Viva & Barnes - Ep. 301: Another Minnesota Shooting? Don Lemon Innocent? SCOTUS Ruling! Injustice in Arkansas & MORE

Jan. 25, 2026 - Viva & Barnes

02:25:54

Ep. 301: Another Minnesota Shooting? Don Lemon Innocent? SCOTUS Ruling! Injustice in Arkansas & MORE

Go to my sponsor https://venice.ai/viva and use code viva to enjoy private, uncensored AI. Using my code will get you 20% off a pro plan.
[Read More]

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Strong Letter Sent 00:04:37
	Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, you are looking at Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of these United States of America, in a moment where she literally did the meme.
	Behold.
	We sent Governor Walls a very strong letter today.
	We had been working on this letter.
	We got it out saying that he better support President Trump.
	He better support the men and women in law enforcement because if he doesn't, we are.
	And that's what we're doing right now.
	Were there any consequences in this letter?
	Well, we'll see.
	This is fluid.
	Let's see how Governor Waltz responds.
	Let's see what he does based on this, based on what's happening right now.
	But this administration is going to support the citizens.
	We're going to support our great men and women in law enforcement.
	Does everybody know of the meme?
	That's what's needed is another strongly worded letter or the meme that all Republicans do or write strongly worded letters.
	They hold congressional hearings.
	They write strongly worded letters.
	Nothing happens.
	Trey Gowdy ends up on Fox News.
	They have the nice dog and pony shows of hearings and nothing ever changes.
	It's the meme.
	You know what will change things?
	Another strongly worded letter.
	While Democrats engage in decades-long lawfare, try to lock up their adversaries, persecute their adversaries, prosecute their adversaries, and then kill their adversaries.
	Republicans, well, you know, I don't advocate for breaking rules, but Republicans are going to write a strongly worded letter to Congress.
	They're going to have their oversight committees.
	They're going to come to some conclusion that it was all unlawful lawfare and nothing's going to change.
	She literally said, we wrote Tim Walz a strongly worded letter.
	We sent Governor Walls a very strong letter today.
	People listened to this and actually thought that she was joking, that she was referencing the meme when she said it.
	You know what Tim Walz' response was to her strong letter?
	A strong troll of the Jeffrey Epstein nature.
	This is going to be a fun show tonight because a lot of people out there seem to think that being MAGA, whatever that means, that if you support Trump and you must and you ought to, because if you don't, the alternative is Kamala and another four years of lawfare weaponizing all aspects of the federal government.
	But some people think it means if you support Trump, as I do, it means jumping on board with everything, never disagreeing with and never calling out the abject incompetence at best and corruption at worst when it comes to Pam Bondi.
	She came out and said the meme in respect of Minnesota, after the ongoing Epstein debacle, after the ongoing other issues, the Pfizer debacle, the Dr. Kirk Moore debacle, the First Amendment rights with Douglas Mackey debacle, Second Amendment rights now, which a lot of prominent members of the Trump administration now seem hell-bent on seemingly eviscerating.
	If you come out and criticize, they want cheerleading.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Everything's good.
	And that's what's going to win elections.
	That's what's going to get this administration back on path.
	I expect to see a little bit of hotness in the chat.
	I noticed apparently, I didn't see the video yet, but apparently the guy from Wolves and Finance must have mentioned me or at least mentioned Barnes.
	And everything is, you know, Viva by Ricochet because if someone criticizes Barnes for his mean tweets, how dare another adult who happens to respect the intelligence and integrity of men, how dare he still talk to a man that says something that pisses off the snowflakes, the people who act like lefties out there.
	Donald, Robert Barnes said something I don't like.
	I don't like Barnes' attitude these days.
	He's too negative.
	How can Viva associate with, hey, you do you.
	But I suspect, I think the guy's name is Zach.
	I saw the video that he put out the other day announcing that he had been sued.
	And I actually think I mildly assessed that in his favor to the effect that, yeah, like some of the statements that they were alleging that he made, you should have been a little bit more specific in the statements that you are accusing are defamatory.
	But I did say that adding the word allegedly after making affirmations of fraud after you get a lawyer's letter, very nice.
	Very, very nice thing for a lawyer to do.
	Well, I've been accused of defamation for affirming fraud of an organization, but it was just an opinion, which, you know, there's always that argument.
Viva And Memory Refresh 00:03:34
	It was my opinion that they've committed fraud.
	I was not making a judicial finding, but I'll go in and throw in the word allegedly afterwards and then all's good.
	I haven't seen the video.
	I think now I understand why someone sent me something at about, let me see here, when was this sent to me?
	At 552.
	And it says he's talking about Robert.
	All right, well, I'll have to go watch that video.
	Expect some fire in the chat tonight.
	It is going to be good.
	But before we even get into the show, because it's going to be a hot one, I do want to thank our sponsor for tonight's show.
	I want to bring it up.
	I want to use it.
	I want to refresh everybody's memory on a world that they seem to have forgotten, which is the world of the Michael Stricklands.
	I want to bring up Venice.ai.
	And I want to.
	Who is Michael Strickland?
	Let me refresh everybody's memory on this as we go through this.
	And I want to thank our sponsor because it's an amazing thing.
	Sam Altman, by the way, said ChatGPT will get to know you over your life.
	Everything seems to be getting a face call.
	ChatGPT has the former director of the NSA sitting on the board right now, Edward Snowden, called this a willful, calculated betrayal of the rights of everyone on earth.
	Alexa listens to you, recommends products based on your conversations.
	Meta targets us based on our browsing and engagement history.
	Why do we assume AI is going to be any different?
	Venice.ai utilizes leading open source AI models to deliver text, code, image generation to your web browsers.
	They don't spy on you or censor the AI.
	Messages are encrypted and your conversation history is stored only on your browser.
	AI can be extremely valuable, but we shouldn't need to give up our privacy in order to use it.
	They have a pro plan that unlocks the full platform and features, including PDF upload summaries.
	You can get images that are beautiful, custom.
	Let me see what it said here.
	I want to go there.
	Hold on one second.
	Oh, no, hold on.
	Is that the right one?
	Hold on a second.
	Oh, Michael Strickland here.
	That's what I wanted to say.
	Based on the search, Michael Strickland is a Metiacor.
	That's not the right one.
	Oh, hold on.
	Where's the one about the guy who brought a firearm to a protest?
	I didn't realize Michael Strickland was that common of a name.
	Michael Strickland, by the way, is a man who brought a firearm, who brandished a firearm at a protest, gained national attention after an incident of protest in July 2016.
	While recording, members of the Don't Shoot Portland Black Lives Matter were protesting police shootings.
	Strickland pulled out a Glock semi-automatic handgun and pointed it at protesters.
	According to court records, Strickland had one round in the chamber, loaded handgun, was carrying five additional magazines of ammunition at the time of the incident.
	During the confrontation, he was captured on video, sweeping the gun across the crowd, yelling, get the hell back.
	We covered that story at the time.
	We're going to get into it in a little bit more.
	But by the way, go to venice.ai forward slash viva.
	Forward slash viva.
	The code Viva will get you 20% off the pro plan and you can get, don't let AI substitute your brain for you, but it can certainly refresh your memory when you covered things five, six, seven years ago that are going to be extremely salient for tonight's discussion.
	The link is in the description.
	Venice.ai.
	Thank you to our sponsor for having the courage and the good sense to sponsor Viva and Barnes, Law for the People.
	Robert Barnes, come in and take some flack.
	I got to go see what Zach.
	I don't know that Robert even has seen the video of what Zach must have said about him, but I want to know what Zach said in his video.
Letter Demand Analysis 00:02:56
	The Wolves in Finance guy, that was the one who did some analysis of TPUSA.
	I remember Robert at the time saying, guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
	He's making a bunch of wild claims, doesn't understand the corporate structure of the TPUSA.
	various not-for-profit and for-profit entities, doesn't understand that in the year of an election, it's going to make a lot more sense if they take in a lot more money.
	And apparently, and again, from a pure Streisand effect perspective, I'm not sure that I think it's the wisest course of action to sue for defamation or at least to send letters of demand.
	But apparently he got a letter of demand from TPUSA saying you better retract some of your defamatory statements.
	The letter from TPUSA did not include the actual verbatim statements, which I think is obviously a problem because you got to know what you're being accused of having said that's defamatory.
	But, sorry, some of the headers of the videos, even Zach admitted, yeah, okay, fine.
	I'll go back and put in the word allegedly when claiming fraud.
	And other interesting information came up.
	Robert, did you see the letter of demand?
	I think you saw that.
	You saw his breakdown of the letter of demand that TPUSA.
	I should see the video.
	I saw the letter because I thought he was, in fact, libeling him.
	And his undue self-confidence was indeed undue in whether he would face consequences.
	I think he thought he would just get the benefits of libel without the consequences of libel, that he could get all the clickbait support that he could seek out from there.
	But people have asked me to watch the video.
	I haven't watched it yet.
	I don't want to really go down into that guy's, the guy, I caught him lying about a half dozen times.
	I was like, I'm not going to spend much more time on this loser trying to make himself big by making up stuff about turning point.
	My inclination is not to be too inclined.
	So this is a new video.
	It's called Turning Point Fraud.
	Oh, yeah, apparently out of control.
	He's going to get a moment over and again and all that.
	Did he mention?
	Someone said it to me.
	It's like, hey, Barn, can you respond to it?
	I was like, the loser wants that.
	He's got minimal traction and he's trying to ride the crazy, kooky Candace Queen ride to clickbait fame.
	And so I get it, but he's not someone I can take seriously because his accounting analysis is garbage.
	His tax analysis is garbage.
	His legal analysis is garbage.
	And it's quite obvious what he's trying to do.
	So trying to create a bunch of storm like Candace.
	People are seeing Candace and like, look at that.
	She went up to like a million of you and so forth.
	And you're going to find a bunch of people trying to imitate it and replicate it just to get clickbait fame in this social media world that we're driven by.
	One of the elements in the letter of demand that they sent him that, you know, everyone's like, oh, it's interesting.
	They confirm TPUSA that they had a drone that they were allowed to fly over the scene for B-roll, which is like, you know, before the event, but that they couldn't fly the drone over the event during the event.
	Isn't that suspicious?
Drone Mystery 00:05:03
	Like, first of all, no, I mean, whether or not the security team should have insisted on having a drone or doing the drone to do their own security.
	B-roll before the event is different than security during the event.
	But it does confirm to me, you know, A, I said this online.
	None of this makes any sense because if you're saying it's weird that they didn't have the drone during the event, but it also wasn't Tyler Robinson who fired the shot, those two things sort of don't make sense.
	They didn't have a drone, but Tyler didn't fire the shot.
	Well, then why wouldn't they have had a drone if Tyler Robinson wasn't going to be the one to take the shot, unless it was to not show that Tyler Robinson wasn't the one who fired the shot?
	But the bottom line, and I think everyone's sort of looking it over, and it's the discussion I had with Barris last week.
	There was obviously a problem in terms of the security.
	And then the question is whether or not activist entities within campus security allowed for this breach to occur so that, you know, anyone who was on that Discord chat knew of this attack was going to happen, leave the opening open.
	What's fascinating is that, you know, Candace and the rest of them don't want to pursue that at all.
	They don't want to pursue why did the university mislead them about how they would secure that rooftop and told them that they would secure it and that was their role.
	Why didn't they secure it?
	What happened that they didn't secure it?
	Why did they tell them they would secure it?
	Why is it that all the Ian Carrolls of the world have no questions about that?
	They have questions about everything else, but somehow none about that.
	Which suggests that maybe they're not engaged in a good faith inquiry as to what happened.
	They just want to smear the legacy of Charlie Kirk and Turning Point.
	That's what it appears to me.
	In aim of their obsessive anti-Israel cause.
	And I get being skeptical of Israel.
	I'm skeptical of Israel these days.
	But that doesn't explain all this nonsense that they keep pursuing.
	So I just don't take them all that seriously, to be honest.
	No, no, it bothers me where when Richard was having what some people thought was a meltdown, I was like, if they forgot.
	He's often talking to a specific small group.
	When he uses his X feed, about two-thirds of the time, he's not talking to the broad audience.
	He's talking to very select people that, and he's been trying to tell them, for example, what, you know, he was commissioned along with Mark Mitchell and a bunch of others to commission what was happening on public opinion on immigration enforcement.
	And you gave him a lot of advice that Christy Noam has refused to follow and that created this nightmare situation this past weekend.
	And it frustrates.
	And so you'll see him often make people get frustrated.
	They'll be like, what's the context for Barris's quote?
	He's not looking for you.
	He's not talking to you.
	He's talking to a very specific subset of people that follow him on X as a way of letting them know what he knows.
	And he was frustrated that Kash Patel had effectively shut down all investigation concerning anything about what the university did, concerning anything about what Trantifa did, concerning anything about the funding for it, concerning anything about whether any government agents nudging them along in this activity or a government program complicit in it at any level.
	Kash Patel has shut it all down.
	And his excuse has been, oh, it would interfere in the state prosecution.
	No, it would.
	So the, and it's bogus.
	And, you know, when Barris found that out, he went public in his own way with it to make sure that those people knew that he knew what they had done and why they had done it.
	And that was bogus.
	And that they're, you know, the facilitating the cover-up of the murder of Charlie Kirk by how they are approaching exploring various investigative leads that they have chosen to shut down instead, including shutting down Joe Kent and Tulsi Gabbard, Office of Director of National Intelligence, Deputy Director of National Intelligence from doing their investigation as to whether or not there's global networks applicable here.
	But yeah, people always get frustrated because on X, about half the time, Barris isn't talking to you, the audience.
	He has a very specific, limited audience that he has in mind.
	And they know what he's saying.
	And that's his, and that's why it'll be couched and coached and couched in a certain way that you don't know what it is.
	It's intended for a limited audience.
	If it turns out, in fact, that the investigation into a broader conspiracy, who was on those Discords, is not being investigated, or is not being fully looked into because the fear is that it might create reasonable doubt as to whether or not it was Tyler on that roof or whatever.
	It's inconceivable to me.
	And I was trying to find the posts that indicated people had definitive advanced knowledge of something that was going to go down at the campus before Charlie Kirk got there.
	There were multiple people on that Discord chat.
	People say, well, those text messages are fake and manufactured, whatever.
	Operate on the basis that they are real, even if you disagree with them.
	That the FBI says, you know, I don't believe anything the FBI says, so I won't even believe like, you know, black and white stuff.
	Set that aside.
	If those text messages, as per the FBI, are real, that indicates advanced knowledge of at least one other person and maybe more.
Confusing Prosecution Theory 00:03:26
	Where the hell is Triggs, Twiggs?
	And if they're not looking into a broader conspiracy out of fear of confusing the prosecution, and it's a strategic decision, so they can at least eke out a guaranteed conviction of one individual.
	That's in and of itself a conspiracy that you could easily imagine based on the premises that the FBI itself are putting out there and seemingly, apparently, what Rich is indicating.
	So it's terrible.
	I know we'll see where it goes, and the trial should be definitively public, but we'll continue following it.
	Robert, we haven't pissed off enough people just yet.
	Let's get into it.
	So what's on the menu for tonight, Robert?
	Yeah, I got at least three that I'm going to tick off a lot of people about.
	But the only thing I am always 100% loyal to is the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights and our founding.
	Someone said, oh, Barnes is going to say how it's okay for the commies to take over.
	Only way the commies take over is if we sacrifice fighting for the Constitution of this country and if we give up the Bill of Rights to this country.
	That's when the commies have won.
	But tonight we have the ICE shooting in Minneapolis.
	We have the ICE authorizing raids of people's homes without a warrant.
	We have Don Le Mon, charges denied by a federal judge.
	Might the federal judge have been right about the law, given what minimal facts were alleged by the prosecution.
	In SCOTUS, we've got the state rules about whether or not, remember that Med Mao case we talked about, about, you know, if you could, could you file in federal court and circumvent all these crazy rules they have to prohibit state suits in state courts on med mao grounds?
	The court made a decision on that.
	Is restitution criminal punishment?
	This was a case we previously discussed.
	It now has a unanimous opinion.
	SCOTUS with a time deadline for void cases.
	Does it apply if there's an argument that it's void?
	The oral argument this past week on the Second Amendment Hawaii case and on Trump's firing of Lisa Cook, the Federal Reserve governor.
	Then we've got an up-and-coming Second Amendment case coming through the Fifth Circuit about what kind of signs a owner has to put out in order to prohibit people from carrying on that property.
	This mostly is like restaurants and stores and places like that.
	Trump versus J.P. Morgan.
	Trump sues J.P. Morgan Chase in Florida.
	Games of Chance was a debate, a particular legal issue.
	Target was giving you, you thought you were getting products to help with acne.
	Instead, you're getting things that cause cancer.
	Target now subject to a class action suit on that.
	And a big win in Tennessee against Bayern, the big pesticide companies that were trying to sneak in special immunity in the state of Tennessee with so-called Maha Republicans pushing it through.
	There was a big show of a force, you might say, of people publicly participating, emailing, phone, sending letters, making phone calls.
	And we were present at the hearing.
	And apparently it was inspiring enough that they suddenly decided to pull back that bill.
	But we'll get into that and answering your questions live.
	I've been responding to people who say, don't read the chat, Viva.
	I always read the chats and I can multitask like nobody else on earth.
Pink Person Controversy 00:04:57
	I did like somebody came earlier.
	It's like, you know, I'm kind of blackpilled about what's going on.
	I'm just going to focus on the local level, city council, and making sure I can blackmail my local sheriff.
	I didn't expect that last phrase.
	Well, we're going to throw in the Arkansas case, speaking of blackmailing the local sheriff or at least something involving the local sheriff.
	Robert, let's start with the one that is going to be most controversial.
	I think I might disagree with you or at least challenge you twice, if not three times tonight.
	But there's certain underlying things that we can agree on, even if I am skeptical of your interpretation of the events in Minnesota over the weekend.
	One thing nobody should really undermine or downplay is the, you know, there's one screen, two films, but then they are saying things that when the facts come out, and there, there is gray zone or there's room to argue as to whether or not this is a justified shooting in Minnesota or not.
	But after the Rene Good one, and I'll take this out for a second, after the Renee Good shooting, when DHS issued its statement as to what happened, and then, you know, the flip side left is a different narrative altogether.
	And the reality was, I would say, safely somewhere in the middle in terms of what actually happened.
	It didn't, you know, I was reluctant to come to one conclusion or another, but Renee Goode, I say that that shooting was unfortunate but justified.
	But the way DHS, DHS described that event in their official release was of another planet in terms of its descriptiveness of what actually happened versus what we could all see with our own eyes.
	Christy Noam came out.
	I don't know when she gets it to it.
	I'm going to play this.
	Her description of what happened, and then we all get to see the videos at some point in time.
	We'll get to see more videos because there are some questions that need answering.
	This is what she had to say about it.
	The individual approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a nine millimeter semi-automatic handgun.
	The officers attempted to disarm this individual, but the armed suspect reacted violently.
	Fearing for his life and for the lives of his fellow officers around him, an agent fired defensive shots.
	Medics were on the scene.
	We'll pause it there.
	I mean, I've seen the videos and I'm not yet, I think I know, I'm definitely more inclined to say if you're concealed carrying and getting into a kerfuffle with police, you're entering a game of life or death and you might not like the consequences.
	That she says a man armed with a nine millimeter approached police officers before you see the video.
	I mean, because I guess semantically it might be correct.
	He was armed with it.
	It was on his persons and he was engaging with or approaching.
	The way she described it sounded like an outright assassination attempt.
	When you see the video, you might still think the guy got what he deserved, you know, fucked around and found out.
	But there's nobody on earth, I think, that can listen to that description and say that, oh, after having seen the video, that description is accurate.
	And when that happens, when Stephen Miller comes out and says what he says, he might not have known because everybody's reacting quickly.
	They see some tweets.
	They see some people that they trust and then they repeat.
	That makes it very difficult to believe the words that then come out of their mouths afterwards.
	We've all seen the video right now, and we've seen all of it, multiple angles.
	I don't think we've seen body cam yet.
	I'm not sure.
	I believe we've seen the video that came from the pink person on the other side.
	There was a person in a pink jacket.
	It was like, I want to see that camera.
	And now we've seen it.
	And everybody knows the broad facts is that an individual who was concealed carry, his name is Pretty.
	And yes, I mean, the irony of the names of the two victims now is, I mean, you know, I had thought of it and I just didn't make the joke, the joke publicly, but I know there's people out there who are more callous that are going to because his name is Pretty and the other woman's name was good.
	And, you know, the script writes itself.
	He was there documenting.
	He had a camera.
	He came with a concealed carry for which he allegedly had a permit.
	There's a matter-of-fact dispute as to whether or not he was carrying ID on him at the time, which would make it unlawful to carry it.
	That wouldn't say that he got what he deserved afterwards, but if he was carrying it unlawfully because he didn't have the requisite permit ID that he needed to carry with him while concealed carry, that's a relevant fact, but not necessarily for the assessment of the lawfulness of the shooting.
	He's documenting a kerfuffle ensues and he gets shoved to the ground.
	And then the question is whether or not he's resisting arrest.
	And then the question is, he gets disarmed, that he had a gun in a holster in his back.
	It looks like a police officer removes the firearm.
	And then it looks like by all accounts as of now that this gun, a SIG, which has a notorious reputation for accidentally discharging, apparently seems to discharge in the hands of the police officer who just took it away out of his holster.
	And within a second and a half, the man is being shot by multiple agents who, you know, apparently they heard gun when the guy found the gun and then they hear a shot go off.
	They don't know where the shot comes from, and then they unload on this guy and he's dead.
	You're taking a hard position that this is an unjustified, lawless or unlawful killing, and you're taking a lot of shit for it.
	Now, I think I've done, I've, what's the word?
Supremacy Clause Defense 00:09:08
	I've not filibustered enough, but that's the broader context.
	If I've left out any relevant facts for your analysis, Robert, please add them.
	Take it away.
	Yeah, so the first thing is the legal analysis, and I see a lot of misapplication.
	I see people citing excessive use of force standards.
	Those standards are not necessarily applicable.
	So I see people quoting qualified immunity.
	Even a former federal prosecutor was doing this.
	He was saying, oh, this is decided by the executive branch.
	It's a qualified immunity issue.
	Completely wrong.
	Completely wrong.
	So when a state law enforcement officer or when a federal law enforcement officer engages in an alleged criminal conduct within a state, the state has its own, under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, its own jurisdiction and authority to prosecute if they believe there's probable cause and they believe they can prove to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of a crime in that state.
	Now, because if they are a federal officer, they have a, the defense they have is not the qualified immunity defense.
	It's not even the excessive use of force defense, which most of that is tied up to the qualified immunity defense.
	Instead, what they have is the supremacy clause defense.
	So this is the part of the Constitution that says the Constitution and federal law is the supreme law of the land.
	And in that capacity, the Supreme Court has extended it.
	The first time they did so is in 1890.
	Now, interestingly enough, it was a favorable case for the federal officer as a deputy U.S. Marshal, because guess who he was defending when he shot somebody?
	A Supreme Court justice.
	So you can imagine the Supreme Court was like, yeah, we think that was just fine.
	We don't got any problem with that.
	So that was the first application of the supremacy clause.
	But what they required was that you had to prove as a federal law enforcement officer that, or any federal officer.
	Remember, this came up.
	We discussed this in the case of the January 6th cases where Mark Meadows sought removal on grounds that what he did was within his duties as a federal officer.
	So that's the capacity context in which this arises.
	The last big case that this arose in was the Ruby Ridge case.
	This was the FBI sniper who shot Weaver's wife and murdered her in live time.
	I believe while she was holding her baby, by the way.
	Yeah, I just had someone on, and I want to say it was Kyle Seraphin, but I'm not sure.
	It was someone who actually believed that he didn't target her, but he shot and there was movement from the trigger to the contact that it was an actual accidental killing.
	But yeah, they shot her.
	Sniper's defense.
	But it went all the way up to the Ninth Circuit on Bank decision.
	And so we have some law from there.
	It's not a ton of law because there's not a lot of circumstances.
	But going way back, this issue started in the early 1800s.
	So you had people who didn't like the embargo to support the War of 1812 in the Northeast.
	So they started arresting federal customs officers.
	Like, screw you, pal.
	The whiskey tax rebellion where they decided to lock up some revenuers.
	The next line of dispute came with moon between moonshiners and revenuers in the late 19th, early 20th century.
	People affiliate that with prohibition.
	It wasn't actually with prohibition.
	It was taxing whiskey.
	And moonshiners didn't like being taxed, period.
	They didn't like the revenuers coming in.
	And so they got into all kinds of brawls and fights and whatnot.
	And often that led to state charges of the federal agent.
	Did they violate state law in the way in which they did this raid?
	Or there were shootouts, all kinds of things.
	But a lot of those cases never reached the Supreme Court, but you have a range of adjudications in those cases.
	So it's not unheard of or uncommon in that sense historically, but it's just relatively rare in the modern era that you have this kind of issue percolate up.
	So the supremacy clause immunity requires that what you're, and remember, it's about protecting the supremacy clause, not anything else.
	So it's about could the officer enforce federal law and was what he was doing necessary, even if it violated or the state claims it violated state law, was it necessary to enforce a federal law?
	And they ultimately reduced that to a couple of key factors.
	One is, was it, were they acting within the scope of their employment?
	Second, and in that capacity, was their motivation their employment?
	So even if they did it while employed, did they have some ulterior motive?
	You know, were they in the yeah, was it like a federal law enforcement officer that decides he doesn't like his neighbor and shoots the neighbor's dog, but says, hey, I did it while I was a federal law enforcement officer?
	He doesn't have immunity because they say that's not within his scope of employment.
	Or even if it were, his purpose was not to enforce federal law.
	So that's the first part.
	The second analysis is a combination of subjective and objective test.
	Did the officer have a good faith belief that what he was doing was lawful and necessary to execute federal law?
	And the second part, was it objectively reasonable?
	So even if he thought it was, would an objectively reasonable officer think it was?
	And so the belief must be necessary to fulfill their duties.
	That's what the belief has to be.
	Now you have additional issues here with how the government chose to respond, excluding local state government from the scene, not providing evidence led to a federal lawsuit.
	A court has already issued an injunction, requiring the feds to keep the evidence so that the state can access it.
	But some of the evidence may not have been preserved, which that will create a separate issue under state criminal law.
	Was that necessary as part of federal law enforcement duties to withhold evidence or access to the scene from state law enforcement who had a court order, including a search warrant, to do so?
	Oh, yeah.
	So as to the use of deadly force, here's what they have said.
	They have said only in case of an imminent threat and that the response has to be proportionate in the context of the supremacy clause analysis.
	So again, I see all these people applying excessive use of force.
	That might come in, but it doesn't have to come in because that's a civil analysis done for qualified immunity purposes that's not applicable here.
	This is about do the officers involved and anybody who was involved in withholding evidence, do they have a supremacy clause defense?
	Now, procedurally, what happens in these kind of cases, let's say the state brings prosecution in state court, you can then remove it to federal court.
	Remember, Trump tried to do this, and the judge presiding over the Maduro case refused, I think, incorrectly.
	But that's a reminder to people.
	There have been plenty of times where they have refused to recognize the supremacy clause defense.
	And I see people just assuming it will apply.
	It's not the case at all.
	That assumption is unsafe and unsound.
	So now he would have an additional defense under Minnesota state law of self-defense, which is a different line of defense.
	This goes back to the Chauvin case, what was a necessary, reasonable use of force in that context, for which there's some, you know, here's where I don't, you know, Andrew Branco's done an analysis.
	And, you know, Bronca generally, Bronca thinks the shooting of Ashley Babbitt was a clean, good shooting.
	I do not.
	God bless him.
	But when suddenly they put a badge on or a military uniform on, Andrew seems to always find self-defense.
	Whereas if you took the badge off, he would often say, that wasn't self-defense.
	You provoked it.
	That wasn't proportionate.
	The risk wasn't imminent.
	And so on and so forth.
	So keep that in mind and broader.
	Will a now the way this works, I think in the Eighth Circuit, most of the circuits are in agreement, that any factual dispute concerning the supremacy clause gets decided first by the court rather than the jury.
	There's some dispute about this in the law.
	There's others that say, look, you do qualified immunity.
	You submit any factual dispute to the jury.
	Doesn't the Seventh Amendment right to jury trial require that?
	The courts have generally said no.
	They've said no, that the court should provide a gatekeeping role to preclude any case to go to trial if the facts are determined in support of the supremacy clause defense.
	So the federal district court judge in a case like this would first analyze, assuming the case was prosecuted, assuming it was then removed to federal court, would first analysis they would do is they would hold an evidentiary hearing.
	So like what happened in the Ruby Ridge case is the sniper had a bunch of excuses for why he did what he did.
	He claimed that there was an imminent risk to an FBI helicopter, that he was actually aiming at somebody else and didn't realize he hit her, so on and so forth.
	As the Ninth Circuit on Bonk decision pointed out, there was a lot of reasons to doubt the sniper's testimony.
	I think he ended up involved also somehow at Waco.
	I'm not sure.
Sniper Excuses Questioned 00:06:13
	I think I'm recalling that right.
	The same guy ends up involved in Waco.
	It's like, my goodness.
	It's like they send this guy in to do crazy stuff.
	But there were serious facts in dispute about what that sniper did.
	I believe Jerry Spence helped with the Weaver family, and I thought he got a good civil outcome on the civil case side.
	But so what they decided was the court failed to do a full evidentiary hearing.
	Yeah, this is the guy.
	Lon Tom Hisa Hiriuchi, he had a sniper, former U.S. states officer who was involved in the 1992 standoff and 1993 Waco siege.
	And then amazing.
	What a gift.
	They bring this guy in, and all of a sudden people get killed.
	That's the only guarantee where this guy showed up.
	Yeah, it was, it was, and his, his, he also, by the way, his story changed.
	What really happened, by the way, what came out was they had created their own little rules of engagement, which allowed them to shoot people on site.
	We're seeing evidence, by the way, that some aspects of ICE, unfortunately, are behaving this way because they're giving bad, they're being given bad information and intel about this and a range of, they're being told that filming them is illegal.
	Now their FBI director is out there saying filming is illegal, carrying a gun to a protest is illegal.
	This is completely false legal information by our own counterfeit cash, who's really living up to that nickname.
	And, you know, Christy Noam's out there making false statements and other people, false, an assistant prosecutor of the Central District of California was saying, hey, if you go to a protest with a gun, you basically got it coming.
	I mean, insane statements.
	And then I see Second Amendment advocates quickly abandon the Second Amendment the moment it serves and serves the purposes of some other political.
	Let me bring this up because it is wild.
	And again, we're going to get into the nitty-gritty of the actual shooting, but Kash Patel was out there.
	I brought it up here.
	I brought up Christy Noam.
	Kash Patel is now basically saying you don't.
	Now, some people are saying it's a riot and not a protest.
	And I appreciate, you know, we're going to have a semantics debate as to whether or not it's a riot or a protest.
	And at what point, you're not.
	Kyle Rittenhouse carried AR-15.
	Well, that was going to be a protest or a riot.
	And I defended him, and proudly so.
	Well, I'm not going to reverse my positions now because it suits the interest of a particular politician or party.
	And seeing these people abandon their Second Amendment beliefs to support it.
	If this was a Biden administration person who said this, the entire right wing would be enraged and inflamed right now.
	Well, but if you're saying, what?
	The Biden says you can't bring a gun to a protest.
	Well, this is this is a second amendment attack.
	But because it's counterfeit cash, they keep their mouth shut or they play along.
	Here, let's hear it.
	But as Secretary Noam said, no one who wants to be peaceful shows up at a protest with a firearm that is loaded with two full magazines.
	That is not a peaceful protest, and you do not get to touch law enforcement.
	You do that anywhere.
	This FBI is going to be following the leading the charge.
	I'm going to pause it just to say, even the Fox News host, I forget her name on the left.
	You'll see, even she's skeptical about Bartaroma.
	Even she's skeptical.
	Arrests those.
	But how was he threatening Border Patrol?
	You've collected the evidence, you said, right?
	You have the handgun in your possession.
	That's right.
	And how was he using that handgun in terms of threatening border patrol?
	What was the threat?
	He had his camera, right?
	He was filming it.
	That's something that I let the DHS and the prosecutors, because they are the ones investigating that case.
	I don't want to stylize that evidence, but I trust the men and women on the ground who are trained professionals to only use it when it's absolutely necessary.
	And I trust Secretary Noam's leadership and DHS and HSI to do the right thing as they've always done in these scenarios.
	I'll pause it there and we can end it.
	But I want to remind everybody that, you know, Kyle Rittenhouse.
	Now, people are going to say that was not a concealed carry.
	So it's a little bit different circumstance.
	And set that aside.
	Michael Strickland, the man that you defend, you defended him, Robert, right?
	You took him up to the Court of Appeals after he was railroaded.
	This is a guy who brought a concealed carry to a protest when he was documenting, pulled it out only because he was being stalked and harassed by a group of protesters.
	So again, the situation is a little bit different.
	Brought a gun, brandished it for the purposes of self-defense, did everything right we covered at the time, pointed it down, said, get away from me, stay the hell away, walked off and got off freely.
	Otherwise, he would have been beaten either, you know, savagely or to death.
	He got prosecuted.
	He got convicted.
	He got his conviction was upheld at the Court of Appeal.
	And at the time, I remembered everyone's saying this is an outrage.
	The man has, you know, not just the God-given right under the Constitution and under natural law to bring something to protect himself.
	And now some, it seems, I appreciate the circumstances are different, intent is different, and this guy is going to frustrate or interfere with federal law enforcement operations.
	That's going to be an assessment of the facts at issue, not the underlying principle that now all of a sudden you can't bring a loaded firearm as protection like Rittenhouse did, like Strickland did, like we were all outraged when someone said, cross state lines.
	You can't cross state lines with a gun.
	But it's the facts of the issue, Robert, like Maria was getting at.
	You know, I can be sympathetic that you don't need to pull the gun out to be intimidating police officers.
	And if you're resisting arrest and getting into kerfuffles and intervening with active police operations or ICE operations, and you know that you have a firearm on your body, you're entering into very dangerous territory.
	And things happen within two seconds.
	And whether or not people are giving you flack, Robert, because you know, we say, you said when you slow-mo this down, you see them take the gun out of his back.
	They don't know that he has only one gun on him.
	They just know that there is at least one gun on him.
	Then the gun goes off, seemingly in the officer's hand, because SIG has this nasty problem.
	And then it's a second and a half later that they fire into this guy.
	And the question is going to be whether or not that was a reasonable response under the circumstances, not in slow motion.
	So, I mean, I guess go for it.
	Oh, yeah.
	So, if we'll look at the broader political context of this first as to this being a very foreseeable problem and whether the people pursuing it, actually pursuing this particular confrontational approach, actually want to sucker you out there into believing it's to restrict immigration when, in fact, it's meant to gut immigration enforcement because that's what's coming.
South Park's Political Theater 00:11:42
	That's what's coming.
	So, everybody out there seal clapping about this, you're seal clapping the end of immigration, meaningful immigration enforcement in this country, because that's what's going to happen.
	Because this was Christy Noam, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, when she's not busy banging people who aren't her husband, who are married to other people with wives, and then giving those wives sweetheart contracts to keep the, because she treats her position as a cash register, kind of like paper play Pam Bondi does at the Justice Department.
	They have conspired to create this nightmare reality against the advice of Tom Homan, against the advice of high-ranking immigration officials.
	So they told him that the effective way to deal with illegal immigration in this country, one, is secure the border so that it stops coming in.
	Second, is to target dangerous criminals in jurisdictions where they have local law enforcement support.
	They were not for going gung-ho into places that are completely hostile, that have no local law enforcement support.
	Third, target the money sources.
	If you're serious about illegal immigration, you cut off the money.
	Doing this is going to get you nowhere.
	You're going to spend 25, 30 people to get one guy for a whole day?
	How many people you're going to think you're going to deport doing it that way?
	And let me stop you on this because this is where I think we definitely agree in that Kash Patel came out recently and said, look, we've got to follow the money.
	These organizations are funding this.
	And as if none of us already knew that for the last decade, seemingly hasn't done that.
	The issue is, and I say like, you know, forget the righteousness if you think it's lawful or not.
	Let's just assume we even think it's lawful.
	The optics of this are going to make it more difficult for Trump to accomplish the mission.
	It's going to be even much, much worse than that.
	No, who's the guy?
	Schlichtler that you fight, you fight with occasionally on Twitter?
	I don't know.
	Kurt Schlichtler?
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Or Schlichtman.
	And he says, you know, it's a testosterone check for Republicans.
	Like, it's not a test.
	Good.
	You've got high T.
	The question is whether or not this is going to make public opinion.
	High test trials.
	Well, no, the question is.
	He comes across as a big talking little pussy who likes war as an excuse for his lack of true masculinity, in my opinion.
	Anybody who sees this and celebrates it is a disturbed individual, pure and simple.
	Even if you think it was a justified shoot, you're disturbed.
	I'm sorry.
	To want to see this kind of thing happen.
	I thought the good shooting was justified.
	Doesn't mean I want it to happen or cheerlet it.
	And I see these people putting up memes as if it's funny and cool.
	Well, you're destroying your cause, friends.
	That's what you're doing in rapid fire.
	That's the reality is that even if it turns out to be justified, as I begrudgingly accepted that the Rene Goode shooting was legally justified, it makes it going to make it impossible for people in the middle to support this just because of the optics.
	It's going to make it more difficult come midterms time.
	And so if what you want is to get the government this week, because the Democrats now have their excuse to not.
	Well, that was the other thing is now Democrats, and this is people think like, oh, you're absolving the Democrat.
	No, Tim Walz is actively inciting people to go frustrate ICE federal law enforcement.
	And I don't know how there haven't been sanctions for that.
	Jacob Fry effectively saying, I'm not going to limit where they can protest because the First Amendment has no right.
	Is knowingly allowing idiots to organize themselves to get into trouble's way.
	He's not going to be the one with a bullet in his back.
	And so he'll just now weaponize the death and say, and now Chuck Schumer, the scumbag of all scumbags, comes up to the old dude.
	Now I can no longer vote in support of the government bill and McGunnish.
	All right.
	So congrats.
	Testosterone levels check out.
	But strategy-wise, it's totally counterproductive.
	But get to how you think this is not justified in terms of the way things went down in terms of the reasonable expectations of law enforcement under similar circumstances.
	Well, so the first part of this, just sort of broadly on the politics and the context of this, is that this was something that the career officers had warned Noam about, that the Border Patrol is not equipped to do crowd control.
	They had objected to this idea from the get-go.
	They're like, this is not what our agents are trained to do.
	This is not what they have a lot of experience in.
	You're sending us into hostile places with unsupported local police places where there's organized protests.
	You're doing nothing, nothing to stop the money train for these protests from the Soros connected entities.
	Instead, you're shutting down investigations, even in the Charlie Kirk murder, that could lead to Trantifa ties across the nation.
	So you're walking our officers into a trap and don't do it.
	And Chrissy Noam didn't care because she likes the PR of it.
	Now, the ulterior, more cynical perspective is, let's say your key people, corporate donors in the Trump admin, do not want illegal immigrants to be mass deported because they like the private financial benefits that they get, the profits and enrichment they get.
	A whole bunch of NGOs, including as Richard Barris was pointing out, these NGOs have Republican donors too.
	Republican, this is what Elon Musk pointed out, why they shut down Doge.
	So the backdrop for all of this is you've got officers put in an impossible position for things they are not skilled to do, that they are not trained to do, that they are not equipped to do, walking into trap after trap after trap.
	And then on top of that, they're giving them bad advice.
	They're telling them they don't need judicial warrants to arrest.
	They don't need judicial warrants to raid people's homes.
	And they're telling them it's illegal if somebody shows up with a phone camera because they're on tape saying, now you're going in on a special domestic terrorist lafa if you film us.
	That is a First Amendment protected right.
	I have been, you had Kash Patel repeating, suggesting somehow that was illegal in his Fox News interview to just be having a camera with him.
	I litigated that 25 years ago.
	It started litigating that issue.
	And finally, the court started accepting it across the country, which is that, yes, your First Amendment right of expression, association, and press includes, and petitioning the government for redress of grievance, includes the right to tape the government and the cops when they're out there doing these kind of activities.
	There's certain limited circumstances where you can restrain access, but you can't, there's nothing illegal about that.
	But ICE officers have been lied to.
	Not only that, they give them a secret memo that they said keep hush-hush because it contradicts their own written instructions to these agents.
	They're being given written memos that say, oh, you can raid a house without a warrant.
	You don't need that.
	Not only can you arrest without a warrant, you can raid houses without.
	There's already about a half dozen cases across the country, but they raided the wrong house.
	There's over 2,300 cases, cases where they arrested the wrong person because this happens when you do it in this way.
	And this is why the career people beg Christy Noam, do not do it this way.
	This is what will happen.
	And instead, they have been doing everything possible to facilitate and enable this conflict.
	They knew Minneapolis was losing their mind after the good case.
	And what do they do?
	They double down and they tell them to be even more aggressive.
	So, I mean, I understand why the agents lost it, but I'll explain why I think they lost it here.
	But they are put in an impossible position by Christy Noam's incompetence.
	Well, so let me ask you this.
	I mean, I appreciate that.
	I don't know why they would disregard Holman's advice.
	Things were going very well when Holman.
	I mean, he had Rogan's support at the time, you know, go after the criminals, go after the specific areas where there are illegals.
	Someone in the chat was joking, why aren't they going after Tyson Foods if they're looking for illegals?
	The question I had to the big corporations, or the big, big construction companies or any of the others.
	They're just not doing it.
	And it's not because Tom Holman hasn't requested it, it's not because the career agents haven't requested it.
	This is what they know how to do.
	They know how to raid a facility to get people.
	That's what they're good at, protecting the border.
	That's what they're good at.
	They should never, ever have been put into this position doing crowd control in the Twin Cities that right now is blowing its top.
	It was already about to blow its top and you knew it.
	And then you encourage them to be more aggressive and more provocative.
	And so I have no doubt when they'll dig in, they'll find this officer was given bad information about what he could and couldn't do.
	So the, I mean, there you have the FBI director suggesting that if somebody shows up with a gun, somebody shows up with a camera, that's illegal.
	And maybe now you can murder them.
	I mean, it's insanity.
	Let me ask you this.
	So, and it's the question I asked Stuart Rhodes when I was on, and he was laying out the roadmap for bringing in, invoking the Insurrection Act.
	But my argument was: people say, oh, so we just let them win.
	You're not going to deport illegals anymore.
	It's like, no, first of all, you could do it.
	Set up a proper perimeter, have a proper cordon.
	Don't have the ICE officers doing crowd control.
	And, you know, maybe you won't get the cooperation of Walls or Jacob Fry, but you're going to plan around the fact that they are knowingly going to have agitators in there, facilitate the agitators, go after the money source.
	But why not invoke the Insurrection Act, come in with the National Guard, and set up proper perimeters when you're doing this?
	Well, you could to a degree.
	The thing is, why escalate this at this point?
	In other words, there's easier ways to go after illegal immigration, much more successful, effective ways than to be going into liberal democratic cities and creating all kinds of, I mean, it's theater at this point.
	I mean, how many people are you going to deport?
	Well, are you going to arrest five people in a day?
	Congrats.
	That's really going to get a real dent into the 20 million plus.
	And also, you can't get them deported because of the activist judges who have not yet been impeached at any level.
	Because they're doing things in wrong ways.
	They're arresting the wrong people.
	I mean, because it's so slop, this is not the way to go about it.
	This is designed to be theater, not designed to be illegal immigration enforcement.
	It is not an immigration policy.
	It is a political theater policy.
	And now, and it's what Richard Barris and Mark Mitchell did-detailed surveys, focus groups, et cetera.
	And they haven't disclosed the full details because it was privately commissioned.
	But the, well, I'm aware of what they did because Barris was the one telling me about it when we went up to Washington, D.C. Say, we've got to get them to shift because these tactics, this political theater tactics of having masked men with guns and military fatigues show up in rando neighborhoods, grabbing people out of their homes, is backfiring politically.
	Whatever you think about the policy is a policy.
	Politically, it was a disaster.
	It was turning a 60-40 issue into a 40-60 issue.
	What do I mean by that?
	More than 60% of the country, when Trump was elected, favored the deportation of all illegals present in the country, especially prioritizing criminals and others, but not limited to those.
	However, the methods they were choosing of political theater had reduced that support to 40% or less as to their methods.
	Right now, a majority or plurality of the country wants ICE to be eliminated, eliminated as an agency.
	This was guaranteed to be the outcome of this political theater by incompetent Christy Noam.
	So, I mean, they basically took the South Park strip of, you know, they took South Park's Team America World Police and decided to make that their foreign policy.
	And then they took South Park's mockery of Christy Noam's ice and they made it real.
Pepper Spray Controversy 00:16:02
	I mean, it's mind-boggling and it's incompetent.
	So that's the backdrop for all of this, that this was inevitable, inescapable, as warned by career professionals within the immigration department.
	Notice you haven't seen Tom Homan a lot.
	Instead, you see that Dimwit who was out there lying to everybody again, who a person was acquitted of supposedly conspiring to murder him because he got caught lying so repeatedly.
	This is the guy that's on Fox News, that guy, the guy that was lying about this individual from the get-go.
	It did not help that Stephen Miller lied about him, Christy Noam lied about him, and the FBI director Kash Patel lied about him.
	They basically said, oh, this was a terrorist, domestic terrorist, assassin who showed up and directly confronted it.
	And by the luck of, by the grace of God, they were able to get him down, and that was it.
	That is not at all what you see.
	It's an utter lie.
	Stephen Miller, I get it.
	He's disappointed.
	He doesn't get to go through his videos and see all those Gaza children starving and dying every day.
	He really got a personal thrill out of that.
	So he doesn't get to get, but he wants to take IDF tactics and thinks that he can take the same Israeli propaganda and just lie the same way in the U.S.
	It's a lie.
	I see people repeating this to me.
	John Lott, one of the great professors, great scholars, great defenders of Second Amendment rights, was out there saying it's outrageous that this man was brandishing this gun in front of these people.
	And he's got a video footage of the ICE officer with the gun.
	He doesn't even know that that's the ICE officer.
	The guy never brandished the gun at all.
	He never showed the gun at all.
	He never removed the gun from the holster at all.
	Let's go through the facts.
	The facts are this was ICE escalating, escalating, escalating.
	Your job in crowd control is to de-escalate, de-escalate, de-escalate.
	The ICE officer chases a woman across the street, pepper sprays her, and then apparently isn't satisfied with that.
	So he shoves her down.
	At the point of shoving her down is when this guy who is just filming, just sitting there filming, walks in and tries to stop that.
	So what does he do?
	He pepper sprays him.
	But not happy with pepper spraying, this is the ultimate victim, he grabs his arm down so he can pepper spray him some more.
	And then, so they're both pepper sprayed.
	So you're creating a disastrous situation to begin with.
	There's nobody, there's no competent cop who's going to say, this is how you handle an escalation situation.
	Then they take him, throw, they push him to the ground.
	He never hits any officer ever.
	He never initiated anything with an officer ever.
	All he did was try to help this woman get up off the ground.
	And see, you see him right there.
	He's putting his hands up.
	He grabs his arm.
	Yeah, a lot of people are going to say, what the hell does he possibly think he's doing?
	Oh, I don't know.
	Picking up a woman is being shoved down by an ICE officer who doesn't know what the hell he's doing.
	How about that?
	Possibly.
	I don't have one rule for Capitol Police in January 6th and have a different rule for ICE officers on the street.
	This ICE officer is out of control, out of control.
	How is it reasonably necessary for him to mace the woman?
	How is it reasonably necessary for him to discharge his duties as an ICE officer to mace the guy?
	Then he grabs the guy and throws him down.
	They all come up.
	Different ones are kicking him in the head, Rodney King style.
	And while he's on the ground, and then one of them sees that he has a gun holstered on his back, takes the gun holstered out of his back out, and an officer who sees him do that, sees the gun.
	He's right there when he sees him pick up the gun and take it away.
	As soon as he sees the gun is taken away, bam, bam, bam, three shots in his back.
	There is no justification for that.
	And anybody who is justifying it is nothing more than a pimp for cops, like Andrew Bronca is, who thinks the Ashley Babbitt shooting was legit.
	I'm sorry, this was an outrageous shooting, and it was utterly unjustified, didn't meet any legal standards of self-defense, didn't meet any legal standards of reasonable necessity because you had an out-of-control ICE cop.
	Now, who do I blame this all on?
	Christy Noam, because they're the ones inspiring these people and creating this political theater.
	And now it's going to backfire and destroy immigration enforcement.
	I'll pause and interject with my two cents, and the chat will go where it goes.
	And what I love is, guys, if you don't like what Barnes has to say, then maybe the Sunday night Viva and Barnes law for the people is not for you.
	Maybe there's a reason why we have one of the best communities at viva barnslaw.locals.com.
	And it sure as hell is not because Robert is dumb and I'm not insightful.
	We have been pretty good on a great many things.
	And I'll push back on Robert a little bit here because I'll say what those cops were doing might have been wrong.
	That guy, knowing that he's armed, interfering with ICE operations, whether or not he thinks they're going to be deemed to be unlawful at the end of the day, he has zero business doing it.
	That was him picking up a woman as interference.
	I would, I would, him being a game.
	So let's say you see a cop beating a guy, and you believe it's not legitimate what's happening.
	You're not getting to sit there and let it happen.
	We're going to become China now?
	Would we just let abuse take place in our presence?
	Well, first of all, I would not get involved for a number of reasons, not least of which is survival.
	But I'm saying, is it obstruction?
	Is it illegal interference?
	If he did not know what they were doing and they were plainclothed officers and he didn't know and he thought it was a gang, whatever, then yeah, if he knows what he's saying.
	But even then, he sees an officer pushing her down after he pepper sprays her and he just steps in to help her get up.
	Get the hell away.
	Let ICE do what they're doing, whether you agree with it or not.
	You're into that.
	And you know that I'm going to go down.
	And you know that you're armed.
	And you know that you're armed.
	And a lot of people on January 6th interfered.
	And I thought that, well, okay, you think maybe they shouldn't.
	Put that aside.
	How is that illegal obstruction?
	That's not illegal.
	The question is, it leads to a situation.
	It's not a crime.
	No, but it leads to a situation where they've gotten down.
	Somebody worried about the consequence.
	I get all that.
	And then it's a buffalo.
	But people are acting like he was jumping in, stopping them from arresting an illegal immigrant.
	That isn't what happened here.
	This is them deciding to attack someone who is videotaping after they pepper spray her, pushing her down.
	And then all he does is step in and he gets pepper sprayed and he puts his hand up, like, okay, okay.
	And the guy grabs his hand so he can pepper spray him again, then picks him up and throws him to the ground where they're all around.
	Like people say, oh, he's resisting arrest.
	What's the probable cause of the crime?
	What's the probable cause of the crime?
	No, but that's where I would say, like, first of all, we'll get some more footage of all of this.
	This guy has no, I mean, other than what he's seen for the two minutes that he's seen on the street, he has no idea what she might have done five minutes earlier.
	I don't know.
	Getting involved, knowing that he's carrying a gun.
	The case of Castile, what was this?
	But I don't like the fact carrying his gun should be irrelevant, should not factor in because otherwise he's penalizing people for asserting their Second Amendment rights.
	And I'm not in favor of that whatsoever.
	You have a right to carry a gun.
	You have a right, for example, it's not illegal to not have your ID with you.
	That is a minor fine issue that if you show you had a permit, gets dismissed.
	That's the Minnesota law.
	So Jack Pisobic, before he became Mr. Access Media, and he can't wait to kiss up the Soro Scottie Bessette when he's in Davos, used to understand this.
	But now he doesn't because it serves the purposes of the administration for him to forget what his Second Amendment lessons were, which is that's your right, period.
	And I'm advocating against all these laws that attempt to restrict all these things.
	And now I see all these people saying, no, you should never bring a gun with you to a protest.
	Makes no sense to me whatsoever.
	And if you see somebody being pushed, okay, you can argue about the reaction.
	That's not a crime, his reaction.
	But number one, but number two, at that point, he steps back and puts his hand up.
	So who's escalating?
	The officer is escalating.
	The officers are the one who escalate, escalate, escalate, escalate.
	This officer was out of control.
	Why is he chasing after somebody across the street so that he can pepper spray him?
	And then he gets mad at another guy, so he pepper sprays him.
	He's not happy with that, so he's got to grab his arm down and pepper spray him again.
	And then got to throw him down to the ground.
	And they're all around him, Rodney King style, except unlike Rodney King, they don't have probable cause he committed a crime, resisting arrest.
	Do you hear them saying you're under arrest?
	No, because they have no grounds to it.
	They just throw him to the ground.
	They're hitting panic zone.
	And this happens with inexperienced officers in something that have been taught, hey, everybody's out to kill you, cut your fingers off.
	There's all these crazy things that have been happening in these protests.
	So they're out of control at that position.
	They're out of control.
	And they just lose control.
	And then one guy takes his gun out.
	The way he takes the gun out appears to be wrong.
	It appears the guy may have had the gun on the trigger.
	The ICE officer took it out.
	It's not clear whether it goes off or not.
	That is very much in dispute.
	But what is not in dispute is that while this guy is on the ground, his head facing down, one hand on his phone, one hand on the ground, trying to get sees, just try to stay boom.
	He is shot three times in the back.
	Not satisfied with that, he gets up like this, which people are misinterpreting that clip.
	That's when he's getting up after he's been shot.
	Look, oh, he's reaching for his gun.
	No, you morons, watch the whole video.
	After that, they unleash another seven shots into him.
	They shoot him 10 more.
	What's the you think you're going to persuade a jury in Minneapolis that they were under imminent risk of threat, that they had to shoot a guy seven more times after they shot him three other times in his back?
	I'm sorry.
	I'm not buying that for a second.
	Well, and I'll say that, you know, this all happened within three seconds.
	The, you know, people say that, okay, he disarmed.
	My initial reaction was: okay, well, they got the gun.
	The fact that they are now saying gun, gun, gun, and now they know the guy has at least one gun on him.
	But the, the, my issue is.
	But they shouldn't have been even been there in the first place.
	Well, this is every level.
	But that's they are the ones who provoke this.
	They put this away: take the badges off.
	Would anybody call this self-defense if they didn't have badges?
	Nobody would.
	Yeah, but I would say that.
	If you got into a fight with somebody and you pepper sprayed them, you threw them on the ground, you're on top of them hitting them, and then their gun is removed from them, and then you shoot them 10 times in the back.
	No one's going to call that self-defense.
	I will say it's split, and I'm not taking a poll because I don't think, does Rumble have the ability to do polls?
	I thought I thought that it did, and then I may not be able to find it.
	We're going to get to the chats in a second.
	I got more things that I'm going to enrage people on.
	No, hold on.
	We'll get to stinky figure Don Lamont in a bit.
	You make a compelling argument.
	My assessment of the- From the officer's perspective, he never should have been there.
	I'm not, unlike the left, I'm not saying these people are wanting to go out and execute people and murder people and caricature them.
	This happens a lot with people that are not used to doing this.
	That, you know, you're in an environment where you've got a crazy environment, you've got a crazy situation, crazy circumstances of people trying to do all kinds of crazy stuff.
	You lose it.
	It happens to every human being.
	Happens on the battlefield, happens out in the streets.
	That's why you don't put them in this situation.
	Well, you don't put him there.
	You have FBI, you have other people.
	One, you don't even need to do this.
	There's a hundred better ways to enforce illegal immigration than this political theater.
	But independent of that, if you're going to do this, have the FBI, have other people that know how to manage crowds who have done this repeatedly, historically, traditionally.
	Do not ask Border Patrol people to become experts at managing crowds when they're infiltrated by the Antifa crowds and all the rest.
	This is a ridiculous ask of these people.
	But a ridiculous ask does not translate into an unlawful shooting because they were in circumstances that escalated beyond maybe their choice.
	I think it is an unlawful shooting, but the reason, but the principal culprit.
	Now, I have, there's no doubt, this never happens if the city of Minneapolis provides law enforcement crowd control.
	This never happens if the mayor isn't inflaming everybody.
	This never happens if Governor Walsh isn't inflaming everybody.
	This never happens if state sheriffs or county sheriffs, somebody was there to help control the crowds to protect their own citizens from this activity.
	This doesn't happen if Antifa isn't running.
	Tran Tifa and its relevant Soros NGOs isn't running these organized protests to create this level of disruption.
	So no doubt that all of those people have blood on their hands, but so does Christy Noam.
	But what it doesn't do is I'm not going to say this is a clean shooting when it by any, it's one of the worst shootings I've seen.
	As police shootings go, this is towards the bottom of justification.
	Towards the bottom.
	And I'll say, I'm not torn.
	I think the guy who approaches cops with a gun thinks he's going to play hero might have had other plans.
	It escalates within three seconds.
	He's dead.
	This is this.
	And then why lie about him?
	Now you're going to lie about everything.
	That's not the issue.
	That's the issue.
	They were driving me nuts.
	Like, this is incompetence on steroids.
	It's like, okay, well, first of all, whenever you say it's under full investigation, we're reviewing what happened.
	Those officers are temporarily suspended while we do the investigation.
	At least wait for the camera from the other angle, which hadn't even come out yet.
	What they put up.
	Apparently they were trying to seize a lot of the cameras from the phones.
	They must have idiotically thought they had seized them all, which there's no way in this modern age that that's going to be likely to occur.
	So you have Christy that goes out and says, calls him an assassin.
	That's a lie.
	Says he was there to cause a bunch of mayhem.
	That's a lie.
	That he went up and confronted.
	I mean, Jack Besobic was repeating these lies.
	Andrew Branca was repeating these lies.
	And to his credit, Branca realized that he was wrong and retracted and issued a correction.
	So at least he has credibility in that regard.
	But Jack Bisobic's not correcting his false statements.
	Stephen Miller's not correcting his false statements.
	Kash Patel's not correcting his false statements.
	This looks terrible.
	We are not going on the right.
	We are not going to win this politically.
	And you definitely don't win it politically by lying about people.
	By lying about what happened in ways everybody can see with their own eyes.
	This is the bottom line that I'm going with.
	They say, even if I come to the conclusion, given the way the situation escalated and given what I think the guy probably thought he was going to do under the circumstances, even if it's a justified shooting or not unlawful, it's not just bad optics.
	It's going to frustrate everything.
	It's not the way it should be done.
	And then people say, well, you're going to let them win.
	You don't go in there just because they've taken control of the streets.
	First of all, you might work on dismantling the infrastructure that Kash Patel has identified in terms of a financial infrastructure.
	You might want to think of going after the domestic terrorists now that you've labeled them as such and maybe not, you know, like you said, shutting down investigations into what might reveal as being a broader organization.
	You don't do it in this way because this happens just like on a V for Vendetta.
	And now the left has got their martyr.
	And now the right seemingly coming out and saying, you don't get to carry firearms in public and seemingly forgetting about the Kyle Rittenhouse outrage, seemingly forgetting about the Michael Strickland insanity because Michael Strickland case was even more ridiculous.
	Even with Rittenhouse, I said, you show up at a protest riot with a gun, even if you have the most benevolent of intentions.
	Had Kyle stayed home, his life would be wildly different.
	And those, you know, the PETO might still be alive, or he probably would have found a way to get killed somewhere down the line.
	But and people are like, well, no, that's not, he decided to do it.
	It was within his rights and within the law.
	He was doing something that he was lawfully allowed to do.
	And the people who tried to beat him to death got what they were asking for.
	They're adopting that strategy now.
	But I don't know why Trump hasn't, you know, invoke the Insurrection Act.
	And then people are going to say, well, it's a lose-lose optically one way or the other.
	Look like you're doing it.
	It wasn't problematic a week ago, but now it's the, he can't, he would have to send in U.S. military.
	The National Guard is under the governor's control because he's invoked the state authority to bring in the National Guard.
	So the National Guard's already present.
	In terms of what's going to be the political blow, but in terms of what happens legally, we'll see what filters through the courts.
You're Asking People for Trouble 00:14:45
	My guess is that the state authorities do ultimately prosecute the shooter.
	They prosecute everybody there for aiding and abetting, conspiring, for assault, for a range of charges.
	They will then remove it to federal court.
	And I think some officers will have better defenses than others.
	I don't know if they're wearing body cameras or not.
	So there may be something there.
	I've seen so many angles.
	I'm doubting that that's the case.
	But maybe there's something in their head that they can explain.
	But what's going to be the objective evidence?
	It's going to be tough.
	This is tougher than the Rodney King case.
	They actually had different defenses in the Rodney King case that were better than people know about in terms of whether Rodney King was on such a drugs that he was out of control and so forth.
	But this guy's image of him being shot in the back, laying down, going down, is going to become a global image.
	And politically, to give you an idea, the country's already concluded it was a bad shooting.
	About half the country has seen the video in one way, shape, or form.
	This is not the optics you want if you're the administration, period.
	And they already now favor the American people.
	One ICE eliminated.
	So, I mean, that's what this achieved.
	So, I mean, it just, I wish they would just have listened to the career officers who said, don't do this in the first place.
	Go back to focusing on corporations, on NGOs, on the money train, and focus on corporate shutting down corporate places, which they are very sophisticated and able and capable to do.
	That's what they should be doing, not going door to door in liberal Democratic neighborhoods to try to grab one guy in the middle of mass protests.
	That's going to get you nothing.
	That's going to get you nowhere.
	Do that two years from now.
	That should never have been the priority anyway because it's not going to achieve much other than political theater that we're losing on, losing bad.
	The Democrats are going to shut down the Senate.
	So we're going to have another shutdown at the end of this week.
	Those odds went from 11% to 80% the moment this story broke.
	I mean, that's you see what people in the prediction markets understood politically what was going to happen.
	And I mean, they got to doing this whole raid thing with the masks, with this military-style stuff, especially in light of how we're kidnapping Maduro and all this other stuff.
	We've already lost the optics war, folks.
	It's already lost.
	But Barris was made this point to them a month ago.
	The optics are lost.
	You've got to shift gears.
	You can't just keep doubling down and tripling down.
	Even Republicans in Congress feel such heat.
	They're holding big hearings and they're going to call everybody in.
	And then they're going to have to explain things like this, having a secret memo that says you can raid people's homes while your own rules say you can't.
	This is just mind-boggling aptitude.
	Before we get to that, and I think we're going to bookmark this now for a while.
	It's 50-50 in terms of whether or not your analysis is correct or incorrect on Comm YouTube.
	By the way, I know how polls work on vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	I didn't think there was a way to do them during the stream, and I don't think there is.
	Let me get to the chats now, Robert.
	Give me 10 minutes to do this.
	I must ask myself: perhaps at least a portion of the people celebrating this are doing so not because they like it, the incident, but because they're happy to finally see some comeuppance for rioters, misguided as it is.
	Yeah, well, I mean, that's going to be, it's misguided and counterproductive.
	And the question is.
	This guy wasn't one of those people.
	I mean, but it's what happens when you have people that are on edge to a different level.
	You're asking people to do ridiculous things.
	You're asking people for trouble to happen.
	It frustrates me.
	Doesn't care at all about the doesn't care about these agents.
	These agents are being asked to do ridiculous things.
	They think the machismo look is what's going to win the midterm.
	The people that are the biggest machismo people are the biggest pussies in the world because they have to put on this big act.
	Look at how tough I am.
	Because down deep, they feel weak and insecure because usually they are.
	And let me bring up a bunch of these CommiTube chats, and then we're going to get to the locals.
	Then we're going to get to Viva Barnes Law.
	What happens when you have activist judges?
	And well, you got to deal with it there, not just to exacerbate the situations that are going to empower the activist judges, which is exactly what they're doing.
	And you have lots of tools available to you to which they can have very little influence.
	Why not go there?
	Why not go where the fruit is rich and easy to pick?
	If you're making the job harder, we agree on that.
	The only question is not watching Wolf videos, what the left would do.
	First of all, not dropping everything so that we can go do that.
	And I had to mute Il Sarto.
	I want to lie and wants my attention because he wants to keep lying and throw me into the video.
	I'm sorry.
	No, I clearly don't take the bait on those kind of things.
	It's about making him bigger and more important than he is.
	Got it.
	I'll have Wolf on.
	I don't mind.
	I'm not going to bring Robert into this.
	And I understand he has a Reddit following, which would explain a bit of the pain in the ass people who are.
	Il Sarto over on Rumble.
	I had to mute you because you wouldn't stop spamming wolves of finance.
	You can.
	You can be disagreeable.
	Don't spam because it just hijacks the streaming.
	You don't have the right to do that.
	Local government inciting violence and operating basic crowd control is what they want.
	Absolutely.
	So don't play into it.
	That's part of the officer's point.
	There was like you're asking for trouble.
	But all Noam cared about was political theater.
	So the walk into that if you know that that's what they want, you know what they're going to do.
	You know what's going to happen.
	But they're doing it to the police.
	In my opinion, whoever's advising this is to sabotage, how do you get rid of immigration enforcement without looking like you got rid of immigration enforcement?
	You create a bunch of political theater that blows back on you politically and you say, golly gee, I wish we could enforce the immigration, but we just can't because of the judges and because of the protests, because of Sanctuary City.
	And when that's not true, you can get 90% of the illegals out of this country if you cut off the money train.
	Go after corporations and start criminally prosecuting them for profiting off of hiring illegals.
	How about that?
	They haven't brought one such case in a year.
	Ginger Ninja says, I've been to several protests.
	Only once was I unarmed and I regretted that decision.
	If cops decided to put hands on me, is that grounds to kill me?
	The fact that I'm exercising my second runs?
	No.
	No, but Ginger, somebody tells me that you would have dealt with the cops a little bit differently than this guy did.
	I know Ginger too.
	I mean, I mean, the people that I've been doing.
	Like that guy, that guy was kind of your normie.
	I mean, he was a VA nurse, right?
	So he's one of those kind of people.
	So he has zero criminal history, right?
	This was not the guy to pretend was an Intifa assassin domestic terrorist like Christy Noam lied about, like Stephen Miller lied about, like these other people lied about.
	It was, you know, it was, they compounded the problem because they are addicted to this political theater that is destroying the capacity.
	Again, for folks out there, now the country believes ICE should be eliminated entirely as an agency.
	That's what you achieve.
	Congratulations.
	David is correct.
	ICE officers and law enforcement have the right to kill anyone anytime at their whim.
	I can't even tell if it's a joke.
	Like many politicians and government officials, Chrissy Noam takes direction right before taking the stage, but doesn't bother remembering what she's already said, leading to rampant continuity of errors.
	Jess 1 camp says, sounds like the left's argument of Rittenhouse, he shouldn't have brought a gun to the protest.
	Keith says, and remember how many lefties believed all kinds of garbage, even normies, about Kyle Rittenhouse?
	Yeah.
	That it took the actual trial, then be like, oh, it wasn't black people he even killed.
	You know, yeah, basic things that they got.
	Keester says, hasn't hadn't seen anything about the shots in the back.
	That's where they were, three of them, and then he rolled over.
	If true, absolutely horrible, and not much one could come up with to just fight.
	Also, lock up Lamont, in my opinion.
	We're going to get there.
	Leadership in Minnesota created a combat environment rather than apply law and order.
	How should Eliosa?
	Well, they should go after Tim Walt and Jacob Fry.
	We'll get into that.
	With the church case, there was a way to deal with that where you could go after the law enforcement people, to go after the government officials.
	But the way they've done this does just the opposite, which is mind-boggling to me.
	MK telephone man, follow the money, find the truth.
	Occupant 42.
	Viva, do you find any circumstance where citizens are justified in interfering with civil servants who are violating the law or violating civil rights?
	Many, many.
	But I won't just, I won't do it if they're armed.
	I mean, what do you think is going to happen?
	Oh, well, you're dead, and everyone who's alive is cheering on the guy for being righteous.
	ICE appears to be the proverbial jack-booted government thug, says Sparky.
	Atavist says, could the federal assets forfeiture law be used to encourage self-deportation using illegal entry as a violation?
	King of Bill Tong, really good Bill Tong, made from quality meat with clean ingredients, proper craftsmanship.
	No hype, no shortcuts, just food.
	We're proud to sell direct Bill Tongusa.com.
	Code Barnes for 10% off.
	Go support Bill Tong and let him know that his Rumble rant has been a good investment.
	It's delicious.
	It's like beef jerky, but much better.
	It doesn't kill your jaw to eat.
	Yes, Barnes, they could go after the employers who employ illegals, says Sean Four87.
	Viva, as a Canadian losing our gun rights, the good shooting.
	And now this does not help the Second Amendment.
	I've noticed the Trump admin is getting swollen head with ego problem.
	That's your statement.
	That's not mine, but it seems to be eroding the constitutional rights.
	And the administration seems to be proud about saying it.
	So Supreme Court says Trump cannot sue, cannot use NG who have training.
	Oh, National Guard, crowd control.
	The courts have also caused this issue.
	Absolutely, but don't play into it.
	Repeat history, sent in the 82nd, Little Rock, Arkansas.
	That's what Stuart Rhodes said.
	They will use every idiot to justify their means.
	The shoot was a mistake, but the agent should not be jailed for an honest mistake in a messy situation.
	Zoom, Randy Edward.
	If the gun went off, there had been a round chambered.
	I believe there was.
	Those rounds don't chamber themselves.
	We agree on that.
	I mean, there's no, some say there's not a point carrying a gun around unless it's chambered.
	Bring a gun to the commission of a felony is the issue.
	Men's right is apparent.
	Law enforcement had the right to optics when he reached first fire.
	I don't know that he did.
	MK telephone man.
	There's a bunch of people that believe it's like in Rittenhouse when a bunch of lefties believe completely fake things about Kyle's case.
	Now it's on the right.
	There's a bunch of people that believe completely fake things.
	Like Professor Lott, who thought that the ICE officer with the gun is him with the gun.
	Alex Jones, who thought he reached for the gun.
	And then, you know, Alex, do his credit.
	I was like, look at other videos.
	He's like, okay, I'll look at this other stuff and double check.
	No, no, I saw it.
	He never reached for the gun, folks.
	He never reached for the gun.
	He's on the ground with his hands on the ground.
	His home.
	Jack Pesobic apparently can't tell the difference between a phone and a gun.
	That's a phone in his hand.
	No, not a gun in his hand.
	And if you follow all the way through, you can see that.
	The guy who said, who identified the guy, this is him holding them.
	That was the cop after he took it.
	If it accidentally went off, that means the round round was chambered.
	Yep.
	And then Il Sarto before he couldn't stop spamming.
	Address wolves and finance, you lying fucking cocksuckers.
	MK telephone man profits more than one for sea martial law this year.
	Barnes, could you please state in which ways you disagree with Bronca?
	Okay, I got to that.
	That was from gorgeous mayhem and Jonah 80.
	I don't know if we could see it.
	Mr. Never Take the Side of the Nazis is taking the side of the communists.
	I think we addressed that one as well.
	Now, Robert, oh, hold on.
	We're going to get, let's get to some of, we're going to get to all of our locals, but I want to do this now while we have, you know, show off our crowd over here.
	View tipped.
	You're being an activist for no-go zones like Europe.
	They are friendly cities.
	Well, no, because there's state law enforcement.
	So what you're actually suggesting here is that the state are failing and that's where you should be addressing it.
	But what you're doing right now, by first of all, I'm trying to think of an analogous thing because it's not exactly like no-go's.
	It's state law enforcement.
	So, if that's your argument, declare the Insurrection Act and come in with the proper force to do it, where you separate Soros-funded protesters from the illegals you're attempting to apprehend and deport.
	Stingray.
	At one point in the ICE video, it looked like an agent, one agent was sucker punching the guy like five or six times.
	That's yes, yeah, you can see another one appears to be kicking him with his head, and the guy never punches him, he never hits them at all.
	I mean, it's been a total misrepresentation of who this guy is: that the guy that was murdered, let's call it what it is, in my opinion.
	That the you might call it a justifiable homicide.
	I do not, but he was murdered and he never punched or hit any rice officer ever.
	Murder is the unlawful killing of a human.
	This is homicide for the time being, since it was definitely at the hands of another human.
	And then to be determined if it's murder, because I think it's going to be going up the legal ladder.
	Is President Trump still directing the administration to protect his Epstein predator friends?
	Says Gray 101.
	That is not my opinion.
	Sweaty Zeus says SIG SARS DON'T ALL GOOF.
	There is one very specific new gun they make that does.
	I've not gone off to Cienado, but I know of the reputation of the law.
	They said that they don't believe the gun went off.
	What looks really bad is the guy who takes out this gun and does the three shots.
	He only does the three shots after he sees right in front of him the gun be taken off the guy.
	Yeah, but then that is a imagine.
	I mean, I get you, Johnny Steele, man.
	Try to explain that to a Minneapolis jury.
	Yeah, well, no, that's not where the bias of the region is going to justify.
	That I can attend if he's got one gun, he might have a second.
	I mean, that would be the but even that, that's not ground.
	If you think he has a second gun, that's not grounds to murder.
	Well, I know, but that is a shoot him.
	It's happening in three seconds.
	Susie C says, thank you.
	I hate death says, a follow-up on my let Dem's comment.
	I don't want that to happen, but it is exhausting seeing this administration turn into such a chain wreck.
	It's pathetic, and I'm definitely one of those dropping out of being politically active.
	I'd rather spend my time trying to take care of myself and my family in a worsening economy and shittier, shittier living conditions.
	It hasn't gotten better under Trump than it was under the Democrats.
	Don't worry, I'll still pay for my subscription.
	But I agree.
	This is enough to make people who want to change things just, you know, go off and go fishing.
	Which is why I think some people had the bad faith intention of deliberately wanting this political theater to evolve in this way so they would have the cover they need to shut down immigration enforcement meaningfully.
	And it was the same week that Trump was announcing, hey, we got to have him available to, you know, pick the cotton, you know, the, you know, the other stuff that he's been specifically told by Richard Paris, by the way.
	Please do not use that verbiage ever again.
	And he does it.
	He does it again.
	You know, poor Barris was climbing a wall.
	He gives them all this great advice and they ignore it to their detriment, to their detriment.
	The Democrats could be happier.
	It's like Trump admin has been suckered everywhere except RFK, HHS agreed.
	I mean, that was the good news of the weekend.
	Hold on, but I want to show the poll now.
	It's 50-50.
	So that's, and that's on, that's on, that might be.
	I think if you've got, you know, I mean, for the whole, most jury pools are very pro-law enforcement.
	It's just not the case in the Twin Cities.
	So what the officers will need is for a federal judge to block it by saying it was definitely reasonably necessary.
	I just don't see that likely to happen in the Twin Cities because they're busy antagonizing the heck out of those judges because they have novel theories of federal law that apparently Harmony Dylan forgot to read before she was busy banning blocking Viva.
	She cut me sweet Viva.
Blocking Services Dispute 00:15:43
	She cut me off.
	You've lost the script when you're banning Viva.
	If you're banning Barnes, I totally understand.
	You're believing Barnes.
	No problem.
	No, it's Viva cry.
	No, but Robert, I get blocked.
	Some people block me because of you, the Ricochet.
	And now I think some people are blocking me because of Kyle Serifin.
	It's like, I happen to have the curse of getting along with most people.
	I'll do a couple more here.
	Then we're going to get into the next novel theory of law.
	We know that Trump will not pursue illegal immigration to NGOs and corporations because they are in support.
	Also, they hate the Second Amendment.
	Is Vance ready to publicly break ranks or stick being answered?
	That's Dred Robert.
	And Shofar says this is not a good look, soundbites and snapshots.
	You might disagree with Bongino, a lot of stuff.
	He's right about that.
	Kiki Blue C earlier message.
	I hate death cat.
	Okay, we'll get to the tipped ones there in a second.
	Let's get to the second thing where I think I might disagree with you while also acknowledging the limitations of my own expertise of American law.
	Stinky Fingers Don Laman, who I believe actively partook in what was not an act of journalism, but an act of conspiracy to violate the civil rights of everyone at that church who was there to praise God.
	The fact that, you know, it's on video as far as I'm concerned.
	The evidence of everything, the advanced collusion, his knowledge that it was going to be something of a what was the word they used?
	It's an operation that is a clandestine operation.
	He goes into the church, whether or not it's the type of interruption that's legally necessary.
	He's interrogating the pastor.
	He's observing that the congregants are fleeing the church out of fear.
	So that presumably he acknowledges some form of intimidation that interfered with their ability for church services.
	What's her face?
	Pam Bondi.
	And I say it cynically.
	I said it cynically last week.
	I go, she's on her way to Minnesota.
	Stay tuned.
	Folks, like, all right, what?
	For a Fox News hit?
	So she could come out and say some more bullcrap is exactly what she did.
	They charged, they arrested and charged three people.
	Is it three people, including Stinky Fingers, or was it four?
	And Laman got his, they didn't sign up.
	I think they were trying to go after eight and three got arrested.
	And then one of, I'm not sure what happened with the other five, whether all five of those warrants were denied.
	The uh, and lemon was one of the five.
	That part I'm not certain of.
	I want to let me just bring this up.
	I want to highlight something.
	Hold on.
	I got to bring it up.
	Oh, my fat fingers cannot get the stupid thing in time.
	Barnes is lying, is what I wanted to get to.
	Hold on.
	Here.
	Can I see it?
	Did I lose it?
	Oh, I can't.
	It's gone.
	It's gone.
	It said Barnes is lying.
	One thing I would say, before using the word lying, I would make sure that someone is not just wrong.
	Someone can be wrong without being a liar.
	But set that aside.
	Like Mike Davis, the guy who's selling out America on a regular basis to line his pockets, who keeps saying that what I'm saying is false and defamatory.
	And I'm like, tell me one thing I've said that's false and defamatory.
	What's that I got wrong?
	The fact that you secretly represent Pfizer and that you helped bury a potential merger so that Pfizer could buy a big product.
	Do you or do you not represent?
	Has he blocked you yet, Robert?
	I'm not blocking you.
	He hasn't.
	He just says, post it.
	He never responds when I say, okay, send me a retraction letter.
	If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to retract.
	Unfortunately, not forthcoming anytime soon from Corrupt Mike.
	So everybody, in case anybody doesn't understand the stinky fingers, Don Laman, that's because he allegedly, when that guy asked him if he wanted a lemon drop at the, I don't know if it was a gay bar.
	I shouldn't say it was a gay bar, but when they were regular bar.
	Okay.
	So this guy was trying to pick him up, or I don't know, whatever, and says, how about a lemon drop?
	And I didn't realize that it's a drink, but it also has a double entendre.
	And then allegedly, Don Stinky Fingers Laman stuck his hands behind his in between his crotch, rubbed it in the guy's face, and said, Pussy or dick, pussy or dick, you like pussy dick.
	And so, and then he had to drop the charges.
	You were representing him.
	That's why it's Don, alleged stinky fingers, Don Lamon.
	So he doesn't, he does all this.
	It's all on camera.
	Two or three people are arrested.
	They're facing charges.
	One of them is the activist lawyer.
	The other one is that white dude with the beard who says, Come at me, Pam Bondi.
	And everyone's ecstatic.
	Fafo.
	Like, like, this was the reform that the Trump DOJ was supposed to go after, micromanaging current problems as opposed to reforming that corrupt institution.
	They got him.
	They arrested him.
	Those charges will stick.
	You think they're going to get acquitted if they don't get dropped before trial.
	Don Lamon, a magistrate judge, would not sign off on the is it a warrant?
	Arrest warrant.
	The arrest warrant.
	Wouldn't sign off on it.
	And I was talking with Nate, the lawyer, before going live because I'm just checking in.
	And he was checking in on me actually more.
	And he says, Yeah, I kind of agree.
	Like, my goodness, Barnes is going to agree with you on the on the shooting, and Barnes is going to agree with you on Don Lamont.
	Now they're going to know Barnes went over to the left side.
	There's an argument that they do not meet the criteria for FACE Act violations and KKK violations because it wasn't active intimidation that prevented, that physically impeded the congregants from worshiping.
	I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the facts and not yours.
	Again, there's diverging factual elements of this where some people say they stormed in interrupted services.
	The lady who got arrested said, no, no, we attended the service and we waited for it to be over.
	Then we asked our questions.
	I don't actually happen to believe that, but I know that I don't have a reason not to believe it.
	We have just two conflicting statements, you know, factual assessments where even if that were true, they attend, I mean, uninvited.
	You don't need to be invited to church.
	And then after the services, they start asking questions and that's when all hell breaks loose.
	I don't think that's supported by the evidence that I've seen, but I might be wrong.
	Your conclusion, Robert, is that the predicate elements of this FACE Act and KKK Act have not been met.
	Don Lamon should never have been charged.
	And these three who have been successfully charged are probably either going to have them dropped or get acquitted and piss off the crowd, Robert.
	Yes.
	So, I mean, at a minimum, unless they come up with different facts.
	So what's disturbing is they appear to not know what facts are required to allege these crimes.
	Now, Harmee Dylan, civil rights division, is, you know, civil rights is relatively new to her.
	It's the last 10 years or so that she started to do civil rights cases, but it's not been her bread and butter.
	She came up, you know, providing legal services to the Sikh community in the Bay Area and a lot of tech work, work like that.
	And then politically in the Trump era, representing people who were attacked outside of a protest because the city of I think it was San Jose stood down.
	She had a good representation in that capacity and she sporadically did civil rights cases, but she's not immersed in civil rights law.
	And to my knowledge, I don't think she's ever defended a criminal case.
	So they should have other people.
	I think they're taking advice from losers like Mike Davis, right?
	Who are giving him bogus advice on a regular basis so he can keep the pay-for-play scheme going and rolling with pay-for-play pam.
	So he runs cover for her on everything.
	He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
	And God bless Harmeet.
	Harmeet clearly never read the FACE Act.
	So the FACE Act is literally about protecting access to a property that is providing a particular service.
	So it was started as a solely to protect abortion clinics, reproductive services, they call it, abortion clinics, fundamentally is what it was.
	Abortion clinics in the early 90s.
	And the goal was, and this was before they lost the House in 94 because the bill was passed in 94.
	So as well, Democrats still had the majority of Bill Clinton.
	In order to get it passed, they included churches with it.
	So the important thing to understand about the policy here is it's about, do you have physical access to the building where that service is taking place?
	Well, but no, physical access or unimpeded physical access.
	Just really physical access.
	So to give you, here's, so people can look it up themselves, 18 USC 247 and 248.
	That's separate from the Klan Act, which I've often talked about, 18 USC 241.
	So under the FACE Act, here's what you need.
	You need to show that there was a threat of force or a physical obstruction that was intentional to interfere with First Amendment religious freedom.
	And the obstruction has to, quote, make ingress or egress to the property impassable or unreasonably difficult or hazardous to access the property.
	So like Harmeet, I guess, bought into the news.
	I was critical of a lot of these prosecutions of abortion clinic protesters.
	What is misunderstood is that people think they were actually arrested and convicted for just praying outside the clinic.
	That isn't what happened.
	Now, I think they often incorrectly lied about what these people were doing.
	But to be clear, the prosecution alleged that they blocked access, that they weren't arrested for praying.
	They were arrested for blocking access to the abortion clinic.
	I believe that they were misleading, in some cases, lying.
	There was a big acquittal in Bucks County in the Bucks County case that we talked about, that minister.
	I was like, a lot of this was not obstruction at all.
	This was not, this is, well, I'm going to have the same defense for abortion clinic protesters that I do for ICE protesters.
	I'm not going to change my law view because it's convenient politically.
	A lot of it wasn't obstruction.
	But that is what they alleged because that's what the crime actually requires: they needed to show that Don Lemon or he conspired and aided and abetted them blocking ingress or egress to the church.
	It appears by the judge's action that the affidavit doesn't even allege that.
	But what about as long as it doesn't allege that, that there is no FACE Act case, and the magistrate is absolutely right.
	Well, what about chasing them out of the clinic once they're in there?
	Chasing them out, it has to obstruct their access.
	So, again, think of it.
	It's about access to a building.
	That's what this law is all about, really.
	Access to a physical property where certain things happen at that physical property to warrant its protection.
	Well, I would, again, Robert, I'll be arguing from just from a logical perspective.
	You could run them out, but running them out isn't ingress or egress.
	Well, no, but if you're running them out and denying their access, not just to the building, but to the services the building is intended to provide.
	But you need to be denying them the access to the building.
	So it's not service-driven.
	It is a building-driven.
	And what services are in the building shape whether it's covered by the law at all?
	So it has to be reproductive services or religious services.
	But the baby killing, that's what their definition of reproductive services is these days.
	But otherwise, it's not about the services.
	It's about access to the building where the services occur.
	So that's what I think there's been a popular misunderstanding of the FACE Act.
	So if they come up with allegations of that, then absolutely they can prosecute it.
	But apparently, it wasn't even alleged.
	There was no fact alleged.
	In fact, all that was alleged was conspiracy to violate the FACE Act, but without any allegation of obstruction of any kind or the threat of use of force.
	So that's the problem on the FACE Act charges as applied to Don Lemon.
	And then there's the Klan Act charges.
	And the problem with the Klan Act charges is the Klan Act was written in 1871 to deal with the Ku Klux Klan terrorizing people.
	So unlike most federal civil rights laws, it reaches private actors.
	However, it is important to understand that the Eighth Circuit and other federal courts, in order to conform it with the First Amendment, is to make sure that speech by itself can't be a crime.
	That, you know, hence protest by itself can't be a crime.
	Instead, it has to be conduct that meets the Brandenburg standard.
	So this went up in the Eighth Circuit in a case that's, let me get the, how did I, I managed, oh, yeah, here it was.
	I don't even have to look at it.
	I remember.
	Because it's the most easy, memorable case because the defendant's name is Bruce Lee.
	So it's the Bruce Lee case.
	It has nothing to do with the historic Bruce Lee.
	But this guy decided he didn't like this apartment building that was having a lot of new African-American people come in.
	So he decided to put a cross and light it on fire across from the apartment complex.
	The Eighth Circuit determined he was wrongfully prosecuted.
	How?
	They said he could be reprosecuted, but they said the jury instruction has to include.
	Let me find the exact quote.
	You have to threaten or to threaten or intimidate requires a threat of physical force or intimidation of physical fear.
	Intimidation of physical fear.
	I want to come back to that because I think Don Lamond documented the intimidation of physical fear that the congregants had to leave to aggress.
	So the, But what you would need is, it needs to be imminent violence with the it's.
	So, it's Brandenberg, so a threat of violence that is imminently likely to occur.
	In other words, them not liking, protest and fleeing, isn't that what you need is, hey if uh, if you stay for this religious service, we're going to assault you, we're going to attack you, we're going to beat you up, we're going to it's physical violence.
	Is the, is the nexus well, and then i'll say that I was going to say the devil's advocate, but i'm actually going to say the god's advocate, because i'm going to argue the other side of the thing, that anybody busting in and causing a scene in a church, given recent acts of violence at churches, I would say maybe i'm neurotic, but I wouldn't blame anybody for thinking anything is imminent when a group of violent Antifa type uh uh, protests.
	See those, those facts apparently weren't alleged.
	Is it connected?
	Well, and that, that and that, by the way?
	So that is where I from what.
	There has to be a reasonable they have to have an objective, a reasonable fear that violence is imminent.
	Yeah, and that's why I say like from, from what I understand, the allegations in the, in the, the charging documents were, were weak as anything and like.
	It's what drives me crazy is like all they had in was interviewing him and they apparently thought they confused.
	See what is the Civil Rights Act.
	You read the language it just talks about intimidate threaten oppress, etc.
	You have to understand that, how that law has been interpreted.
	In light of the first amendment where they've limited the effect of the law and limited the interpretation of the law.
	This even came up, interestingly enough, when several of them wanted bail and the defense argued that it's not necessarily a crime of violence under the law for the purposes of denying bail and they were granted bail.
	That is true, but it does require the threat of the use of force and that threat of use of force has to create at least an objectively reasonable person to believe that violence is imminent.
	So it's very much.
	They took Brandenburg in the Eighth Circuit and they reinterpreted the Eighth and it appears to me that this was unknown by Harmeet Dylan.
	And be honest with you, harmony shouldn't be forced in this position anyway.
	She should be on the civil side, hailing the civil rights side, going after the government.
	That's what kind of criminal is not her expertise.
	Somebody else should be, but there's nobody up there competent.
	Pambondi is completely incompetent.
	I don't think she's ever read either law because i've heard her talk about it like, oh, my goodness, you got like half of this completely wrong.
	And they're harassing the heck out of all the judges for not signing arrest warrants when they don't even allege these facts and they're, and that's why you're getting Trump judges angry at him.
	You're getting like they even misinterpreted what the Eighth Circuit held, so they they demand the Eighth Circuit reinstate the arrest warrant.
	They say no, thank you.
	One judge writes a concurring opinion thinking, saying that he saw a probable cause, but he was a concurrent.
	But he said, doesn't matter, because you've got other remedies, i.e go to a grand jury.
	If you really got evidence of this the, which they they circumvented, by the way, they could have gone to the grand jury any day of the week.
	They they appear for pr purposes.
	Pambondi is about to get fired.
	She's trying to salvage her tenure and so she ran up to Minnesota to salvage her tenure.
	Play into this political theater that created the disaster that happened yesterday of the shooting, in part because she's not putting the FBI on the street like she should be uh, the to protect these uh officers and have people who know how to do crowd control, And she rushed in.
	She actually did the meme of, hey, I wrote a real mean letter.
	I said, Mr. Governor, I'm going to write you a mean meme.
Rushing Into Disaster 00:08:42
	I couldn't believe it.
	She actually said it.
	I thought she was joking.
	And then, what does I thought she was joking, like doing the meme and then saying, oh no, and now something else.
	And then Tim Walz comes out and says, Yeah, instead of worrying about this, Pam, maybe worry about the 5 million Epstein documents that you haven't disclosed yet.
	And so he took her mean letter.
	And I guess we know how seriously he took it, except he's already declared war on the feds.
	And Jacob Fry has already declared something of an insurrectionist type attack on the feds.
	But yeah, you got a nice word.
	Not a geez, what's the word?
	What's the word that we're looking for?
	A sternly written letter.
	Robert, what's a strongly worded?
	A strongly worded letter.
	A strongly worded letter.
	She's a frazier.
	But so I don't think she's ever read this.
	And it's apparent they don't have competent, capable people because all they had to do is review the FACE Act and review the Klan Act and know they needed better factual development than they have.
	Well, that is the issue.
	But she wanted to rush this to look good.
	See, hey, look, I'm actually protecting our churches.
	I'm protecting religious freedom.
	I'm taking on Antifa by bringing charges that are undeveloped, that are unsupported by the law under the existing set of facts that they've alleged.
	And now she's setting up a situation, antagonizing the judges throughout the entire circuit, which is going to be a politically blowback on them in a bunch of different ways now.
	Because they're insulting one judge, attacking another judge publicly in ways that the judge was correct.
	You didn't present the facts that conform to the law.
	This was not on the magistrate.
	This wasn't on the judge.
	That was on Pam Bondi not doing her job again.
	That's what drives me crazy because I believe that at least, you know, I say probable cause, the standard is not beyond a reasonable doubt.
	I think from Don's own words, from what he did, from the don't touch me, which is, you know, some people can argue.
	It's open for interpretation.
	You need to dig into, you know, was there any threat of violence?
	Was there any physical obstruction?
	I think there wasn't.
	I think there was.
	How they did it.
	When they did it.
	What do you know about it?
	Use your subpoena power to develop all the.
	You didn't have to rush this if you didn't have an open and shut case from the get-go and they didn't out of the gate because they didn't have, by the affidavits that have been filed, adequate evidence that meet this unique obligation of either obstruction under the FACE Act or violence under the problem.
	They just needed to allege properly to raise probable cause and let him raise his defenses in court.
	And they say, no, when I said don't touch me, when I was looking at the people who said they were fleeing because they were nervous, and when I said I'm part of this covert operation and I'm just a journalist, I mean, first of all, I appreciate he says I'm just a journalist, and I'm sure every activist who wants propaganda porn for the activists and their terror cells says I'm just a journalist right now.
	Flesh it out.
	It doesn't have to be 50 pages long, but it has to be the evidence was there in my view.
	Or use the evidence to develop the connections between all of it, right?
	The suspicion is that the lemon was in on it from the get-go.
	And that might lead you back to Antifa NGOs.
	But I think that's why exactly they rushed it.
	They rushed it in part so that Pam Bonnie could have a PR win so that she can stay in her job a little bit longer and she can keep the cash register rolling for all of her lobbyist pals like Mike Davis of the world.
	And at the same, but in order to do that, she had to rush through the case.
	And she doesn't want the NGOs investigated.
	That is obvious by now.
	She's had a year to do it and she's been shutting it down and not pursuing it.
	So she didn't want to dig into the truth of whether Lemon was there at the behest or behalf of some Soros connected NGO that is deliberately launching this.
	And instead, what they have is a weak case that's going to lead to either the judges dismissing it or juries granting acquittals.
	Then they only look like idiots.
	Then they confirm Don Lemon as a great martyr for free speech and journalism and all that garbage.
	I mean, that loser.
	I mean, it's like, that's why I say political, aside from the facts of the law, politically, they don't know how to manage any of this.
	I mean, it's incompetence times incompetence.
	And it's only going to keep getting worse, unfortunately, until she is gone.
	Catherine Gillen, 4404 on CommiTube says the optics of what happened in the church are terrible.
	If there are zero crimes here, then it is open season on Christian worship.
	I mean, I'm sure there's here's what you do.
	You make a referral to the, well, one, you investigate whether you have physical obstruction or threat of violence by going through what happened beforehand.
	Get the text, get the emails, get the messages, get the money trail, get all of those things.
	It's almost guaranteed to be there.
	Don Lemon doesn't show up for nothing.
	Just saying.
	So you got that side.
	And you make referrals to the state prosecutors because you likely do have trespass.
	You likely, because they were invited to leave and they didn't leave.
	You likely have a rain, disorderly conduct at a minimum.
	You likely have a range of state crimes you can bring.
	Then when the local authorities refuse to bring it, you can bring claims against the state authorities for violating civil rights for a discriminatory application of state criminal law.
	That's how you could do this.
	Some of us gave that kind of advice and they just go off and do their own thing and they don't know what the hell they're doing.
	There's no other way to put it.
	Let me bring up two chat.
	There's some CommiTubes that are coming in 50 bucks that I want to get to before we go back to locals.
	And it is concerned.
	The purchase subscriber says the concern behind these laws is to prevent judges and juries in damn areas from court control as they can get one shot before double jeopardy.
	It's plausible enough to dump money to say something.
	I like you, not this much in cash, though.
	Okay.
	This is about, this is about, let me get this one out of here because, oh, come on, fat fingers are doing this again.
	To share, there was another one.
	It was about why they're not releasing the Epstein documents.
	Is this it?
	No, that's not the right one.
	It's the other one here.
	Let me bring this up real quick and then I want to bring up a bunch over on.
	Thank you very much, by the way, purchase subscriber.
	Oh, no, that's the same one that I have up twice.
	Thank you.
	And now, before we get into, well, I don't know.
	Did we touch on the latest, the other one that's in the middle of all this is their decision to try to create a secret memo that allows ICE to raid people's houses without a warrant.
	Before we get to that, that's what I've like someone said, go look at Robert's feed.
	It looks like a typical leftist feed.
	And I remember hearing people saying you, you know, administrative warrants are not judicial warrants.
	And you don't, that was the whole, you know, kit that the activists were saying.
	These ICE warrants are administrative warrants.
	They're not judicial warrants.
	And so you don't have to comply with them.
	Get there in a second.
	Let me just do a bunch of these.
	Can't understand why people get butthurt over Barnes' opinions.
	How many times has Barnes been wrong?
	Substantively, a couple.
	I can't remember any.
	Also, at this point, fuck it.
	Let the Dems win.
	Trump is a pussy, and it will be satisfying to watch Cash get perp walked, almost as satisfying as Fauci, which we never got because pussy and all.
	Dred Robert Barnes, would you approve of murder charge for the ICE officers manslaughter?
	What would it be?
	I mean, I think that's what they'll be charged with is maybe the aiding.
	It'll be similar to the Chauvin charges, but a little more aggressive.
	Jeanette Victoria says, I'm a safety, I'm on safety retirement, a status limited to law enforcement and public safety professionals.
	I was injured on the job caring for violent offenders and know what the threat looks like.
	I'm being attacked as pro-interference, which is false.
	I don't support interfering with law enforcement.
	Helping a woman who was pepper sprayed is not interference.
	Inventing facts to justify lethal force is the problem.
	I've heard from a range of cops that they spotted this right away.
	I mean, a bunch of them that are law enforcement are like, this was a bad shoot.
	This is out of control.
	But again, the career cop, the career border patrol people begged not for Noam not to do this and Bondi not to do this.
	They set them up, in my opinion.
	And let's see, Big Bad Bob says, So Viva's telling us that he's a coward.
	There's a fine line between cowardice and stupidity, and there's also a fine line between dying for one cause unnecessarily.
	There's a French expression, pour qua mouir pourun cause continues pleusure.
	Why die for one cause when there are so many?
	You're not, you're not going to accomplish very much, and you might actually just make the situation worse.
	I'll remember that.
	Why die for one cause when there are so many?
	Yeah, I mean, it's a French cowardice expression.
	Patricia.
	Did you send you a welcome to France sign?
	No, it just says, Welcome to France.
	We surrender.
	Oh, you know, the expression, why are there trees aligning Le Champésé?
	Because the Nazis like walking in the shade.
	Okay, that's a that's an oldie but a goodie.
	Uh, Patricia Care 82 says, What do you expect from Nome?
	She's stupid, she bragged about killing her own puppy in a book.
	Yep, I was like, Even if there's nothing wrong with that, you don't brag about killing your puppy because you couldn't train it properly.
	What are the chances that some kind of crazy spy has been chemtrailed on the West Coast to make them act like this?
	Oh, uh, Mangalichi, uh, there's a whole book about uh arsenic in the water.
	That's why there were so many serial killers that came out of um the Pacific Northwest.
Fourth Amendment Controversies 00:10:18
	It's not a joke, our government has been known to do this.
	Missouri chemtrails are real.
	I just can't fathom how this is happening organically.
	Well, apparently, we're now admitting we have directed energy weapons.
	Well, of course, it's the Jewish, the Jewish space lasers, Robert, Robert.
	What of your best ever burdened with Barnes?
	And it was after an oral argument, after an argument to the Supreme Court.
	I will describe it below.
	Please tell me the case so I can find it.
	What are the odds you bring a case before Thomas retires?
	Kid 19-ish years old, whose mom called him in a wellness check because he hurt himself in the past.
	He's at dad's house and doesn't want to come outside.
	They drag him out.
	Well, I think they did they killed one of the guys who didn't want to do a wellness check.
	Um, okay, so now let's get to, we're going to get back to some of the uh viva barns law.locals.com tip questions.
	Uh, so one of the talking points that comes out of the left as relates to ICE warrants for detention, they say these are not judicial warrants, they are administrative warrants, and you they're not enforceable in law.
	You do not need to abide by them.
	Ask them if they have a judicial warrant, and if they don't, I don't know, politely tell them to piss off or don't open the door.
	I uh read what it was that you sent me.
	It was the uh, it was a met was a memo, correct?
	Or it was an article summarizing this.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And now I sort of understand it.
	The, you know, administrative bodies issuing warrants is sort of the executive issuing its own judicial.
	And you have three branches of government: judicial, legislative, and executive.
	Executive, executive enforces the law, legislative makes the law, and judicial interprets the law.
	And the idea would be that the executive can't issue its own warrants for its own execution of the law.
	But I don't necessarily understand exactly in American law what the nature of these immigration bodies are.
	In Canada, we've got administrative bodies that issue, you know, all sorts of quasi-judicial rulings, quasi-judicial orders, and they sure as hell will lock you up if you don't pay the amounts that these ridiculous bodies order you to pay.
	Is there legal truth to it, or is it a gray zone that has not yet been definitively adjudicated by the courts that the immigration department, DHS, is taking advantage of?
	Well, what they've decided to do is take it a whole new level.
	So when there's a judicial arrest warrant, that is grounds to enter a person's home for the purposes of arresting them, not for searching the home or anything else, but for the purposes of arresting that person.
	So they decided, well, we use these administrative warrants to arrest people that have a removal order.
	So why don't we get to go into people's homes without a judicial warrant?
	Needless to say, the other problem with all of this is they did it in secret.
	They drafted a memo apparently in the summer and told their direct to train people on this, but do it orally because their ICE rules still say they can't raid homes based on this.
	So it's a really dumb move to go this route.
	And what I find more disturbing is like the critics that have said the administration is using illegal immigration to green light a Palantir style surveillance state with secret police where they can arrest you at will is is looking more like that's what's happening by bad faith actors.
	Because the there's no need to try to suddenly expand and extend the questionable nature of administrative warrants in the first place.
	place to this new Category.
	Now, my view is, so the Supreme Court, contrary to what like Chad Mizel was going out there misquoting the Supreme Court, misquoting the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	This is the guy that got caught, you know, doing some cocktails with some buddies to help sink an antitrust case to help his pals had to quickly resign after that.
	So he's a pay-for-play Pam advocate and defender.
	So it looks bad anyway.
	A whistleblower came forward and detailed all of it.
	It's bad that it has to come out in that format.
	So that's problem one.
	Problem two, though, is that administrative warrants have never been green lit by the Supreme Court.
	In fact, the Supreme Court has implicitly rejected them.
	What the Supreme Court has said is it is per se unreasonable to do any kind of search or seizure without an independent judicial role.
	And an executive officer with judicial authority cannot substitute for that.
	Came up in New Hampshire where you had an attorney general who also had a judicial role as a Justice of the Peace.
	And so he signed a warrant as Justice of the Peace.
	Like, dude, you're prosecuting the case.
	The whole point of having the judicial branch be an intermediary, the whole point of a warrant requirement in the Fourth Amendment is completely negated.
	If a cop can just write his own warrant, which, by the way, these are not independent judges.
	These are ICE officers who write these things.
	That's what they do.
	I'm going to write myself a warrant.
	Okay.
	And now they're saying, oh, no, you don't want a warrant to arrest the guy.
	You can go bang into people's houses and do it.
	Which, by the way, they've already been caught in the wrong house multiple times since they started enforcing this, raiding the wrong people's house.
	Unbelievable.
	So that's why there's a lot of good reasons to have a judicial warrant required.
	So how have administrative warrants worked?
	You have some dicta from Justice Frankfurter in 1960 in a case called ABLE, where he's like, oh, they've been doing administrative warrants for a while in these illegal immigration cases.
	That is not the Supreme Court green lighting it at all.
	In fact, the issue was unraised because it wasn't raised below.
	After that decision, the Supreme Court repeatedly held, no, the executive branch cannot write its own warrants.
	And it doesn't matter if a person is in an executive role and a judicial role, they can't either.
	That's an automatic conflict of interest that precludes the whole point of an independent, neutral part of the judicial branch being a guardian against the executive branch invading your rights of privacy.
	So now the separate issue is whether or not illegals have Fourth Amendment protection.
	And that's what they're confused.
	Like they took this Eighth Circuit case where a guy escaped from prison.
	And under state law, the warden could write out a warrant for him to be returned to prison.
	Totally not at all.
	This is the Lucas case.
	Not at all analogous, frankly, here.
	It was a completely split decision.
	A majority of justices, in fact, didn't think, well, five thought you could, five thought you couldn't, and three concurred on totally different grounds.
	So they're a dead split on whether administrative warrants are ever constitutionally allowed.
	But what they said is a prisoner has no right of privacy.
	And because a prisoner has no right of privacy, he's not, even if it's a warrant that violates the Fourth Amendment, it doesn't matter because he has no Fourth Amendment protection.
	So there is a potential argument that illegals have diminished at a minimum because they're trespassers into the country legally that they don't have Fourth Amendment protection of this degree.
	But the courts have never said that.
	The courts have consistently said they do indeed have some degree of Fourth Amendment protection.
	So all they're doing by encouraging ICE to now engage in house raids, aside from bad optics of that, because it's always sooner or later, well, there have already been a bunch of them.
	We're raiding the wrong house.
	These stories blow up, mean he's happy to blow them up, looks bad.
	And he did it without a judicial warrant.
	And the ordinary person, everyday person's like, don't you have to have a judicial warrant to raid somebody's house?
	So there's also the issue that when you're raiding a house, that's likely not owned by the illegal.
	So then you may have other people there.
	And they put in the memo, if it's a third-party owned house, don't go in.
	But that's going to be most of them.
	And they're not following that to a T.
	So all they're likely to do is now, in fact, the federal court already ruled this weekend that it is a violation.
	One of the grounds that she gave for releasing one of these immigrants that had been arrested was that the way in which he was arrested was illegal.
	Because what's going to happen now is she's going to take, they're going to use the house rule to gut the administrative process.
	They're going to probably come down and say, you don't have authority outside of the border region to issue administrative warrants anyway.
	And that they're going to start to extend protection to illegals in places they didn't have it before because they're trying to go too far, too fast in areas they didn't need to to secure a meaningful immigration enforcement in America.
	So I disagree that the Fourth Amendment allows this.
	I don't agree that the Fourth Amendment allows administrative warrants ever.
	The only question is whether the person who is affected by it has standing to bring remedy because whether they themselves have a protected privacy interest under the Constitution.
	But the idea of starting to raid people's homes with ICE officers, it's just, it's an invitation to disaster from a political perspective.
	But independent of that, administrative warrants have never been okay under the Fourth Amendment, in my opinion.
	Supreme Court's never green lit it.
	They've implicitly rejected it repeatedly.
	The only question is whether illegals have Fourth Amendment standing or not, which the courts have generally said that it does, and they're likely to go in that direction.
	I want to bring up one thing.
	So someone, now I think, I don't know what to say, I don't want to name that I don't remember, but someone said Barnes is wrong again.
	And I'm going to bring this up here because I don't think the person understood it.
	Holy Smokes court filing just revealed that the anti-ICE agitators who stormed Minnesota Church blocked the stairs so parents couldn't get to their children yelled Nazis.
	I don't think the person understands that this wasn't alleged of Don Lemon, not of the other protesters.
	The agitators were kicking the stairs and the parents were unable to get to their children.
	The agitator, hey, the agitators is not Don Lemon.
	And so what the agitators were doing is not, whether or not that was even alleged, I'm not sure if this is the document for the charging documents for Don Lemon.
	What the agitators are alleged to have done is not what Don Lemon is alleged to have done.
	So Barnes is not wrong.
	In fact, that might be why they did not allege that Don Lamon had done that.
	And therefore.
	And at minimum, they didn't allege it.
	That's why the judge made the rules.
	So the judge made the correct ruling based on the affidavit.
	If they have that evidence, get it.
	They should have already alleged it because it's an interpretation of what we saw Don Lamon doing.
	But just I love it when people say you're wrong, but they don't seem to even understand the tenor of what they're saying themselves.
	Okay, now before we get a little, let's go, how can any federal person in Minnesota expect to get a fair trial after what we are seeing?
Justice Jackson's Cite 00:08:45
	Wall staff are helping organize counterprotests, let alone judges.
	DA incesting that government politicians are using these people as cannon fodder.
	Absolutely.
	P.S.
	A lot of second A YouTubers are calling the government out on their BS to say.
	There's a lot of true blue Second Amendment advocates, particularly those that have done it on a daily basis or for a long time in political advocacy or legal advocacy.
	They are not letting Gun Owners of America is doing good work on this.
	There's a Texas Second Amendment group that's doing good work on this.
	A bunch of good Second Amendment people are calling out the administration for saying nonsense like carrying a gun to a protest is illegal and all that garbage.
	Even I understand that as a Canadian.
	Rittenoff surrendered to police.
	Well, I don't think we agree with that, but that pretty much.
	He did at the end.
	Yes, he surrendered to police at the end.
	But the issue is he didn't surrender to the people he killed.
	But yeah, Robert, my concern is that when Democrats are back in power, they will be sending the ATF out just like ICE is being sent out and used today.
	I know, precisely.
	This is why we don't want a green light, the executive branch declaring they have unilateral authority to raid your home.
	So, no way we want that to happen.
	No way.
	Schnookums says we've had many people open carry AR-15s.
	Well, there was a whole thing at the Michigan when they came up with their guns.
	And they, Schnookam, you're right.
	Yeah.
	Vivo, I'm going to Miami next week and I get five don't miss things to do in Florida.
	I can tell you the one thing to miss is the South Florida County Fair that we went to yesterday.
	I'm going to screenshot that.
	I'm going to come back to it during our after party.
	I went to a fair yesterday, Robert.
	It was like a scene out of idiocracy.
	Between everything this week, I've been crashing out so badly after Richard Stream.
	Please tell me things will get better because I'm getting exhausted, says Jonathan.
	Oh, you know, I think things will get better.
	I mean, you only, you know, they don't try to censor you because your opinion doesn't matter.
	Well, that's what I'm saying.
	They're trying to lie to you because your opinion doesn't matter.
	Clearly, your opinion does matter, and you can help make a difference and help make a change.
	The only way you're going to make it, the only way you know the world would get worse is if you do nothing to try to make it better.
	I knew that people don't waste this much time shit talking people who don't, not, I won't say they don't have influence, but who are not making salient points that are, that are reaching the right people.
	Because if we're idiots, and if you're an idiot, Robert, my goodness, a lot of people are spending a lot of time going after you.
	After having been through Hellene last year, we find ourselves in another disaster.
	The freezing rain has now ended.
	We have about a half inch of it.
	I wanted to offer my thanks to the eternal gratitude for all of you.
	Once again, for the best board in the country, so many have offered their prayers, advice, loving concern, and even a bit of humor.
	God is good and has provided some awesome people here for moral support.
	Let's keep everyone in the wake of the storm in our prayers.
	Says JS, absolutely.
	I say enjoy it also because you get a power outage.
	It's some quiet time resetting of the psyche.
	In a game of I'm not touching you in a high-stress environment, per science, highly stressful situations, going after murders, et cetera, critical thinking goes out the window.
	Playing games under those conditions, normally harmless accidents and mistakes can be deadly.
	Probably do need to get out of Minneapolis for now.
	Come back later.
	Can Trump back down a little?
	I'm also concerned about the experience and just refocus the agenda.
	And what they should do is figure out all the ways in which the state and city authorities are neck deep in all of this corruption and fraud, including illegal immigration, corruption, and fraud, including government funding of illegal immigrant fraud, including supporting, subsidizing, and protecting the Trantifa protest groups.
	There are good ways to do this.
	They seem to be going about it in a way that's almost guaranteed to be politically disastrous and legally inconsequential.
	The Supreme Court keeps putting the California and Illinois gun ban cases back in committee.
	Do you think they will ever hear one of these?
	If they did, what would be the better one to hear to put an end to the Second Amendment infringement shenanigans?
	I think we're going to get a good, good ruling based on the oral argument in the Hawaii case this week.
	And the last one here, and then we're going to get back to this.
	Every time the president deployed troops under the Insurrection Act during the last 70 years, the national public response was majority favorable.
	Is it possible that Minnesota Dems are hoping for the president to deploy troops in Minnesota?
	And if so, how would that even help them achieve their goals?
	I don't know.
	All right, Robert.
	So what is the second?
	Let's do the Second Amendment case because we're right on it.
	Hawaii, this is, was this one the, I want to say the guy, is this carrying in public areas or is this the carrying on private property that's open to the public?
	Yes, with needing to get the express written consent of the private property owner before doing it, which basically precludes carrying your firearm anywhere and everywhere where you would want it most.
	I didn't listen to the oral arguments.
	Is your uh, what's your assessment?
	So, there are two, uh, it looks like we're in most commentators, including critics who didn't want the Supreme Court to issue a favorable Second Amendment ruling, also acknowledge likely going to get at least a 6-3 win.
	Maybe 5-4.
	You never know with Barrett because Barrett asked some lame questions in between.
	But most, but the Gorsuch made the good point about the right to solicit door-to-door and how this is analogous in a range of that.
	We've that the Supreme Court has repeatedly protected constitutional rights to engage in a certain way, even on private property, when that private property is open to the public.
	And that this contravenes that.
	My favorite part was Justice Jackson citing a remember the special laws that we cited last week about the issues with this case that they're actually citing the government, why he was.
	Yes, but I forgot the black codes, the post 1865 post-Civil War codes meant to strip black freed men and women from being able to defend themselves and having Second Amendment rights.
	And this was the law they were relying upon, state of Hawaii.
	And I was like, who would be dumb enough to cite that oral argument?
	Justice Jackson!
	Justice Jackson was saying, boy, the good old black codes.
	Remember those when our people were suppressed on the plantation and they got to get back to?
	She cited that as her actual relevant analogy for supporting this restriction on Second Amendment rights.
	So, I mean, Justice Jackson is the gift that keeps on given.
	I mean, it's like some of the dumbest legal commentary you could ever hear in an oral argument.
	And she's unbashful.
	This is what happens when you grow up in a DEI bubble where everybody in law school, oh, you know, they're part of a protected class, so we better not tell them what their argument was, was dumb or their question was stupid.
	You know, they've grown up in that whole community so that they think, I mean, she would go on soliloquies.
	I was going through the transcript, and it's like six pages of her asking a question.
	Like, what the heck?
	But my favorite part was, according to Justice Jackson, the restrictions on freed men and women are the ones we need to put back into place those black codes that her ancestors were subject to.
	She's a big fan of now.
	Yeah, she's a proven buffoon.
	Robert, hold on.
	There was one thing.
	Oh, yeah, sorry.
	Let me let me do these because there was one here, actually.
	Second try.
	Could federal asset forfeiture law be used to encourage illegals to self-deport?
	I haven't thought about that, so I'd have to think about the ways in which to apply that.
	But I'm all for going at the money.
	Trace the money, track the money, deal with the money.
	You cut off the money, you end the illegal immigration.
	And you get people who voluntarily leave because they don't have, you know, they're not making any money anymore.
	That's what works effectively, rather than the shock and awe troops on the ground kind of thing.
	Barnes, I'd love to see a conversation between you and Crowder.
	I respect you both.
	And even after looking further into things on my own, I don't know who I should believe about Iran-Venezuela.
	That's from Corsorenson.
	Sparky says Christy Noam really stuck it to that South Korean battery factory in Georgia by raiding it while the Koreans were still building it.
	Atavists says, oh, I got that.
	Hiroshi, Hiroshi, Hiroshi Hirosashiniban.
	Came in late, but thank you, Barnes, for staying consistent.
	Who would Barnes replace incompetence with, like Bondi, Noam, and others?
	Could save this idea for a living.
	There's a bunch of people.
	I mean, I think Ed Martin would be good.
	There's a bunch of people we've actually recommended.
	I think Senator Schmidt would make a good head.
	You know, I think he would get to the Senate if that's their concern because he's a senator himself, did great work when he was attorney general of Missouri, sued China over COVID, sued challenging vaccine mandates, sued to support Second Amendment rights.
	I mean, all kinds of great work challenging how sanctuary cities are really operating.
	You know, if you want the guy who understands it, who gets it, who's on board with the, you know, the populist agenda and can get through the Senate and has proven bona fides in court, there's not many people better than Senator Schmid.
	Whether the latest ICE victim was exhibiting good situational judgment isn't germane to whether he was doing anything illegal, David.
	Your generation younger is bad at conflating the two.
	You see that Wesley joke beneath that?
	It wasn't a gay bar when Don Lemon went in, but it was a gay bar when he came out.
Medical Malpractice Substantive Rights 00:05:41
	Get it?
	I'm going dirtier places than maybe that joke is intended to go.
	Laman interfered with the service and in doing so threatened participants, evident by the terrified look on children's face, vivo with a straight face.
	And what's key is to understand is that by itself is not a Klan.
	Ginger ninja says is the physically obstructs, intentionally injuries, or attempts at the same.
	Yeah, correct.
	That's the key.
	You want, what did they do to make it their ingress or egress impossible or impractical or unusually difficult on the FACE Act?
	And then what you need to allege under the Klan Act is threat of violence with imminent incitement, likely.
	I mean, it's not that hard, but it's clear by the they did not review the actual law before they brought those affidavits.
	It's like, why do that?
	Why put yourself back because, I mean, they didn't even realize they were not bringing adequate charges.
	I mean, I was like, oh, man, I had some idea that they were clueless up there, but it's worse than I thought.
	What do we have?
	Well, let me see them here.
	I'm going to get to it.
	We have one of the Second Amendment cases that may be going up to SCOTUS for their Texas.
	And then we got a quartet of SCOTUS cases, plus Trump suing J.P. Morgan.
	And my experience this past week at the Tennessee state legislature, where we got a big, at least for the time being, maha win.
	What do we start with?
	Pick it up.
	Oh, we can do the Second Amendment Texas case, which is, let me get.
	So that's the one where it's about the, in Texas, they've done a reverse of Hawaii.
	So Hawaii has made it presumptive that you don't have a right to access private property that's open to the public unless you get express permission.
	In Texas, they've said if you want to prohibit people from exercising their concealed carry rights on your property when it is open to the public, then you need to put up this very specified and detailed notice.
	Well, they're suing, claiming that that's forced coerced speech and an intrusion on their property rights to have to do such a notice without, and that they should be able to just ban period without having to put a public notice up is their position.
	And so the Fifth Circuit is dealing with it now, but it's a case that may go up to SCOTUS because it's the inverse of the Hawaii case because you have property and compel.
	Is such a notice requirement compelled speech?
	And then there's issues about when it's enforceable and whether they have standing to sue, because really they're complaining about reporting somebody for trespass, and the private actors do not have a right to sue for public prosecution or the lack thereof.
	So it'll be another Second Amendment case to watch as it percolates its way up to the Supreme Court.
	All right.
	And I guess the other Supreme Court cases, I'm just pulling up your email so I can need the trigger words to remind me.
	So the medical affidavit that was required before filing a medical malpractice case, which state was this one in Delaware.
	So the Delaware Rules of Procedure required if you're filing a malpractice lawsuit, you have to have a certificate or an attestation, an affidavit from a doctor, effectively, I don't know what, attesting to the injury as a predicate for filing the lawsuit, which I don't even understand how they got that requirement in the first place, but this was a state requirement.
	And then the question was whether or not it was a violative of rights in terms of the right to redress.
	Supreme Court, was it unanimous?
	Let me see here.
	It was.
	It was a unanimous decision.
	And it has a broader impact because there's a bunch of state rules, like even, for example, certain civil rights kind of cases.
	You have to file the, if you want any state remedy, you have to file these claims within like six months or nine months.
	It's all these little traps that are designed to prevent you from getting relief.
	And I'll give you another French expression.
	This one's good, which is, I think there's an English equivalent: la procedure espositre la servant de la la enpa sa maîtres.
	Whatever.
	The procedure is supposed to be the servant of the law and not its mistress or not basically not its king.
	And it seems like you have these procedural requirements that if you don't fulfill them, you get denied substantive remedy under the law.
	And Supreme Court unanimously said, no, this is, it was, you know, I don't know if they said a quasi-substantive rule that made no sense.
	And what I mean, it's so stupid.
	You file your suit if you don't have sufficient evidence.
	I guess you won't be able to prove it on the merits.
	What was the rationale behind the affidavit to prevent medical?
	It is to make it, well, the excuse was we only want credible claims of medical malpractice to be filed, and we want that credibility to be determined prior to the person filing.
	Why would that be?
	But in reality, it's intended to, if you're a plant personal injury lawyer or medical malpractice lawyer or an injured party, you have to rush and get an expert out of the gate before you even have all the information.
	So it's designed to eviscerate medical malpractice suits so that you don't even get to the discovery stage before to prove your case.
	That's how it's functioned.
	Now, the effect of the Supreme Court ruling is very broad, though.
	For a long time, people have assumed that if a state rule is a substantive rule under the Erie case, that then that is binding on the federal court, even if it contradicts part of the federal rules of civil procedure.
	Supreme Court said not anymore.
	They said when a valid federal rule of civil procedure is on point on the question, it displaces all contrary state law, even if the state law would qualify as substantive under Erie.
Post Facto Procedural Barriers 00:10:29
	So the old procedural-substantive divide is now gone if there's a rule on point within the federal rules of civil procedure.
	So this will have a broad impact on a wide range of cases that currently are difficult to bring.
	Now, in the Med Mao context, you still have to have diversity jurisdiction.
	Most people won't.
	So this won't impact most med mal cases across the country, but it will impact a wide range of other cases where traditionally, whether or not the state law applied was this procedural substantive analysis.
	And now they're saying, scrap that.
	Look to whether the federal rules already address the question.
	Well, so that might have impact on some of these requirements for retraction notices in defamation cases.
	Correct, exactly.
	Okay.
	That's interesting.
	Robert, by the way, now as time has lapsed and people have actually watched the show over on CommiTube, have we gotten to 1,968 piddly votes?
	Now your interpretation is the favored by 3%.
	We'll see if it keeps going.
	I mean, I would have rather that whole thing not happened.
	And I don't think these cops were executioners.
	I think they were put in an impossible position by our incompetent Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the dog killer, puppy killer, Christie.
	I'm trying to come up with a nickname for Christy Noome.
	A lot of these other ones have stuck.
	They stuck all around D.C., they stuck inside the White House.
	Swampy Susie, that's a joke inside the White House.
	The Soros Scotty, that's a joke inside the Treasury Department.
	Pay-for-play, Pam.
	I don't know if it's a joke.
	There's some nasty phrases that people say about it.
	About me.
	So we got to come up with something for Christy, puppy killer gnome.
	I'll get something.
	By the way, and the expression was la procédure d'oitêtre la servant de la justice et non sa maitres.
	It must be the servant and not its master.
	Did you see the me, did someone created the AI where the reason why Macron has to wear glasses to hide whatever's going on in his eye is that he competed in the slap-off contest with his wife.
	He might have gotten a scratched cornea from those fingernails of Madame Macron.
	Okay, so now the other thing.
	By the way, there's odds now on whether Macron will win or lose that suit.
	It's closer to you than me.
	It's 59%, I think, with the current odds that Macron's win the suit against Candace Owens.
	That's not good enough.
	I would say about 95%, Jess.
	See how Candace has handled things lately.
	But we got Supreme Court issues on restitution.
	We got another rule of civil procedure ruled.
	Can you challenge a void case after the timeline normally has expired?
	Trump versus the Federal Reserve.
	The Lisa Cook case came up to oral argument this past week.
	And we got Trump suing JP Morgan.
	We've got the Target giving you cancer.
	And then the nice win we had up in Tennessee on Maha, at least for the time being.
	So we can pick which one of those to cover here and which ones to cover in the act.
	Let's do two.
	We'll do two more here.
	Everybody, get your butts on over to VivaBarn's Law.
	Yeah, we'll do this.
	Maybe the two SCOTUS ones.
	Yeah.
	So we got the restitution one.
	I had to look up the acts under the it was a guy who robbed a bank, committed a violent crime with a, with a, with a firearm, sentenced to 26 years, and then was subsequently ordered to pay restitution based on what they argued was a, I don't see, they don't say procedural, but a non-criminal.
	You can't have retroactive criminal law because it would just be funny.
	Ex post facto clause.
	Ex post facto.
	Yeah, and I did a video on that.
	I forget the context, but you cannot create retroactive criminal law.
	It's not fair.
	You can create retroactive procedure when it comes to availing yourself of your rights, whatever.
	So they create this victim's compensation fund.
	They retroactively go and say, this guy was sentenced for robbing a bank with a gun.
	And so he has to pay, I don't know, it was like $7,000 for he did he go to SCOTUS over 7,000 bucks?
	Like it wasn't, it wasn't like hungry.
	Really, I was challenging.
	It was a bunch of people wanting to challenge the restitution ruling.
	And so the Supreme Court, again, I think it was unanimous.
	Oh, majority.
	Yeah, it wasn't.
	It was.
	With two excellent concurrences.
	And they mentioned two favorite justices, Thomas and Gorsuch.
	They said it was effectively criminal, that it was retroactive.
	Did they mention not double jeopardy?
	Was it double jeopardy as well in terms of a second punishment for the same crime?
	But bottom line, they said it was a criminal in nature and therefore could not be retroactive.
	So he didn't have to pay the 7,000 bucks while he serves out the next 20 years of his sentence.
	And it was a good expansion to look at what's criminal versus civil in the ex post facto clause context.
	But I recommend the concurrence by Justice Thomas, co-signed off on by Justice Gorsuch.
	And what Thomas and Gorsuch highlighted, this is an area where sometimes in the criminal context, Thomas isn't always the best, but when he really latches on to understanding the original understanding of the Constitution on an issue, even if it impacts criminals, he'll follow it to its constitutional origin, which is great.
	And he pointed out the ex post facto clause, this whole civil criminal distinction doesn't make sense.
	He goes, it should be simpler.
	If the state is trying to impose coercive penalties for a public wrong, then that is governed by the ex post facto law.
	They can't retroactively do it and just call it civil and get away with it.
	So he's like, they tried to call this restitution civil, and it was clearly criminal.
	It's part of the criminal case, criminal sentencing, criminal process.
	You're up against the U.S. government when you do it.
	Everything about it screams criminal.
	But the other additional, I hope that more people start.
	I'm glad Gorsuch has joined Thomas.
	We should expand the ex post facto clause to mean what it was always intended to mean.
	Our founders thought it was so obvious that we didn't even need it.
	They're like, what idiot would try to penalize somebody for something that only became a law against it after he did it?
	I was like, well, what is that nonsense?
	That's void.
	Well, the modern era, the government finds all kinds of ways to do that.
	So that is the big hope is that that Thomas Gorsuch concurrence gains momentum.
	So we have a robust enforcement of the ex post facto clause.
	Let me bring the other Viva.
	Okay, so it was purchased subscriber who says, Viva, if you want to know the likely scenario of why the Epstein files are slow, I can probably tell you I'm amazed what AI will say now.
	I can't write it all here for lack of $1,000 to waste.
	If you want a long shot, I can write you.
	Purchase subscriber.
	I'm very curious as to what that's about now.
	But purchase subscriber.
	Thank you.
	And then, do we have, we don't have another SCOTIS case?
	Oh, yeah, one more.
	So this was the, remember the, so what happens is let's say you find out that there's a judgment against you belatedly.
	Oh, the voice.
	So, yeah, okay, this one I remember.
	So you can get judgments by default if you never got served or they served it on a P.O. box and you never answered it and whatever.
	This was like one of the earlier cases in my career where I career case where I, you know, someone got a judgment by default for basically the wrongs of their son.
	Foreigners who didn't speak the language, had no idea what they got.
	They got a million dollar judgment slapped against them for failure to appear.
	They didn't announce they were going to contest after 30 days.
	They go to court within a reasonable framework.
	I don't remember if it was within the 30 some odd delays that you have to contest a default judgment under Quebec procedure.
	This is a case where it's years later, you don't allegedly get properly served with the judgment.
	And then you find out about it.
	I don't know when they come to seize assets or I'm not sure what the exact circumstances were.
	They didn't seize the bank account.
	They finally found the bank account where the money was.
	And then the guy says, I never knew about the judgment.
	Undo the judgment.
	And I don't know how many years later it was, but the court basically said there's a realistic timeframe within which you have to act and you can't pretend.
	I don't know in this case if they legit didn't get served.
	I know they said they didn't get proper service and I don't know if they're playing games like, oh, you didn't, you know, I didn't sign off on it.
	But they said, you know, there's a timeframe within which for the stability of court rulings, we're not going to annul decisions years down the line.
	But what's the greater import of this decision?
	Well, historically, a void judgment is no judgment at all.
	And what the Supreme Court basically said is, well, not a void judgment is still a judgment if you didn't bring a challenge in a timely enough manner.
	So it's basically protecting void judgments.
	That's what they're doing.
	They've said it would be so practically the hurdle if we recognize void judgments would lead to all these different challenges.
	It's like, if you've got a void judgment, you've got a bigger problem than who's bringing the challenge.
	Well, no, but hold on a second.
	I'm just looking at AI overview.
	A void judgment in U.S. law is a decision that is invalid from its inception.
	Okay, thanks.
	But why?
	Usually resulting from lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
	But how would you get it?
	That's like an unlawful judgment.
	How would you get it?
	How would you get it?
	Well, like you could get it by never having personal jurisdiction, maybe not having subject matter.
	But what they're saying is even if a court issued a judgment and it didn't even have subject matter jurisdiction, you can't challenge it unless you brought it within the right timeframe.
	So they effectively are immunizing void judgments as long as you get to run out the clock.
	So I was not a fan of the decision myself.
	I knew practically this is where they were likely to go because they're revealing the scale to which there's all kinds of questionable judgments that may be void from void abenicio, as it's sometimes said.
	So I often hear from people in the store, we might call the non-official legal community, you know, those people that are in the self-help paralegal world.
	They're like, oh, Barnes, this is void.
	We can challenge it because they've seen all the old law that says a void judgment is no judgment at all.
	Well, the Supreme Court says, nah, it actually is still a judgment if you didn't challenge it timely enough.
	How do you get a void judgment?
	Like, presumably the court has to verify the basic elements before issuing a judgment, like an affinity.
	Yeah, they're supposed to, but even if they screw all that up, it doesn't matter.
	Unless you find out about it in time to challenge it.
	All right.
	Well, that is a little more frustrating.
	I thought it was, I thought it was just some idiot pretending to never have been served.
	And like, well, I think in this particular case, that was the case.
	I think it was someone who did owe the money who thought he'd run out the clock on having to pay.
	But the broader legal import of the rule is more problematic.
	One of the board commenters made this precise point.
	So it looks like Coney, the Coney Island Company, knew what they were doing and was in fact liable and did, in fact, owe the money and knew they owed the money and did, in fact, get timely notice in a way they just ignored.
	There's good arguments on that.
	My concern is the bigger policy impact of now there's another procedural barrier to challenging orders and judgments that, if they're void, they should have be of no legal impact, period.
	And you should be able to challenge it at any time as being void.
Megan's Concerns About Policy Impact 00:03:44
	They're concerned that courts are so out of control that it would lead to too many challenges of too many cases.
	It's like, hmm, sounds like a court doesn't know what knows that its courts are not doing their job.
	I'm trying to see who we go raid because it's a Sunday night and we can't raid Salty Cracker.
	We're going to raid Badlands Media again.
	The no treason podcast, which looks good.
	Jonathan Drake looking intense.
	Robert, what do you have coming up this week?
	The oh, I got to travel.
	So I'm hitting the road.
	Manana, the I know Megan Kelly people had offered to be on the show, but I can't make it.
	I got Alex Jones was like, hey, Barnes, come back in.
	We'll debate this whole thing on Minnesota.
	But I got to hit the road.
	I got a big restitution matter that's being, in fact, I think questionably brought, by the way, in California.
	So we got to fly out there, handle that.
	Then I probably got to fly to, may have to fly at the end of the week to Philadelphia.
	They keep harassing the Amish.
	They're not letting them do the same kind of diversion deals and other deals that everybody else gets.
	The Republican prosecutor loves to hammer the Amish.
	I don't know what's going on there.
	But so may have to be up there.
	So maybe a lot of travel this week.
	And assuming that we're not frozen out.
	Apparently, Chad Newton dodges a bullet.
	Everybody around us is getting hammered.
	But we're okay so far.
	At least the power is still on so far.
	And Robert, I'm showing the QR codes.
	Everyone, download Rumble Wallet.
	And if you want to tip with gold but tethered crypto, you can do XAUT.
	If you want to tip with Ethereum, what is this?
	USDT.
	Download Rumble Wallet.
	It's available for Android on Google Play.
	It's available for Apple on the Apple Store.
	And you can invest at your own risk and peril.
	You can invest in crypto, tip with crypto, transfer crypto, non-custodial wallet.
	Don't lose your password.
	You'll never get it back again.
	I am going to, I'm going to try to make the Megan Kelly.
	I think I'm going to see if it's actually going to happen.
	I'm going to drive to Sarasota tomorrow to do Timcast live at 6:30.
	So I'll hopefully be able to, I'll get there well early and do my show in a boardroom.
	And maybe, if it's still on the table, do that Megan Kelly bit.
	But I'm not sure that I'm going to.
	Everyone knows what I think about this now.
	My obsession with it is other than the human element, the political consequences of what happened in Minnesota, which are going to be bad, counterproductive, and everyone should just whatever.
	And then what else?
	Then I'm going to El Salvador for the Bitcoin thing, which is going to be fun.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah.
	I hope you come back.
	That'll be very nice.
	And the rest of the week, it'll be fun stuff.
	So we're going over to Viva BarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Go raid the No Treason podcast.
	Let me just go put it in our link here.
	If you want to support us, by the way, the best way, come join viva barnslaw.locals.com.
	10 bucks a month, 100 bucks a year, and it's the best place in the legal universe.
	So we're confirming the raid.
	And let me just see what else we're going to forget.
	I don't want to forget anything.
	Another last tip question from Purchase subscriber over on Commitube.
	Send me an Instagram message.
	I think my Instagram messages are open, but I don't check them very often.
	And then we're going to find out why they're not releasing the FC files.
	I think it has to do with not embarrassing donors, countries, and those who have been financially involved.
	Pay for PlayPay needs protection from the deep state so that she can keep using the Justice Department as a cash register for corrupt lobbyists like Arthur Schwartz and Mike Davis.
	Okay, we are going over to VivaBardsLaw.locals.com.
	Rumble, Godspeed.
	Commitube, Godspeed.
	X, Godspeed.
	And Locals, you get the Godbless.

Chapters

00:00:00 Strong Letter Sent
00:04:38 Viva And Memory Refresh
00:08:12 Letter Demand Analysis
00:11:08 Drone Mystery
00:16:12 Confusing Prosecution Theory
00:19:39 Pink Person Controversy
00:24:36 Supremacy Clause Defense
00:33:45 Sniper Excuses Questioned
00:39:59 South Park's Political Theater
00:51:41 Pepper Spray Controversy
01:07:44 You're Asking People for Trouble
01:22:29 Blocking Services Dispute
01:38:13 Rushing Into Disaster
01:46:55 Fourth Amendment Controversies
01:57:14 Justice Jackson's Cite
02:05:59 Medical Malpractice Substantive Rights
02:11:40 Post Facto Procedural Barriers
02:22:10 Megan's Concerns About Policy Impact