotal trial on their COVID-19 vaccine.
My first day on the job was the 8th of September.
And from the very beginning, I noticed irregularities, things that were questionable.
I would bring up the concerns to my managers, and it was always, we're understaffed.
We're really trying hard to, you know, make this work.
You know, at one point when I was going through emails, there were emails from ICON begging Ventavia to follow up on severe adverse events that had been reported.
There were several emails about mislabeled specimens, blood specimens, and the nasal swabs.
There were specimens that were labeled with another participant's information.
It was a nightmare.
And on the 16th of September, I stayed late in clinic one evening and I was the only one in the clinic.
I walked into an area where the vaccines were refrigerated or frozen rather.
And when I walked in, I saw a biohazard bag.
The plastic biohazard bag contained used needles and I realized how unorganized and sloppy Ventavia was handling everything.
In that same room where they kept the vaccine, the vaccine was just left out and the boxes that the vaccine came in, the containers, they had written the subject information on these containers.
So right there, you know, me working on the study, it unblinded me to the randomization of these patients.
I made note of that.
I took pictures.
I took pictures to, just to document what I'd seen to show my managers.
It was also discovered that Ventavia was unblinding participants in the study based on a directive from our COO, which was to print out the randomization scheme and put that drug assignment in everybody's chart.
Per Pfizer's protocol, we should have immediately stopped enrolling, but they never told Pfizer.
Instead, they wanted us to go through each of the charts and actually take out the randomization scheme that was printed.
So that coupled with everything else, I made the recommendation for Ventavia to stop enrolling clinical trial participants in the study until we were able to let Pfizer know.
You sent me the photos, thank you, and I didn't pull them up.
I mean, now granted, that's for the wrong question.
I mean, should I not have taken the pictures?
The problem is, is the breach of confidentiality, and it was a personal thing because there's sponsor information on this boxes.
At that point, it was clear to me that I wasn't fitting in.
I decided that that next morning I was going to report my company to the FDA.
And so I did that about nine o'clock in the morning on the 25th of September.
And about six hours later, I got a call from Ventavia and was fired on the spot and told that I was not a good fit.
I remember investigator Cannon called me and we spoke for an hour and 16 minutes, to be precise.
I can tell you everything that we talked about.
It mirrored what was typed in my formal complaint to them.
The unblinding, the safety of the clinical trial participants, not monitoring them for adverse reactions.
They were late to report adverse events.
Again, the untrained staff, the oversight by the principal investigators, specifically at the Fort Worth location, the targeting of the employees for coming forward.
I thought that the FDA was going to swoop in and take care of everything.
what I was reporting was so important.
I should probably be reading this out loud for those who can't see.
Pfizer said it has received an anonymous complaint about Ventivia in September 2020.
Actions were taken to correct remedies.
Yada, yada, yada.
Ventivia is still working on some vaccine research.
An FDA spokesperson said the FDA has full confidence in the data.
Ugly face just yet.
That was the summary from a BMJ article.
Let me just make sure that you see where that's from.
That was a BMJ article, which I'll share with everybody, the summary of the Brooke Jackson fraud, alleged fraud whistleblower story.
I'll give you the link so you can go read the article in BMJ.
Now I'm going to bring up something from Brett Weinstein, where he was on with Joe Hrogan talking about the alleged fraud by Pfizer.
Let's play this one as we get ready for Robert Barnes pleading before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
It's audio only.
I'll bring it up and I may or may not be in here the entire time, but let's listen to Brett Heinstein talk about fraud, alleged, by Pfizer, a company that has paid the largest criminal and civil settlement in the history of pharmaceuticals.
Because of the fact that it's classified as a vaccine, they don't have to worry about being sued.
Well, they do.
They do.
How so?
The immunity from liability is dependent on there having been no fraud, and there clearly was fraud.
Go on.
So in light of that.
I didn't know there was any caveats like that.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, that makes sense.
It's much more interesting.
How do you define fraud?
Because they've sold drugs where they had like 10 studies and one of them was good.
Let's get a good study.
Fraud visciates consent.
Fraud visiates everything.
To visiate means to render null any purported consent that was given.
It visciates contracts, and you cannot exonerate yourself from your own criminal wrongdoing or fraudulent conduct.
Am I in here?
I am in here.
I should be.
Let me just.
I'm going to talk more like Brett Weinstein.
I think people will take me more seriously if I do that.
No more fast talking, Viva, and no more hand gesticulation.
Zen, Viva.
Let's try this one.
Okay.
The insufficient amount of safety testing that was done before these things were released was done with mRNA vaccines produced in a process that did not involve DNA.
The product that was actually injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids, and there is massive contamination in the shots that were actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter, simian virus 40.
But in any case, the point is for you to put your process one drug through safety testing and then inject people with something different that has other components that were not tested is fraudulent.
Could you just explain the whole SV40 thing to people?
Oh, let me just take this off here.
By the way, there are lots of techniques that are used.
Understand, Robert and I talked about this at length, and I was a little slow to understand exactly what it meant.
The product that they brought to market was not the product that was approved for emergency use authorization.
Understand that.
Just that's the bottom line.
What they administered, remember Robert was always calling it the bait and switch.
What they mass produced and delivered it to the public was not what was authorized by the FDA under the emergency use authorization.
Understand that, because that's the fraud.
Carry on, Brett, please.
And yes, he and Heather are indeed legends.
In order to generate a lot of product, right?
In this case, what they used is a plasmid, which is a circular piece of DNA, in order to basically create vats that would grow the product necessary that would later be coated in the lipid nanoparticle.
So they used bacteria to do the heavy lifting.
There is a requirement that you purify DNA out, and there are standards which are way too high, but there are standards that you can't go above in terms of how much DNA contamination you can have left over from your production process.
But in this case, it isn't even that the quality control is garbage and there was too much stuff left over because the process didn't work very well.
The problem is that there was a much more painstaking way of producing technically the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all.
And so what you've got left over in these vials, and we're talking about largely the work of Kevin McKernan, who took vials that were given to him, stuff that was actually injected in people.
There was leftover stuff in the vials, and he tested a bunch of these things, found DNA contamination across the board.
So what you're left with is a promoter, which is a genetic trigger that we know is common in lab techniques, and it originally comes from simian virus 40, and we know that it's carcinogenic.
So that promoter is left over in vials from shots that were actually injected into people.
And that means that all of the things that we were told about the potential for these mRNA shots to integrate into your genome, that was impossible, they told us, right?
Well, first of all, it's not impossible.
There's lots of interesting stuff that goes on in cells that involves reverse transcription and things like that.
But even what we were told that there's no DNA, so integration is not an issue, is a lie because there is DNA left over in these vials.
And it's not just some old DNA, it's DNA with the SV40 promoter, which is a genetic engineering tool that has carcinogenic potential.
So it seems to me this is clear fraud.
You can't inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was done with something produced by a different process.
Well, that's kind of amazing.
Let's bring this one out.
Let's just refresh our memories as we wait for Barnes and who's the other lawyer to take the stage.
Let's bring this one up.
Moderna recalls another lot of COVID-19 vaccs.
Moderna has recalled one lot of its COVID-19 vaccine, Spike Vax, after a foreign body was found in a vial produced by CDMO Rovi.
You can go back and see all of these.
I know Moderna was one of them.
I'm fairly certain Johnson also recalled them because it was garbage in, garbage out from the trials to the mass production.
You know, there was a way for them to produce something of high quality.
It just would cost a little more money, and that would have, you know, shaved a little bit off of their bottom line.
Moderna has recalled one of its lots of spike vaccs after a foreign body was found in a viral produced by the Moderna and Spanish Contract Development Manufacturing Organization, yada, yada, yada, jointly announced that they have recalled lot 0001908, which consisted of 764,000, nearly a million doses.
The firms were made aware of issues through a product complaint from a vaccination center in Malaga, Spain.
Malaga is a bad word in another language, I think.
The dose in question was returned for forensic assessment, and the effective vial was punctured and not administered.
764,000 in this particular instance recalled.
And you think it's a one-off?
You think some of them didn't get admitted?
Do you guys know of the website?
By the way, if I miss when they go live at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, I'm refreshing the screen behind me.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, when they go live, we're going to bring it up.
What the hell was I just about to say?
Oh, yes, that's right.
There's a website for hot batches for those of you who took the shot.
And no judgment for me.
Partially for self-interested reasons.
I took two, got two COVID shots back in the day.
And there's a discovered once upon a time, I don't remember when it happened, discovered that there was a website where you could check the adverse events reported from the lot number of the batch that you got.
And having covered this and having covered a lot of the vaccine injuries, you could find which lots were called hot batches, which produced a disproportionate amount of adverse events.
Why might that be?
Well, some lots were shitty produced.
Some of these 764,000 contained a, oh, it wasn't all of them that contained a foreign.
They just recalled nearly a million doses because one vial had a, you know, had a fingernail in it.
So you could go check the lot numbers.
And in fact, let me just see if I can do this while we're waiting.
You could hear hot batches and be careful what search results you put up after that.
Hot batches.
And let me see here.
I think we can go here.
Safety lot here.
Parliament question: false claims about deadly COVID-19.
Oh, let's see what.
Let's see what this one has to say.
Love, I love looking at this in hindsight.
This is from January 26, 2022.
False claims about deadly COVID-19 vaccine batches spread online.
Oh, really?
Online articles and social media posts claim U.S. government data reveals there are problematic batches of COVID-19 shots that are responsible for all deaths.
You see how they do it here, by the way, caused by the vaccine?
They always do this and understand how they use dishonest language.
Responsible for all deaths?
Well, any statement on any exam, any question that says all or none typically will be the wrong answer.
And it's just the way you can rule out bad answers.
Categorical, all-inclusives typically are bad answers.
So by phrasing it as all the deaths come from a specific batch or from a specific number of batches, well, that's obviously false and falsifiable.
Most, a disproportionate amount, a statistical anomaly.
American health authorities have not identified issues with specific vaccine lots.
Independent health experts say the claim is meritless, and the data cited is not proof that a shot was responsible for the fatality.
Oh, yeah.
Where is the so this is bullshit?
Where is the website for?
I don't, I don't actually access Facebook.
Where is the website for the hot batches?
National Institute.
Well, someone in the chat, give me the link.
It was how hot is my batch?
COVID vaccine.
Oh, geez.
What was the name of the website?
I'll get it in a second here.
Batch Dependent Safety.
Okay, here we go.
Identifying falsified batch release assessment.
Batch number reports.
Someone's going to get the website before me.
But some batches were notoriously hot.
And the batch that I got, because I went and looked mine up.
Yeah, how badismybatch.com?
Thank you, Crash Bandit.
Hold on.
Let me get this here.
So let's go to Rumble.
Hold on.
I don't even have this open in Rumble yet.
HowbadisMyBatch.com.
My content here.
And I'm going to open it up.
And I wish we could actually do the exercise.
I don't have any lot numbers offhand, but I could find.
Oh, let me just make sure that Barnes is not yet live.
See, I'm seeing the recordings.
Videos.
Home.
I want to make sure that we're getting the live Barnes.
So here we go.
Where can we put this?
Dangers.
How bad is my batch?
Please consider.
Okay, let's not do that.
Not that I'm not doing that right now.
Check batch.
Okay, so now watch this.
Select batch.
Let's go with, let me see here.
Let me see if I can get batch number of Trista Martin in particular.
Another woman who was killed by the vax.
And you can get the batch number, the vaccine batch number.
Hold on, let me see here.
See if we can find this.
And you can literally check in real time and see how many adverse events were reported.
Bad vaccine COVID batch numbers.
Give me one second here.
I'll just get one.
If anybody has uh okay, here we go.
Let's see.
I think this is a batch number here.
Let's try this one.
Okay, are we uh in a different window?
I think we're in a different window.
How bad is my batch?
Yes, we got to go here.
Let me bring this one out, and then we're going to bring this one up, and you're going to see how this works here.
So you can watch this here.
Batch, put it in here, press enter.
No results found.
Look at this.
So from this batch, and you can see, let me see all the stats here.
Other adverse events, 75 batch number.
You have to see how many were reported in this batch.
Fatigue, headache, pain, chills.
This one doesn't look like it particularly.
Four deaths reported in various from this batch.
Eight disabilities, five life-threatening illnesses, 14 hospitalizations.
So that is 12, 17, 31.
How many doses were administered in this batch?
246 entries.
You can do this with every batch, just so you know.
If you got the shot, you can go check your batch number, put it into how bad was my batch.
HowbadisMyBatch.com, and you can find it.
Now, let me refresh over on the Court of Appeals and see if we can get Robert Barnes live.
Locals, if you have the, if we have this here, let me see this here.
I see something.
Okay, let me bring that up.
On bonk, I don't think that's what we're looking for, but let's just see.
Fifth Circuit was 20 years when it was in fact, sorry, 10 years, when it's in fact 20 years, where they were misadvised with respect to a mandatory minimum, things on those lines, where there was an actual misstatement of the statutory, what the what the statute says.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, the government's view is simply there was no error to begin with, plain or otherwise.
Yes, Your Honor.
Zero error.
Yes, Jerry.
Again, ambiguity?
We can see that it could have been articulated better.
It could have been explained in a different way.
I don't know if this is it.
That would have foreclosed this argument, but we don't concede that it rises to the level of error.
Assuming our window, you disagree.
Yes, Your Honor.
Then where do you win?
Is it on prong three?
Is that where you're well?
Prongs two and three.
Because again, we believe that if this court were to articulate that there was error in this case, that would be at the very least an extension of prior precedent, which indicates that the error was neither clear nor obvious.
The district court misspoke in a profound way when pronouncing what the maximum penalty would be.
And so I think this is the courtroom.
Also, this is the case before.
Thank you.
Supported that.
So when you look at those two things together, it's a clear error.
We wouldn't necessarily concede that, Your Honor.
But again, even if Your Honor were to find that there was error, that there was clear and obvious, we again think that we believe that we prevail with respect to the third problem.
I don't think you had a chance to answer that.
I'm sorry, Your Honor.
Judge Willen asked what if there was an ambiguity, and I don't think you had a chance to answer that.
Yes, Your Honor.
So again, even if there were ambiguity, we don't think it rises to the level of error.
We don't think it rises to being clear error.
And the other thing I would sort of point to is Mr. Pettit bargained for and received having counts one and two dismissed.
And so the other question arises: well, why did he do that?
Why did he bargain to have those two counts dismiss if he thought that basically everything was concurrent and that there was no impact on his sentence?
The only reason for him to make that bargain and for him to request that of the government is because he understood how the counts operated in consecutive fashion.
Okay, so this is the case beforehand, everybody.
So that's essentially our argument with respect to the massive advisement on the project.
It's one thing to say counts for wire fraud and it counts for another offense run consecutively.
It's an entirely different thing to say that individual chart counts within those group counts run consecutively.
Yes, Your Honor.
And again, but he was pleading guilty to three counts of money laundering.
So what's, or I'm sorry, three counts of wire fraud.
That's odd to begin with.
These don't normally go like this.
Well, there's not many.
Don't you agree that this is odd?
Not only is the way that it's set up on the cheat rod, it's just odd what the plea is.
Okay, we're going to honor.
Respectfully, we believe.
We're going to put this on pause because I don't think anybody knows what's going on in this particular case.
And chat, let me know when it goes live.
I'll try to keep it in the backdrop.
Next up is going to be Barnes.
Do I just saw a question?
Do judges like being called Your Honor?
The rules of the practice, I don't know if it's codified everywhere.
You call them Your Honor, Your Lordship, up in Canada.
And if you want to make a funny joke, you call them Your Lordship.
Bladder Bing, but a boom.
Your Honor, Your Lordship, Your Majesty.
I don't know that.
I don't know if they call them Your Majesty.
So we're going to refresh it and we're going to get back there in a second.
This is the case that leads up to this.
And yes, it's only audio.
Menticide says Brooke Jackson should have brought on Kevin McKinner as her expert process one versus process two switching.
If you change the methods, it's a separate drug.
I don't think Brooke even got there because they were during the trials.
I mean, they were during the trials where I had on, oh, geez.
I'm going to totally blank on their name.
Maddie, Maddie McGarry.
Am I going totally crazy?
Maddie DeGarry.
Sorry.
I had on Maddie DeGarry's parents, and she was one of the children in the trials that they wrote off her adverse event.
And like, she was one of 400 children that suffered, I think it was transverse myelitis.
They just wrote it off.
So it was great.
I mean, it's the ultimate method of falsifying the results: you just exclude the people that you want to exclude, include the people you want to include, and then pretend that you've gotten somehow some form of reliable results when you've basically just curated the results that you wanted to get.
And then what was I bringing up in the backdrop here?
Check this out.
Back to the foreign materials.
This was a Roefie joined.
Okay, here we go.
In August 2021, Japan put 1.6 million doses of Moderna vaccine on hold after foreign materials were discovered in approximately 565,000 vials.
It's not only that they delivered a product that was not what they got approved in the first place.
The whole manufacturing process to be at scale was shit.
Garbage in, garbage out.
And that was garbage in people's veins.
That killed people.
So by the way, for those who don't know, you saw the intro video of Brooke Jackson.
And then the Kitem over in our local community, the term is a Latin term.
It's basically a citizen-initiated fraud lawsuit for fraud committed on behalf of the government.
And then what ends up happening is the government can decide to let the citizen initiate and take the action, or the government can take over and basically appropriate the lawsuit, which is a fraud, you know, fraud committed against the government, or the government can come in and basically quash the lawsuit, take it over and kill it, which is what the Biden administration did several years into Brooke Jackson's Key Tam lawsuit alleging fraud against the U.S. government.
They didn't initiate the fraud claim because the Biden administration was probably in on the fraud, the alleged fraud.
And then they let Brooke Jackson invest hundreds of thousands, if not more, millions of dollars in legal fees and time to pursue this on her own behalf for and on behalf of a government that doesn't want to pursue it because the government's part of the problem.
And then on the eve of whatever step of the proceedings they were at years later, the Biden administration comes in and kills the Key Tam lawsuit, takes it over and drops the case.
And now they're trying to pursue the court.
What's up?
Your pliers are here.
Yo Goebbe pliers.
Be careful with those.
So the government came in and killed the lawsuit.
And now you've got the Trump administration DOJ not reinstating the lawsuit, not dropping their dropping of the lawsuit to let Brooke Jackson pursue a fraud claim against Pfizer.
And people are going to say, gee, I wonder why.
I wonder why Pam Bondi wouldn't get involved and allow Brooke Jackson to pursue a fraud claim against the government.
He hadn't shown a reasonable probability.
His plea agreement told him, gave him the admonishment that the court had missed.
I think we're still in the rearrain hearing.
The other cases where this court has said, you know, no reasonable probability, often there is information in the plea agreement that specifies what the actual admonishment is, or at least in the PSR.
And this PSR did not clearly, especially with the misimpression of a max per those counts 20 and 10 to run consecutively, the PSR did not correct.
Okay, so this is still the first suit.
So that's what happened.
And Brian, Robert Barnes and Brooke Jackson and the other lawyer in the file now have to go to the Court of Appeals and say that the quashing of the suit was invalid.
The government should either take it up or allow Brooke Jackson to pursue the fraud claim.
And I won't reiterate Barnes's not soliloquies, but rants on this.
He says, you know, Pfizer promised a safe and effective COVID vaccine that prevented transmission, and it produced none of it.
It did not provide that.
It was a fraudulent misrepresentation of what they produced, you know, for massive, massive profits.
And let me see what that tweet is here.
And they want to sue.
Oh, this looks good.
The evidence amounts that new Taiwanese study finds cardiac symptoms.
Okay, let's see what while we're waiting.
This is Dr. Campbell.
And for the Commitube Overlords, kiss my bum because we're playing it.
4,928.
And these were the findings here from the study.
So palpitations occurred in 373 after the second dose.
Chest pain, 394 after the second dose.
Dyspnea, difficulty breathing, 17, dizziness or syncope 17, that's 17 is 0.4, 151 is 3.4.
So we see that adds up to 17.1%.
And at this time, in 2021, in Taiwan, at this time, less than 0.1% of the population of Taiwan had had COVID.
Taiwan basically stopped COVID for a long period of time.
So we know that all of these effects are due to vaccine and none of these effects are due to COVID infection.
According to Dr. Campbell's opinion in Taiwan at that time.
So what do the authors conclude?
Let me just, for the CarmyTube overlords, this is one man's medical opinion.
This is not medical advice.
Check with your professional consultant before deciding or not deciding anything.
Yada yada yada.
These are the stats, and Dr. Campbell has been quite good.
Cardiac symptoms are common after the second dose of Pfizer vaccine.
Incidents of significant arrhythmias and myocarditis are 0.1.
Presenting within the days and the week or two after.
Doesn't tell us about longer-term potential adverse effects, but even that's one in a thousand.
Now, we have looked at this before, but the rotavirus vaccine was introduced in 1999 for gastrointestinal things.
Check out the CDC site, it's there.
And here they found that there was one to two serious events per 10,000 people vaccinated.
Actually, a bowel problem, according to Susception.
I think it's on.
I think it's on.
I hear something.
It wanted to dismiss, and that's what gave it cause.
There was no legally sufficient reason beyond its desire to dismiss.
Did it not say that it was unlikely to succeed or that it would impose substantial discovery and litigation burdens or that it conflicted with the government's public health policy goals?
You know, Your Honor, it's interesting how it's constructed in their motion.
The first part of the motion is the motion to intervene.
And only in the motion to dismiss does it raise these other allegations.
But in the motion to intervene, the first segment of their motion, which is a combined motion, all it says is to dismiss.
It does not mention those other things.
So we believe that the motion to intervene is limited and cabined by what they submitted to the district court.
It's the district court then that took those secondary issues that the government raised in its motion to dismiss and kind of confounded them and created this hybrid system where, oh, it can pull from the motion to dismiss these supposed reasons of the federal government and incorporate them.
That's not how this should work, Your Honor.
This should work.
At first, they have to be allowed to intervene.
And by intervening, at that point, they have to show a legally sufficient reason and good cause.
We can't just incorporate motions to dismiss.
What about the harmful error rule?
In other words, if there were ACs that were raised and were considered by the district court and it failed to take them into account on just the motion to intervene and we send it back and it can do that on remail.
Yeah, where's the harmful error here?
Well, I think there is harmful error there because it should, and in fact, that's what we're asking that this court do is remand it and have the government show good cause.
If we're just arguing under the 41, Rule 41 dismissal standards, that's very different than them coming in and having to show good cause.
Obviously, 41, they have a wide discretion to dismiss, and I have an argument about that as well.
But our strongest argument is that the cause, the good cause that they have to show on the motion to intervene.
So we do think it should be remanded and that they should show a good cause.
And they should show us exactly that question about the public health policies of the United States.
The public health policy of the United States is set by the 1986 amendments to the Federal False Claims Act.
And it's set there in a couple of ways.
One thing it says is there should not be fraud in our federal health care programs.
Another thing that it says is that relators themselves have this role as a check on a government that may actually be complicit with the defendant, that may have committed wrongdoing, the government itself, the government officials.
They want a way to have a check.
The Congress mandated this, that there's a way to have a check on the government so that it doesn't roll in a direction that supports fraud as the public health policy of the United States.
So that's a key, that's a key issue is to go back to that statute and what Congress is requiring and what Congress saw as the role of the relators.
So I hope that answers your question.
In all of the government's cases, that there was a motion to intervene.
There were reasons.
There was good cause in every single one that they submitted in their pleading.
Under Brutus Trading, they said in Brutus that the factual allegations in that case were not supported.
Our facts are extensively supported.
We're the only ones who submitted in this case affidavits and documents that supported our facts.
They said that the legal theory was not cognizable.
I'm back to Brutus now.
In our case, the federal government actually put in a statement of interest about the legal theory.
Inducing the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization for an unapproved drug is a cognizable theory, which we took then and incorporated in our Second Amended complaint.
We took the government's advice as to what the cognizable theory was.
In physicians, pain specialist, Carver versus physician pain specialist, that relator neglected the responsibilities of a relator in that case, failed to prosecute.
In that case, the court did decide that the cost of proceeding with that case outweighed the benefit.
There was an extensive factual record there.
And Wolf Creek Service is another one, which you guys may know that I'm on that case.
I have another reason why we've asked for Sergei Arari at the Supreme Court.
But the discovery in that case cast doubt on the ability of the relator to prove the violations.
And NASA employees' testimony challenged the allegations directly.
And like I said, that's on appeal for some other reasons.
But at least in that case, which I doubt the court did find reasons, did articulate those reasons.
So there's no evidence that the DOJ presented, no investigation details, there's no analysis.
And all the cases, they said, have these factual showings.
Now, furthermore, moving on to Rule 24, Polanski is very clear and I think supports our contention that just because a case is filed under the False Claims Act doesn't mean the federal rules don't apply.
In fact, Polanski specifically says that the federal rules apply.
And under Rule 24, it requires consideration of prejudice to the original parties.
There was none of that given by the district court here.
One of the cases that we cite, Drennan versus Frisenius, invites reference to Rule 24 and the body of case law that accompanies it.
So there are many cross-references to the rules in Polanski.
It's clear that unless Congress says specifically the rule doesn't apply, that the federal rules generally apply to all civil cases in federal court.
So the district court legally erred in holding that Rule 24 doesn't apply.
Do we examine both stages of the intervention rulings?
I'm sorry.
Do we examine both stages of the intervention rulings, the prior decline and then the later grant for the purpose of dismissal?
Do we look at it both times?
Well, I mean, I don't think that's necessary here.
I mean, certainly, I'm sorry, Your Honors.
I'm a little under the weather myself.
You know, while the case is under seal, I do believe that the government has really a pretty much unfettered right to dismiss under 41A.
It's under seal.
There's no answer.
They're considering the case.
That's the time for them to do it.
But when they come in in a later intervention, there's a much higher bar, a much higher threshold.
This case began with whistleblowing that started in September of 2020.
And the case was filed in January of 2021.
You know, here we are.
We're almost five years later.
And I know one of the issues might be, well, you haven't even engaged in discovery yet.
Well, that's actually, this case is unique in that sense.
There have been a vast army of citizen researchers and scientists that have poured over these documents.
We've spent hundreds, maybe thousands of hours researching all of the releases of documents, in fact.
And that goes to another issue of the discovery burden.
There has been so much now that has been forced out of Pfizer through the FOIA requests and other things that we now have a very good picture of everything that is happening.
We know that more people died in the vaccine arm in this clinical trial than died in the placebo arm.
We know that roughly half the people who got COVID were in the vaccine arm versus half that were not.
So we already can see where the frauds that we alleged in our complaint are playing out in the actual documents.
So we think that the only thing that happened, frankly, is that the changed circumstance was a political decision by the past administration, frankly, because the information keeps coming out of how bad these shots were, that they didn't prevent COVID, that they're causing a lot of damage and injury.
Is that a legitimate?
Can they pursue a political, political, is that the same thing as public health?
Is that a legitimate reason?
No, in fact, it isn't.
And that's kind of skipping along into our argument a little bit, but their political stance has caused them actually to intervene to dismiss, to suppress our client's First Amendment right to access the courts to vindicate what she learned while she worked at Pfizer.
But why isn't it the government's right?
Well, the government has a right whether it wishes to pursue or whether it sees a benefit and not towards political or public health or however you wish to characterize it.
Well, because Congress set up the statutory framework for this and Congress envisioned that our government itself may have some problems and that the relators were there to check the government if the government was behaving badly.
That's not, you know, that certainly is possible that we have administrators that are colluding or operating and know about the fraud that Pfizer committed.
And Congress wanted the relators to be a check on that.
I hope, does that answer your question, Your Honor?
I guess.
Is there any issue about dismissal with prejudice or not prejudice?
Sure.
Under Rule 41, dismissals are supposed to be without prejudice unless the relator had previously dismissed the case.
This relator had not previously dismissed the case.
So when a dismissal is with prejudice, that adds another element to it as well, a Shaw versus United Mexican states.
If it is with prejudice, the court has to make a searching examination as to why it should be with prejudice.
And Your Honors, I have thought about this a little bit and I thought, you know, well, what would without prejudice do?
That means the relator could bring the case again.
Well, guess what?
There's more information coming out that the relator may have.
They may be able to bring a very different case along the same lines, but with the additional information.
So I think that, you know, if that new information comes up, the relator ought to be able to file a claim that incorporates their prior claims, but also the new information that's come forward that proves the fraud.
So we do think that Rule 41 requires dismissal without prejudice.
You all understand without prejudice.
And we think that violates Rule 41's plain terms.
With prejudice means they cannot refile that it does send a message to future whistleblowers.
If fraud involves government complicity, don't bother reporting it.
And this eviscerates the 1986 amendments.
Briefly, before I run out of time, I'm going to skip over the constitutional issues, but I do want to talk about my clients, my clients' firing.
The timing was very suspicious.
She was terminated after she got Vintavia to have an enrollment pause because of problems that she identified and that they actually recognized.
Then she made a report to the FDA.
Six hours later, she was walked off the job.
And the next day, guess what?
They started enrolling again.
That pause was supposed to continue.
They updated the pause.
Now they got the troublemaker out of the way who's showing that we're committing fraud.
Oh, we can start it right back up as soon as she's gone.
So I think that they were very aware of the FDA audit risks that she pointed out.
The timing of the termination is very suspicious.
They said she was not a good fit.
Well, I bet she wasn't.
And she had in the days prior to her termination a pattern, a pattern of escalating complaints up through Fintavia to Pfizer and to the FDA.
So we think their termination decision was pretextual.
Thank you very much.
I see that my time has expired.
And I think I reserved five minutes.
Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Mintville.
The appeal of the government's dismissal of the KTAM fraud suit.
I'll shut my mouth now.
My dog just barked.
May it please the court, Sarah Smith, on behalf of the government.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the government's motion to intervene and dismiss relator's keytam claims.
As to intervention, the district court correctly determined that the government has that the government's desire to dismiss itself constitutes good cause.
The government has good cause to intervene whenever it determines that its interests would not be served by the relator continuing to litigate claims on its behalf.
As to dismissal, the court correctly applied the standard set out in Polanski.
Polanski, the court explained that the rules governing voluntary dismissal from Rule 41A apply, and how that shakes out depends on whether or not an answer has been filed in the case.
But as in this case, where the government moves to dismiss before an answer is filed, the court has no adjudicatory role and the motion must be granted.
If the court has questions, I'm happy to answer them, but otherwise, the government's content to rest on this brief.
That's a very, very weak, weak rebuttal.
Should it have been dismissed without prejudice?
No.
So Rule 41 does not set out a rule that voluntary dismissals must be without prejudice.
What it says is: if the order does not say otherwise, then the dismissal is without prejudice.
And here, the district court's order was clear that it was with prejudice as to the relator.
And this court earlier this year in its Vanderlin decision construed the dismissal with prejudice and it said that that was essential for it to have appellate jurisdiction because typically this court wouldn't have jurisdiction to review a voluntary dismissal.
And so I think that that has to be the right answer because otherwise what would happen is you know relator would go down back to the district court, would again file their complaint, the government would presumably again move to intervene and dismiss the government or the district court would grant it.
But that can be the reason that you don't do it, that you do do it with prejudice.
If you've had a multiple chance then that can be a reason to do with prejudice.
What if there's new information?
Prejudice this time around.
What if there's new information?
It would be futile because the government has already determined that its interests are not furthered by relator continuing this claim.
And the point I wanted to make is that if the dismissal had been without prejudice, then it really wouldn't make sense.
The relator would keep filing in district court.
It would keep getting dismissed, but this court couldn't review it because this court would have been a good idea.
After they filed again, they could say there's not, that's when you would do it.
Well, on the second time.
On the second time around.
I thought that was how it works.
So again, Rule 41 does not say the dismissal has to be without prejudice.
It just says, it just creates the rule that if the order doesn't say otherwise, it's without prejudice.
And here it was with prejudice.
There's a legal basis that this would be because the government's made up its mind is the legal basis?
Because nothing would change if relator brought her claims again.
I mean, the government has made its decision.
It's made its well, I mean, she could plead it better or new facts.
Government might have a different public health policy.
Ah, good question.
Is that possible?
So, Group later was able, she submitted two amended complaints here.
She got a chance to revise her claim and the government made its determination that the case was not.
The only reason to grant a motion to dismiss with prejudice is because something is feudal.
That is a legitimate reason to do a dismissal with prejudice.
And I'm just asking what here in the record shows that it's feudal.
It's again, it's futile because the government has determined that its interests are not served by the relator.
This is very change in leadership.
This is very important right now.
I mean, clip this.
I mean, I don't think that the district court had no reason to expect that the government's reasons would change in the future.
I mean, if that was the rule that like these dismissals always need to be without prejudice because somewhere down the line, the government might change its mind.
I don't think that is really a workable solution here.
Why hasn't it?
Normally, the default is without prejudice.
And so, we have to have a reason to say that it's feudal, so that it should be with prejudice.
So, that's why, is it a good enough reason to say that, well, the government has spoken?
Is that a reason?
Again, the government, Rule 41 just says that if the order doesn't stipulate otherwise, it's without prejudice.
It is not a rule that dismissals must have prejudice.
We're discussing the case law and dismissals.
Ordinarily, you should dismiss without prejudice unless it's been adjudicated such that or the person's had multiple chances.
There's all kinds of reasons why you don't why you do it with prejudice as opposed.
There's a whole jurisprudence body about Rule 41.
This person is not going to be how it applies in this context.
So, again, in this context, a dismissal without prejudice would be futile because the government has determined that it doesn't want these cases to go forward, and the district court did not use its discretion.
The government, the Biden administration, decided they didn't want a fraud investigation.
What is your position as a holding?
That's your best articulation of good cause is desire alone sufficient, or must there always be some articulated reason?
So, the Supreme Court said in Polanski, it's just a legally sufficient reason.
Our position is that the government's desire to dismiss is itself good cause.
That's all that's necessary.
Of course, here the court averted to the government's reasons to dismiss, and the court here is on is reviewing for visa discretion and can affirm on that basis.
But no, the government doesn't need to convince the court that it has good reasons to dismiss its own case at the intervention stage.
And I think it's not a good cause.
I'm sorry.
Why isn't it just the government chooses, so it's done?
If it can be for any reason, it is Judge Wilson.
The government doesn't have to explain itself to the case.
Why is it called good cause?
That sounds like that's a standard where you have to reach a certain goal.
This is a good question.
It's not a goal, it's just the government's prerogative.
At will, no.
There might be other cases where the government wants to intervene for different reasons, where good cause might or might not be shown.
I'm not trying to say anything about, I'm not trying to say that just whenever the government wants to intervene, that's enough.
What you said where the government wants to intervene to exercise its statutory right to dismiss the claims brought in its name, that is good cause.
So, automatically, if the government wants to dismiss, they're going to create a good cause.
Yeah, if they say so.
They have no cases that no cases that because before Polanski, the government didn't typically intervene in these cases before dismissing.
It didn't think it had to.
Polanski said that's really strange to intervene in a case.
I'm sorry, to dismiss a case that you're not a party of, you need to become a party first.
But it's relatively new that the government needs to intervene first.
And on page 11 in our brief, we cite cases since Polanski where courts have consistently found that the government's desire to dismiss a case is good cause to intervene.
And I just would like to point out that I think the relator's position is really unusual.
It would say that, you know, here, the substantive standard to dismiss, the court plays no adjudicatory role in this pre-answer context, but that at the threshold, the intervention, that there's a higher standard there that the government needs to satisfy.
I don't know of any area of law that works like that where the threshold question has a higher burden than the substantive dismissal standard.
Well, shouldn't you argue or wouldn't you argue that there's more than desire around here if the government talked about the cost?
Absolutely.
The court can certainly affirm the district court's judgment on that basis.
The district court pointed to the reasons that the government gave in its motion for why it wanted to dismiss.
It explained that it doubted the merits, that the case would impose substantial litigation and discovery burdens.
And the court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the government's assessment of the case.
Did it raise those arguments in conjunction with its motion to intervene?
So the government filed a single motion to the district court that was the motion to intervene and dismiss.
Relator is right that it wasn't under, you know, the intervention section, but it wasn't the same motion, yes.
Do I understand?
I mean, in answer to Judge Richmond's question, you know, you said you could consider these other factors, but I took your argument to be you're saying no, it's just the government wanting to do this is your main argument.
Are you making this one your alternative better?
You just, you're having you're trying, are you trying to make some law here in the circuit?
Is that what you're trying to do in Palmas?
So it is our position, the government's desire to exercise its statutory right to dismiss a case is itself good cause.
Again, if the court has any calms about that, it can just affirm on the basis that the court gave below.
There are no further questions.
We asked the court to affirm.
No, I got some questions, lady.
It's good cause because I said so.
On behalf of Ventavia, I say Ventavia, you say Ventavia.
We'll get to the same place, Your Honor.
You may have pleased the court at Andrew Guthrie.
I'm here for Ventavia.
And I'm here to address the retaliation claim because that claim was brought against my client alone and it was dismissed by the district court for a slightly different reason.
It was dismissed on the merits under Rule 12v6, not just because of the government's motion.
That decision was correct and should be affirmed as well.
Now, the way we divided this argument, I only have five minutes to address the retaliation claim, but I honestly don't think I need more than that.
Can you help?
Because they said that you knew that, not you, but Ventavia knew that she had gone to the FDA about these clips.
That's not true, as a matter of fact, but I recognize we're here on a pleading motion.
Does the pleading say that?
It does not, Your Honor.
All she says is that she made a report, quote, the same day that she was fired.
Sometimes we say a temporal thing.
In normal employment law, if it's super duper fast, we can say that it could be lengthy.
Certainly, Your Honor.
And she's referenced that here, but that comes from the causation element of the Pruna Fascia case to plead a protected activity, plead a claim for retaliation.
She's got to show she was engaged in protected activity under the False Claims Act.
Happy to talk about that because that's a specific burden.
She's got to show that we knew she was engaged in protected activity, and then she's got to show that we fired her because of that.
So, this temporal proximity idea comes from that third element.
Third prompt, from the causation.
We didn't move on that.
We're only here on the first two elements.
So, she didn't say they knew?
Never once in her pleading did she say that we knew that she called the FDA.
And she had lots of opportunities.
And this is a second pleading?
This is actually the fourth plea, Your Honor.
So, it was the second.
I think she knew that was a flaw that it didn't say.
We raised it in the first motion to dismiss.
The district court granted the first motion to dismiss on two grounds, right?
That she wasn't engaged in protected activity and that we didn't know she was engaged in protected activity.
We forecast it.
I mean, we had an underline under this, that she says she called the FDA, but she never once in her pleading says that she told us that she called the FDA.
We didn't know.
She had the opportunity to please.
This was a coincidence.
Just a coincidence.
I don't know if it was a coincidence.
Look, we had issues with her as an employee.
In 18 days as an employee, we had some concerns about her behavior.
She was finding confidential material.
She was taking pictures.
She was violating it.
If they were pled and we would go with summary judgment, you might, on the causation number three, that might be enough to get over summary judgment even.
I hear you, Chief Judge Elrod, but we don't even get to causation.
Okay.
If we didn't know about it, and I want to point you to this court's opinion in the patent case.
Because what Patton says is when we're talking about FCA retaliation, it's a very specific statute that says it only protects an employee who is engaged in protected activity under the False Claims Act.
And what does that mean?
You have to be reporting false claims for government payment.
This is not about criticizing business practices.
I understand that argument.
And so all I'm saying, Chief Judge Elrod, is that in order to meet her prima facie burden for the FCA retaliation provision, we, her employer, have to know that she is engaged in protected activity under the False Claims Act.
We didn't know that because she didn't say it.
And also she didn't want to protect the activities under the False Claims Act according to what she planned.
That's exactly right, Mary.
Because what she was talking about, she was saying to us, I'm concerned we're not following the clinical trial protocol.
And she maybe even said, I'm concerned you're not following FDA regulations.
Those are not protected activities under the False Claims Act.
And that's the point this court made in Patton.
There might be protective acts under some other statute.
It may be, Chief Judge Elrod, but she pled this claim under the False Claims Act retaliation provision.
You know, the Supreme Court in Escobar says that the False Claims Act is not an all-purpose anti-fraud statute, and it is not a device for prosecuting what the Supreme Court called garden variety regulatory violations.
So just as the False Claims Act is not an all-purpose anti-fraud statute, its retaliation provision is not an all-purpose anti-retaliation provision.
It only protects employees who are engaged in protected activity under the False Claims Act.
And so these allegations failed for the same reasons as those this court addressed in Patton, in Robertson, and most recently in the Toledo versus HCA case.
Is it categorical?
Or is there any scenario where a quality control complaint in a clinical trial could constitute FCA protected activity?
It is only, Judge Willet, going to be if the relator says, I've got concerns about the clinical trial protocol, and I think that means you're defrauding the government.
Right, we're a full step away from anything that goes to the False Claims Act.
There's lots of clinical trials.
There's lots of FDA regulatory spheres that have nothing to do with false claims for government payment.
So my rule would be, and the rule that I think comes from this court's case law, is that the relator has to make that extra step to say, I've got concerns about what does the court say?
You've got to talk about fraud or key TAM actions or something that goes to false claims for government payment that gets you in the False Claims Act bucket.
Otherwise, all the employee is doing is criticizing business practices, raising regulatory violations.
That's not within the sphere of the False Claims Act, and it doesn't trigger their rights under the FCA's retaliation provision.
Thank you.
We have your argument.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Oh, that was terrible.
Mr. Mendenhall, you say five minutes for rebuttal, sir.
Thank you very much.
That was terrible.
You know, this is frequently a problem.
I can tell you that I'm going to start with the employment issue, and then I'll move on to the government's issues.
But what happens is the average whistleblower out there has no idea what keytam means.
They have no idea that there's a federal false claims act statute.
What they see is people lying to the federal government or lying in this case to a federal trial, to a clinical trial, lying to Pfizer even, lying to the FDA, lying up the chain of command and suppressing the information about those lies with this relator.
She doesn't know about the False Claims Act at this point.
She's just trying to figure out what the heck is going on here.
And she sees unblinding, which is completely wrong in a clinical trial, messes up the entire data set.
You know, she discussed all of these regulatory violations, and they're critical to running an adequate clinical trial, which is required by the emergency use authorization statute.
This trial was clearly inadequate.
That's what she's seeing.
that's what she's reporting to her bosses to the end to the fda i mean we have that she knew i mean that they knew she had reported to the fda Of course they knew.
What I would say about that is that all inferences under 12B6 should be read in favor of the relator.
There's certainly an inference when six hours after the phone call, she's marched off because of the location of her employment.
It was just a coincidence.
Just a coincidence.
There's certainly an inference there that goes to that, that something happened to require this response six hours later.
They're claiming that she had all of these other violations.
Well, guess what?
There was no disciplinary action before that day to our client.
There was no notice before that.
I think it's the night before.
There was a long meeting with a bunch of issues.
She was raising issues and they started to accuse her of things.
That was the night before she was walked off.
That's the night before she made that phone call.
So they were clearly what we would call, you know, papering the file that night saying that she had violated HIPAA.
Well, guess what?
Whistleblowers have a right to gather information.
It is not a HIPAA violation to gather that medical information when you're going to hand it over to the federal government to prove fraud.
So I'll move on.
The government really sort of made our case for us in their argument.
They just said, look, a desire to dismiss equals.
That's exactly what we're saying.
Their contention is that all they have to do is desire to dismiss it.
And that is not good cause.
And I think there was a very good point: you know, that the government actually is changing its policies as to these vaccines.
The government has recognized 10 deaths now among children.
That's just the first 10.
There are going to be hundreds more deaths in children that the government's going to recognize.
So it is coming around.
You know, so it is not feudal to have her case dismissed with the right to refile as the administration changes, as the information continues to come out, and as she continues to learn more over time, she's learning every day.
Literally, hundreds of people are coming forward now, bringing information to Brooke Jackson because they want to stop this travesty.
They want to stop these deaths in children.
Just let her have her disabilities that have occurred in this process.
We submitted documentation in there that there are millions of disabled people now due to these COVID-19 shots.
That many, many people have had myocarditis or neurological disease or otherwise.
All of that information is coming up.
So that relates to a false payment to how the government have.
Well, it sure does.
The fundamental issue was that the FDA had to provide an emergency use authorization before any payment could be released.
Pfizer had to get this data through the FDA.
Pfizer induced the FDA to give them an emergency use authorization based on fraudulent data.
That's our allegation, but the facts on the ground are really proving that up over time.
And then that released initially, it was 100 million doses for 1.9 billion.
I believe Pfizer at this point has received $30 billion in payments for the shots it's provided to this country and other countries.
So I guess that goes to another issue that I have thought about.
That's a big silence from the court.
The issue is there are these precursor activities to payment.
Just because our relator sees it early in the stream of the process, we knew already the statement of work had been issued.
Pfizer was proceeding with the clinical trial based on that statement of work that was issued.
They knew that if they got this through the FDA, they would be paid.
That was the purpose of these clinical trials, which Pfizer did finance.
Pfizer financed these trials, but in anticipation of the billions of dollars that would come after approval.
And they could not get approval, but for the fact that they hid some deaths in the trial.
They didn't properly give the data to the government.
And they hid the fact that this does not stop transmission and that there's all kinds of damage in the trial.
Thank you.
I believe we have your argument.
Richmond has anything for us.
Okay, that's why we're betting.
Thank you.
It's been a true pleasure to appear here.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you to all counsel.
And the case is submitted.
We appreciate the art.
All right, that's amazing.
Everybody, 2025.
Nobody cares about what comes next.
By the way, I found in real time actual secret footage of the lawyer for Zavadia, whatever the hell the name of the company was.
I just caught, someone sent me a link of him actually laughing.
I just found it right here.
Look at this.
That's pretty funny.
Yeah.
Back when Family Guy used to be funny.
So everyone asking where Barnes is.
A, I don't know where Barnes is.
B, when they have limited time like that, it's sometimes better not to split it among two attorneys.
You're not trying to show off to the court.
You're not trying to show off your own.
You know, there could be a number of reasons why Barnes didn't share in that time.
They only had 20 minutes plus five to split that among two attorneys.
On the one hand, you know, the judges might say, well, okay, guys, but you're just trying to get some face time.
Like, just, you know, there's no need to split this.
There could be other reasons.
You know, I could imagine potentially it might be strategically better to have someone who might be the good cop of the good cop, bad cop pair of lawyers, Mendenhall, do it entirely.
There might be less room for attack from Pfizer towards the attorney personally, that being Barnes, who's quite vocal on Twitter.
But I think logically, there was no time to split that presentation up among two counsels.
So they might have just agreed that Mendenhall does the whole thing and it makes sense.
They might also hate Barnes, but who knows?
I'm not, you know, there's that, but it also, like, you know, it might give Pfizer, it might give the government's attorney there, whatever her name was, other extracurricular means of attack on Barnes as a, as a person and as a lawyer, as opposed to the case.
But ultimately, what do they have?
25 minutes.
It's not enough.
It's not enough time to split.
And then, you know, it might confuse the judges.
They won't know who said what.
So this made a lot more sense given the amount of time they had for their respective pleadings.
Ginger Ninja in the US says, Barnes may have decided based on the personalities of the judges that Barnes would be too hot for the hot tub.
Burn my leg.
Good guy.
Wow.
Yeah.
So that was the hearing.
I've tweeted out.
I'll ask everybody to go tweet it because it's a legitimate tweet.
Why the hell is, I didn't say that.
I just said, why is Trump's, why is the Trump administration maintaining the Biden administration's dismissal of the whistleblower fraud lawsuit against Pfizer?
Does anyone have a legitimate answer?
Here's the link to the tweet.
And go share it.
Clip anything from this, by the way, guys.
Clip snip.
Whenever I said, you know, when I put up the caption clip and snip, I'm going to go back.
I screenshotted to see when the time stamps were 51 minutes, 55 minutes, an hour and seven minutes from what I recollect.
Snip it, clip it, share it.
Put it on blast.
Get this damn lawsuit reinstated.
Forget the, you know, dismissal without prejudice so they can refile.
I mean, fine, they can actually strengthen their allegations and then leave it up to this administration to dismiss the lawsuit.
But no, reinstate the damn lawsuit.
Viva, is it just me or was the state not obnoxious to the court?
Man, they sounded like a, they sounded, they sounded like a king.
They sounded like royalty.
It is good cause because I've said so.
And we, and by the way, the statute says good cause, that just means whenever the hell we want it.
And that's it.
No further questions.
Mic drop, Biach.
It's like it's like legally blonde.
They sounded like arrogant pricks.
I'd like to know who the who the who the lawyer was, not who, but who appointed that lawyer for the government.
Because we've seen in many cases now where the Bondi DOJ has pursued persecutions by the Biden DOJ, that a lot of the times the lawyers on the files remain the partisan TDS state,
▲
Export Selection