Candace Owens faces a $75,000 defamation lawsuit from Brian Harple, who alleges she fabricated a Fort Huachuca meeting to claim he conspired in Charlie Kirk's assassination. While Owens cited a "credible tip" from Mitch Snow and presented misleading evidence, Harple's flight records prove he was in Dallas on September 9, 2025. The suit accuses Owens of civil conspiracy with Snow to spread false narratives about a second shooter and government involvement, transforming opinionated security critiques into actionable criminal negligence claims that could redefine the legal boundaries of political commentary. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Real Balsa Wood Break00:04:38
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, to start off with something slightly lighter than the typical starting video.
In a video reminiscent of Star Wars Kid, and if you don't remember that video, go back and look up Star Wars Kid.
We have a video that I am on the fence about whether or not it is real.
A black belt crushing pre cut balsa wood.
Behold.
Yes!
Power baby.
Axe kick board break to start off this creative breaking tournament routine.
Up next is Isabella now with a headbutt board break.
Good hit here in the Breaking Point, Breaking Championships.
Going for a knee strike.
Excellent technique and power so far representing Team Victory.
Up next, a back leg roundhouse kick.
Three boards.
Here we go.
Having a great time here at the Southern Showdown.
Six boards.
Double hammer fist.
Here it goes.
Good hit.
Now coming up to break some concrete.
We have one concrete slab going for a sidekick concrete break.
Here it goes.
Measuring the distance and a little high.
Gonna try again.
By the way, it breaks in the top quarter.
Here it goes.
Excellent technique and power.
Awesome performance.
One final break.
Here goes three concrete slaps and a farm break.
Good hits.
Power, baby.
Okay, so this is a serious question.
I don't want to make fun of anybody, and I'm not trying to.
What the hell did I just watch, and is it real?
Now, the reason why I. You look through these videos, and I'll tell you what I do as an internet sleuth.
You look in the videos and you look in the background at the setup.
And what indicators that you have here that this is, in fact, a real, put it in quotes, competition.
In the backdrop, you can have, you see, you have your slabs and they're already sort of predetermined based on the order that they're going to be used in.
You got your additional concrete slabs purportedly over there.
As you go through, okay, that's some intensity right there.
Here you go.
Educators building futures.
You have what appears to be a school and this excited person now cracking a piece of a bed frame over her leg, which seems to be, okay, now look at the person in the back.
Look at the person in the back.
Their mouth actually drops.
Huh?
Do we see that?
Yes.
Excellent.
So that looks like technique and authentic, authentic cheering someone on as they go.
You've got Triton High School.
I'm going to go look this up actually as we're talking about this.
This is where my Spidey senses really started tingling.
Did you know that in her practice kick, she cracked one of the boards?
Did you notice that?
Hour so far.
Here you go.
He's got the boards.
Representing team victory up next, a back leg roundhouse kick.
Watch.
Three boards.
She just cracked one.
She cracked one right there.
You could even, the guy seems to be like, maybe he's squeezing it and causing it to break.
She just broke one.
Here we go.
Okay, now what we're going to do is this.
We're not going to waste the entire show breaking this down.
What was it?
It was Triton High School.
Let's see if we go.
Triton, Triton.
I could have just asked Gronk, but I'm going to do it myself.
Triton High School Karate Competition.
Let's see if this actually brings up anything.
It looks real, people.
Well, it seems to be real.
All right.
It doesn't matter.
I just brought myself out of here.
Bring my.
What?
What?
Remove.
Bring me back in.
Ladies and gentlemen, how goes the battle?
It's Friday.
Although, when you do this type of analysis as your occupation, every day is a Monday, or every day is a Friday, or every day is a Saturday.
Every day is the same.
That's the moral of the story.
Good afternoon.
Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida Rumbler, in my time slot on the Rumble lineup, three o'clock.
Now, many of you might know, and we had a technical glitch yesterday and could not simul stream the.
New channel.
It's a new channel.
It's a new venture with a man named Mark Grobert, who is to the movie world the biggest brain on the internet.
1984 Movie Analysis00:04:57
And we have a movie review show that we do weekly.
And it's called Viva and Lord Buckley Go to the Movies.
And yesterday we tried to stream it for the first time on Rumble, but there was some glitch with StreamYard.
And I'm going to try to make sure that we use Rumble Studio on the other end going forward.
But we reviewed Unforgiven yesterday.
And everybody can see it.
You can go sign up and subscribe to the channel if you're so inclined.
Next week, Hell or High Water.
Where am I in here?
There we go.
There's my face.
We are going to do this Hell or High Water on Rumble next week live.
If you haven't seen it, go watch it.
We did Unforgiven.
It's an amazing analysis, amazing deep dives.
We go into it, all things about the movie.
And I jokingly said to Mark Robert that next week we should do a movie review of Angel Studios Animal Farm.
To which Mark Grobert astutely observed, No, too political, because we have started this movie review, A, to get back to our passions of childhood.
I used to study film in, it's called Sejep, it's like the two years in between high school and university.
And I did fine arts, creative arts, and film studies.
I've always loved films.
The only problem is now films have turned into total and utter horseshit, as we're going to see with the analysis of Animal Farm.
Now, the full caveat is that I have not yet seen this movie.
But that doesn't mean that I am not totally familiar with the controversy, which is brewing on the internet.
Everybody knows what Angel Studios is, correct?
I mean, Angel Studios has put out good work.
Angel Studios, they put out Sound of Freedom.
They put out a number of movies that are supposed to be more conservative aligned, more faith based.
Let me bring this up here and we can see what Angel Studios is.
They've done good work.
And you hate to see.
An entity that has done good work torches its credibility over one egregious debacle.
We might be at Bud Light levels torching the legacy of Angel Studios, as you can see, Sound of Freedom, The Shift, King of Kings.
You got a bunch of good stuff in here.
It's better than Netflix, or at least it was better than Netflix.
The controversy, for those of you who may not know, is that Angel Studios came out with a movie called Animal Farm, a rendition.
Of the classic Orwell book.
And it may or may not be too true to the book.
And it may not be something that conservatives would necessarily want to promote, save and except for the fact that it seems that many conservatives out there promoting this movie are paid to do so.
I just watched Tim Poole put out a 35 minute analysis on this.
And Tim's, I mean, I won't even call it a memory.
Tim's understanding and analysis of the book.
Is far deeper than anything I remember.
I haven't read George Orwell's Animal Farm since I pretended to read it in high school.
1984, however, I read more recently multiple times and I understand the essence of 1984 and the meaning, the deep meaning.
1984 is an all time classic.
So they say also about George Orwell's Animal Farm.
All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
And the idea that the book was somehow a denunciation of Marxism, communism, promotion of capitalism may or may not be the truth of the analysis of the movie or the book.
It sure as sugar is not the truth of the movie based on what people are saying.
I have yet to watch this movie.
I might have to do it out of morbid curiosity the same way I had to watch Barbie, which wasn't actually as bad as I thought it was.
But to get into a review of the movie before we get into the scandal, Los Angeles Times.
An oppressively dumbed down animal farm has little use for George Orwell's ideas.
We may or may not read this entire thing.
How long is this going to take?
Three minutes?
Oh, we can do it.
As the cautionary 1945 fable Animal Farm memorably shows, George Orwell had some thoughts about the Soviet Union and the terrible folly in politicized moralism.
Were he around today, he'd probably have some thoughts about the state of the children's animation, too, after seeing the director Andy Serkis's crass, frenetic, Americanized update of his anti totalitarianism creature tale.
To riff off the book's famous maxim, some cartoons are decidedly less equal than others.
Do we need to get into all of this?
You'll go watch the movie.
The relentless, sped up pace turns Oral's narrative into a noisy, good versus evil story with zero nuance, as if the whole point was to get someone shouting, Napoleon, your whole life is a lie.
Yep, that would have showed Stalin.
Discrediting Conservative Voices00:07:59
The mania also squelches the parts that seem naturally update friendly.
Napoleon could easily be a Trump coded figure now and overcook the added anti capitalism grandiosity.
Malls, drones, robots, material excess.
What's left is a visually unappetizing animal farm that plays as if someone sloppily traced over a masterpiece and circus.
Who also voices a rooster doesn't so much direct it as twist some grand knob with settings like louder, faster, jokier, and bigger.
We're not going to get into the entire review.
You'll go watch it if you want.
The bottom line of this movie is that, from what I understand, it's fundamentally anti capitalist, it's fundamentally pro Marxist, pro communist.
And you've had some voices, I don't need to name anybody, and I'm not going to, coming out and promoting this, saying it's a great movie.
And what seems to be the case is that they either haven't seen it or that they are straight up lying because they're being paid to do it.
I wasn't privy to any of this.
What I know is that people have, in fact, been paid and some have been offered to be paid.
Tim Poole being one of them, offered to pay to promote something.
Now, I'm not anti, by any means, anti sponsorship.
It should be clear when it's happening.
And the sponsorship, even when you're doing them, if you're being paid to do it, have to be natural and they have to be honest.
If you don't use a product, you can't say it's a great product.
Everyone should use it.
I love it.
That's a lie.
You could say it's a great product.
Go get yours here today.
And this is what you can do with it.
If you don't like the product, yes, sure as sugar can't say you do.
And if you're being paid, period, you always have to clearly enunciate that.
And when it comes to paid movie reviews, some might say that that's just fake movie reviews.
We'll get to some of these clips as to how they're actually not even hiding the fact that they are desecrating Angel Studios and taking a, since we're talking about animals, a steaming dump on conservatives, conservatism, and turning into a farce those conservatives who have promoted this video, this movie.
Here, hold on a second.
Let me bring this up here.
This is a part of Tim Pool's long video where he clips from a man who's analyzing the movie, I dare say, properly.
Marcus Pittman called on.
I need everybody to share this video with Riley Gaines.
Big retailers just banned our money.
And honestly, we're not surprised because we didn't build this.
Come on, Tim.
Oh, God.
It's clear that it's never been about sports.
It's never been about protecting women or children if they wanted to protect women and children.
Riley, you have been scammed.
And I want to be very clear about this.
They have.
Did you notice how we put in my opinion over the caption?
Hashtag no defamation because saying someone has been scammed. Could be interpreted as a defamatory statement of fact.
I love that.
I would have always taken that as a proverbial expression and a matter of opinion, but okay, let's go on with the analysis.
Angel Studios, when they paid you to make this tweet that says, My husband and I got an early access screening to Animal Farm, an animated adaptation of George Orwell's novel made by Angel Studios, incredibly well done.
They do a perfect job of reminding viewers that Marxism always has and always will fail.
In theaters, May 1st, hashtag Animal Farm Partners.
They paid you to make that tweet.
I want to be very clear.
They have done you dirty.
It's almost as if your goal was to sabotage Angel Studios, sabotage conservative voices, humiliate them.
This is exactly what you do.
I'm not saying it's a covert operation, it might be an overt operation.
But if the goal was to discredit prominent conservative voices and to discredit Angel Studios, this is the type of infiltration that you would expect.
And this is the type of done dirty, as this individual here says, that you would.
Anticipate, and I don't know if you realize what they did, but they've done you dirty.
First off, everybody knows this movie is not about Marxism failing, this movie is pro communist, and everybody's talking about that.
But there's something else here that is very detrimental to the platform that you have built, and it is with Laverne Cox.
Laverne Cox stars in this film.
I saw he indeed snowballed here, and we'll get to the clip.
Laverne Cox, I'd have no idea who the person is.
Not only is this a movie that is effectively as pro communist and pro progressive activist as One Battle After Another, not only have they gotten some of the most prominent conservative voices to come out and say, Yay, great movie, whether or not they watch it, maybe they did in fact like it, but when you're getting paid multiple figures to do it, that will become questionable sincerity.
They've gotten people to basically.
Some of the most prominent figures to effectively espouse views that run totally contrary to everything they stand for or perhaps stood for.
I have no idea who this individual is.
No idea that the voice, as far as I understood, Seth Rogen is the voice of the pig and not Joe Rogan.
Seth Rogen, who's, you know, I always make jokes that the cartoon characters always somehow look a little bit like the people who voice them.
So a pig for Seth Rogen is a hairy, dirty pig for Seth Rogen is a very fitting animal.
I have no idea who this person is, what character they are in the movie.
He is or she is in the movie, but listen to this.
At the heart of every genocide is dehumanization.
That is the beginning.
And I know we're talking about animals here, but when we stop seeing our fellow citizens as human, then we can commit violence against them with impunity, take away their rights.
I think what we've seen over the past six years with trans people is a really good example of that.
It's clear that it's never been about sports, it's never been about protecting women or children.
If they wanted to protect women and children, they would.
Indike, the Epstein people in the Epstein files.
We know who they are, but they're not doing that.
Well, I'm just going to pause it right here because just to highlight some abject stupidity, it's never been about women or children.
If it were, they would have indicted the people about the Epstein.
I've got all of my very vocal grievances about the debacle that has been the release of the Epstein files.
But one thing that you cannot fault this current DOJ administration for is going after child trafficking and combating that.
You can have all the criticism under the world.
One thing is at least.
Not say undeniable, progress has been made on this particular front.
And to use the Epstein debacle as an example or as the evidence that the DOJ or at least this administration doesn't really care about children, that's weak and stupid.
As is everything else that is said in this particular clip, which we're going to finish right now.
So that was all a pretext to scapegoat trans people, to dehumanize us and put us in an excluded category so that we can take away our rights, legislate us out of existence.
We're seeing that happen.
So, this is coming from End Wokeness.
No, this is Libs of TikTok.
Sorry.
Transgender Laverne Cox.
I mean, that's very, very funny that a transgender person's last name would be Cox.
I presume this is a male.
I don't know to what degree he may or may not be Coxless at this point.
That's just ironic.
Says banning women from women's sports and bathrooms will lead to genocide.
So, this is in promotion of the movie Animal Farm, which we are now being effectively subversively told is about.
Transgenderism, or somehow related to denial of existence of transgender individuals, and that they're being legislated out of existence and legislated out of equal rights because men can't compete in women's sports.
Fart Jokes and Freedom00:05:46
That is the movie now, ironically enough, that Riley Gaines, I don't know that she was paid.
That's what people are saying on the internet.
I don't even, I don't know, and I don't care.
Though it would be ironic if indeed she was paid to promote a movie that is now being used to promote the exact opposite policies.
That she has defined her existence on, and righteously so.
And if you wanted to go ahead and stealth discredit Riley Gaines, what would you do differently?
If you wanted to go and stealth discredit Angel Studios and all the great work that they've done, what would you do differently?
Well, I'll tell you what, what would you do, actually?
Let's just think about this.
What would you do if you really wanted to discredit them?
Well, what you'd do is you'd start making fart and piss and poop jokes.
You'd make poop, I won't exaggerate, fart jokes.
You'd make fart jokes.
Referencing the sound of freedom.
That's what you would do if you wanted to put out a piece of political, politicized trash to discredit Angel Studios, which has done great work.
You'd make fart jokes that reference the sound of freedom, like you see right here.
Come on.
Hey, where'd this come from?
It's leftovers.
It'll go to waste.
You should have this for all your hard work.
No, Thank you.
But it's supposed to be shared equally.
There is no supposed to anymore.
Okay?
We're free.
For example, I'm about to fart right now.
This is the sound of freedom.
Thanks, Napoleon.
Nice to be appreciated.
Just enjoy the milk, kid.
And also, don't worry.
It's our little secret.
You're going to make a very demeaning, degrading joke that effectively takes a big one on the sound of freedom.
Voiced by a man who is among the most rabidly.
Anti conservative out there that you can imagine.
That's what you would do.
You'd make fart jokes about Sound of Freedom.
The man making the fart jokes is Seth Rogen.
And like I mentioned here, just to add this to stage, like I mentioned, he kind of looks like the pig that he's playing.
So, if I mean, look, everything's not an operation.
If everything's an operation, nothing's an operation.
This reeks of somehow some sort of sabotage akin to the Onion buying out InfoWars so they can then turn InfoWars into a joke of itself.
Can you imagine?
I said, like, who thought it was a good idea to make fart jokes about the sound of freedom as though that wouldn't, not just piss off, as though that would not be a total betrayal of your viewers, your viewership, the people who've paid their good money to support the work that you do?
He's like, ha ha, now I'm going to make fart jokes about the sound of freedom, a film about human trafficking, while the person who's coming out and talking about this movie now claiming that this administration doesn't care about.
Saving children who are victims of sex crimes, while the movie itself turns that amazing movie into a butt of a joke, pun intended.
And if you had any lingering doubts about the degree to which literally they are spitting in your face and laughing about it, this is some of the promotional stuff right now because they've gotten some backlash about the movie, about the ad campaign, about the promotional campaign.
It's not them.
It's you.
And it's not you.
It's just a small group of very loud, annoying people, and we should just shut them up.
Oh, Animal Farm.
No one wants us to be together.
They haven't even seen me.
They're judging a movie by its trailer, which is what trailers are for.
And it's not the case anymore.
But still.
At Chloe Rice8272 said, Seth Rogen is probably the last person to come to mind to voice a character who's literally meant to resemble Stalin.
Resemble Stalin as a pig?
Seth Rogen is a perfect pig, Stalin.
People are saying I should have been rated R. Full of blood, darkness, and despair.
At Huff UITV said, making Animal Farm kid friendly is dystopian.
It's a story about talking farm animals.
It's read by kids in middle school.
George Orwell made it that way.
It's not like we're doing Schindler's List with farm animals.
It's Animal Farm.
And then at DustinMaddox9445 said, it is wild that Angel Studios would put out a pro communism movie that was adapted from an anti communism book.
But I hate communism.
Me too.
And at Generically Entertaining said, you don't even need that windmill anymore.
Just hook up a generator to George Orwell's grave and he'd power the whole farm.
I mean, first of all, I love the attempt to replicate the squatty potty ads.
If anyone doesn't know that, among the greatest ad campaign in the history of humankind.
But at least they're bringing up the criticism.
And then it's going to be up to you to decide whether or not this criticism is wrong or, in fact, right.
Because he's rolling over.
I get it.
It's really funny.
It's not true.
But it is really funny.
It is really funny.
So, Angel fans hate me?
No, most don't.
You passed the guild.
It's a loud minority trying to silence us.
Like the pigs.
We'll stop it there.
There's only so much we can insult someone's intelligence and expect them to tune in and continue tuning in.
That is the movie.
That is the scandal.
Not just a crap movie that desecrates the legacy of Angel Studios, but a promotional marketing campaign that now seems to be causing.
Conspiring to Assassinate00:14:41
Very serious reputational damage to some of the bigger names who seemingly partnered up with this Animal Farms partner, got paid to promote a movie that they may or may not have watched, may or may not have understood.
And now, based on promotional stuff and response stuff and other advertising marketing videos coming out, it's being quite clearly illustrated that this runs contrary to the political, conservative values and views of everybody who made Angel Studios what it is today and the very people that they paid to promote this garbage movie.
Now, I'm still going to go watch it.
Just out of morbid curiosity, the same way I watched Barbie out of morbid curiosity.
And I was actually not as offended as Ben Shapiro by Barbie because I watched that movie much like I watched One Battle After Another and said, Holy crap, these movies make the lefty progressive activist people look like buffoons.
Barbie, a movie about woman empowerment, ostensibly made it clear at the end of the movie that society couldn't function under the leadership of women only.
I was like, Holy crap, do they not understand that the entire punchline of this movie? Is contrary to the purpose to show that women don't need men to have a functional society.
Watching one battle after another, I'm like, these are the most bumbling, incompetent, nincompoop, idiot, drug addict, washed up losers of activists that you've ever seen.
Still garbage movie, one battle after another, pure garbage.
So I'm going to watch this and I'm going to see if it's as bad as I think it's going to be.
Barbie was not as bad as I thought it was going to be.
One battle after another was exponentially worse than I thought it was going to be.
But now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
People.
Let me see what's going on here.
I feel I moved my.
The dog slid my camera over.
I feel like I have to move over here a little bit.
The lighting looks good today, doesn't it?
Got the Bronco, mini Bronco right there.
I've got my Civil War cannonball right there.
I got my talking truck right there.
I got Louis the Lost.
Does everybody remember this?
Oh.
This is a throwback, people.
If you didn't know, this was sent to me by someone in Canada.
And listen.
Uh oh.
Uh oh.
I hope someone didn't record over it.
Maybe the battery finally went dead after six years.
It was a kid singing, You're My Sunshine, and it was beautiful.
How goes the battle?
Let's see what's going on in the chat here before we get into our next topic, which is going to be Candace Owens getting sued again.
And I deliberately did not do an in depth analysis of the lawsuit before going live because I sort of want to go through it together.
And then I also want to check my biases as we do it.
But I'll get there in one second.
Let me just see what's going on over at Viva Barnes Law.
Dot locals.com in the chat and bring it up.
Dog digger says, David, I'm gonna have to go.
That's in the Rumble chat, I'll be there in one second.
A missed opportunity.
Angel Studios missed the mark.
The battle is lost.
Every man for himself.
They need to make a good movie based on the chrysalids.
I can't believe no one has done it yet.
I'm not sure about that.
Maybe that karate chick should have starred in Barbie.
Is Hollywood types are being reformatted into AI so they seem to be slumming it in Angel Studios, mucking up the garden?
Yeah, just the idea of bringing in Seth Rogen.
I mean, and I think he's funny.
I liked the movie The Interview.
I liked 40 year old Virgin.
I liked Knocked Up.
Was he in 40 year old Virgin?
Yeah, I think he was.
He's funny, but he is not Angel Studios.
I mean, that's not to say you should only hire people who you're politically aligned with any more than you should fire people who you're not politically aligned with.
But the whole thing about Angel Studios is it was supposed to be the alternative to the Hollywood crap.
And now, if it's just getting infiltrated by the very same Hollywood crap it was supposed to deviate from, well, congratulations.
We're back at square one.
Let's see what's going on over on Rumble for two seconds.
Who is she suing now?
Ah, she's not suing anybody.
Now she is getting sued by Brian Harple, a member of Charlie Kirk's security team.
We're going to get into it.
Let me just see what's going on in the chat and then we're going to.
Oh, by the way, let me refresh here.
If you want to support the channel, people, the way you do it is you download the Rumble app and you can go to tip and you can click on the scanner here if you want to tip with Bitcoin.
If you want to invest in Bitcoin at your own risks and perils, you can do it.
But if you want to tip, all you have to do is scan that QR code.
You can tip with crypto, Bitcoin, all the rest.
You can tip with gold backed crypto.
If you scan that.
And if you want custom video messages, you can go to shoutout.us forward slash vivafry.
Merch, all that other stuff.
And you can send me something.
I got to go to the post office today and see if a package has not yet come.
See, what does this one say here?
Scott Halloween says, Rumble needs to fix its search engine.
I typed in burnt space alien and didn't get one.
I don't even know what that means.
And now I'm going to get in trouble.
Let's bring it out.
The news of the day is that Candace Owens is now being sued for defamation by Brian Harple.
Who is or was a member of Charlie Kirk's security team?
And it's a big lawsuit 60, I mean, it is in fact 69 pages.
And I'm going to avoid making the Billy Madison joke here, but it's a long lawsuit.
And it's news, I guess, to anybody who's been living under a stone since September 10, the date on which Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
Candace Owens is being sued by Brigitte Macron.
We've talked about that lawsuit.
At length on the channel.
Let me just bring this out so I can talk about this some more.
We've talked about the Brigitte Macron lawsuit at length.
Robert Barnes, whom many of you are angry at, get over it, sissies, believes that that lawsuit is effectively as much of a slam dunk.
I don't want to overstate what I think his statement was, but he believes that that lawsuit against Candace Owens is going to succeed.
And I'm not of that opinion.
I read through that lawsuit.
I don't believe that that lawsuit is ultimately going to succeed against Candace Owens because I think whatever Candace Owens said in the context of her expose into the possibility that Brigitte Macron is, in fact, A man.
Einhorn is a man that she was born a man, that she stole the identity of somebody else, that when, you know, that she's a transgender or that she changed sexes and stole an identity and participated in these secret cabals of whatever.
You know, I believe that anybody listens to that understands that they're hearing a theory, and you can call it an unhinged, crazy conspiracy theory, although some of it is sufficiently based in other reported, you know, allegations that.
You know, you could say you could see where someone got the seeds of this idea.
I happen to believe that that lawsuit will ultimately not succeed if it gets to the merits.
We'll see.
This one is a little bit different.
I don't know if it's a little bit different.
We're going to walk through it as we do this together.
But the bottom line news of the day is she's being sued now by Brian Harple.
And this is the summary in a news article.
And we're going to go through the pertinent allegations in the lawsuit itself.
Charlie Kirks.
Security head sues Candace Owens for defamation.
All right, let's go here.
News Nation.
Charlie Kirk's head of security has filed a defamation lawsuit against conservative activist Owens, alleging she falsely accused him of conspiring to assassinate Kirk.
Now, conspiring to assassinate versus conspiring to cover up or having some role to play in either the assassination or the cover up or the lapse of security, these are going to be, I say, not nuances, these are going to be linguistic turns of phrases that people are going to need to.
Keep in mind because one can say that she accused him of conspiring to assassinate.
And Candace is going to say, I'm just asking questions and suggesting that if there was an egregious lapse of security, that I place the blame here.
We'll get there, but we're actually going to read what Candace has said that forms part of the lawsuit.
Brian Harple, whose security team worked with Charlie Kirk and his organization, Turning Point USA, since 2018, alleges Owens fabricated a story that he met with Army intelligence officers and Erica Kirk, Charlie's now widow, at Fort Hachuca.
To plan the killing.
This is the big statement of fact that, as far as I understand, is overtly, incontrovertibly false.
That the guy who gave her that tip, Mitch Snow, is a pathological liar, among other things, allegedly, not even apparently, that this meeting never happened.
The ultimate irony, by the way, that everybody who agrees that Mitch Snow is a liar, that this Fort Hachuca meeting never occurred, certainly not the way.
Candace Owens described it also relies on the same Mitch Snow to conclude that Joe Kent is the one who gave information, allegedly classified information to Candace Owens.
So bear in mind when people have their biases, they will disregard sources when they want to and then treat those sources as true when they want to.
Suing Owens, her media company's podcast, guest Mitchell Snow for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy to defame.
Crook was shot and killed.
Harple alleges in his suit.
That shortly after Kirk's killing, Owens and conspiracy theorists began spreading false content that Kirk was betrayed by individuals close to him.
That would be, we know what she said.
I had a dream that he's betrayed.
That's, you know, matter of opinion.
That the government orchestrated a cover up of the assassination.
That would not pertain to Harple.
That Turning Point USA was implicated in the event and advancing numerous additional conspiracy theories suggesting that somebody other than Tyler Robinson was involved in the murder.
Well, two things can be true at once.
Tyler Robinson could have taken the shot and other people been.
Involved as well.
He said the accusations against him escalated after Owens relied on Snow, who claimed he saw Harple leaving a, quote, top brass, end quote, military meeting at Fort Hachuca in Arizona the day before the shooting.
Harple alleges the meeting never occurred and that his travel records show he was in Dallas at the time.
He alleges Owens reviewed the records but continued spreading false stories.
Okay, he's seeking, it's at least 75,000.
Candace Owens responds to the suit.
Owens, who was communications director at TPUSA from 2017 to 2019 and friends with the late founder, responded to the lawsuit in a podcast episode.
Titled Brian Harple Sues Me, saying the suit gives her the quote power to subpoena.
Not sure that that's exactly how things are going to work, but we'll see.
She pushed back saying Harple never asked her for a retraction or demand prior to the suit.
That might only be a procedural requirement.
We'll see the jurisdiction where they're involved, but it's clearly a jurisdiction that allows for false light claims, which are different subtly than defamation.
You never issued any sort of, I presume that's supposed to say retraction, not attraction.
Yeah.
You see, I can pick out other people's typos.
I'm joking.
You never issued any sort of, I presume it means retraction demand.
You never answered me when I reached out.
This is not at all how it normally goes, she said.
You said, hey, that's what you said.
It's not right, retracted or anything else.
Brian Hopewell did no such thing.
She claimed the lawsuit has no basis and her criticism at his security skills is a matter of opinion.
Well, let's see.
Let's get to the lawsuits, people.
Here's the link if you want to get that in here.
Boom.
The lawsuit.
Which is in the tab under U.S. government courts.
Here we go.
We're going to get to paragraph 20 because that's where it starts in earnest.
In Tennessee, Brian Harple versus Candace Owens to see which defendants have a nexus to Tennessee.
But when it's in defamation, basically, not that it's free game to sue in any jurisdiction where the defamation occurred, but that is the operating theory.
So he's chosen Tennessee.
And let me get to the lawsuit.
And we got Brian Harple.
Brian Harple versus Candace Owens.
We'll get to the introduction.
We'll skip over the parties.
Candace Owens, a wealthy, influential, and well known conspiracy theorist with a massive social media following, falsely accused Brian Harple of conspiring to assassinate Charlie Kirk.
She did so in coordination with Mitchell Snow, who fed Owens a completely and obviously fabricated story that Brian Harple met with Army intelligence officers and Erica Kirk, Charlie's now widow, at Fort Hachuca to plan the murder.
Unsurprisingly, the lawsuits.
The lawsuit, this lawsuit follows.
Jurisdiction and venue, yada, yada, yada.
Parties.
Plaintiff Brian Harple, citizen and resident of Texas.
He's the founder of the head of the Integrity Security Solutions, a private security firm in around 2018.
Harple began working for the late Charlie Kirk with the security company.
Integrity Solutions provided these services for Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley on September 10, 2025, where Kirk was fatally shot.
Harple seeks damages in excess of $75,000.
So they'll go for millions, but $75,000 is, I presume, just to get into the jurisdiction above.
Below which it would be a different court system.
Defendants Candace Owens is a citizen, resident of Williamson County, Tennessee.
So there's your nexus to jurisdiction.
And Tennessee, I would imagine, would be better than, I don't know, New York, for example.
With her companies, yada, yada, yada.
Defendant Georgetown, Delaware Corporation.
Okay, fine.
Defendant Mitchell Snow is a resident of Washington State.
The court has personal jurisdiction over him because he purposely availed himself of the laws of Tennessee on at least three separate occasions.
December 8, 2025, Snow spoke with Owens, Tennessee resident.
Fed her a false story.
As far as I understood it, so long as one of the defendants has a nexus to the jurisdiction, then you'll be fine.
But whatever.
At some point after December 9, 2025, but before December 18, 2025, Snow and Owens communicated a second time for the purposes of scheduling Courtney Snow's December 18, 2025 appearance on her podcast.
And December 18, he appeared on the podcast.
Okay, fine.
And then we can skip over this stuff here.
Let's go.
We don't need a backstory of who Candace Owens is.
Let's get into the allegations themselves, which started.
Give or take.
Paragraph 20.
On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley.
Law enforcement identified Tyler Robinson as the assassin, currently facing capital murder charges.
To this day, neither law enforcement nor any other serious person has suggested that Robinson acted on behalf of or in connection with any other person or entity.
On the day of the assassination, Harple and his company, Integrity Solutions, were responsible for providing security for Charlie Kirk.
Neither Harple nor his company, Integrity Security Solutions, had foreknowledge of, were involved in, acted negligently with respect to, or participated in any cover up.
Kirk Assassination Allegations00:16:05
Of the assassination.
This is where you're going to have the issue is acting negligently.
We know what his argument is going to be, and I know what his argument is that they were told the roof was covered and that they didn't have to worry about it.
It wasn't of their jurisdiction, it was the campus and Utah police.
Negligence is obviously going to be a matter of opinion, and a cover up is going to be a matter of interpretation.
Not that I believe it either.
One would argue that if One believes that they were negligent in the security that led to the death, they might have some sort of vested interest to participate in a cover up that would exonerate them or not further incriminate them for liability purposes.
We'll get there.
And we'll get to the statements that Candace is not alleged to have made, but that are alleged in this that are allegedly defamatory.
Lack of evidence indicating foul play did not stop commentators from creating their own conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination.
Commonly spread theories included the existence of a second shooter who utilized a trapdoor and tunnel system to gain access to Kirk's speaking engagement.
Kirk was killed by a small explosive device instead of a bullet.
University of Utah, whatever it is, there.
Quick deconstruction of the crime scene was done to cover up a larger conspiracy.
And for the United States government intended to assassinate Kirk with Harple involved in the alleged scheme.
Owens is the most high profile speaker of baseless Charlie Kirk conspiracy theories, but she's not the only one.
Her actions have encouraged and emboldened others.
Yeah, yeah, okay, fine.
Then we can get to some of the statements here.
I mean, we lived through these statements at the time where people were seriously pontificating that it was a lapel explosive device that went off and that there were second shooters, that it was a sniper from a plane.
The.
The conspiracies for which, you know, on the one hand, let me just do this here.
The conspiracies that you can never disprove them because, A, it's a moving target, and B, it's built on the absence of proof, not the existence of proof.
Shortly after the assassination, Owens began disseminating content asserting that Kirk was betrayed by individuals close to him.
That'll be a matter of opinion.
That the government orchestrated a cover up of the assassination, that Turning Point USA was implicated in the event, and advancing numerous additional conspiracy theories suggesting that somebody other than Tyler Robinson was involved in the murder.
Here's one of the highlights.
For example, and this is where you're going to, you got to read the statements and you got to list them, enunciate them, and explain that they're to succeed on a defamation claim, factually incorrect, not matters of protected opinion.
And that in the context of whether or not Brian is going to be considered to be a public figure, and I think he will be considered to be a limited purpose public figure or single purpose public figure.
It's the ones who are not public figures prior to an incident, but because of the incident, they become public figures with respect to that particular incident.
Limited purpose public figure.
Paragraph 24.
For example, on October 10, 2025, Owens posted to X, I think I've been pretty clear from the beginning that Charlie was set up.
Someone removed the bullet before it got to the ME office where there was only a fragment of it left.
They know exactly what kind of gun he was shot with and they know it wasn't a rifle from a rooftop.
Okay, someone's going to say that doesn't even mention Harple.
As further alleged herein, what began as Owens' generalized conspiracy theories about the assassination quickly escalated into a sustained campaign.
To publish and disseminate dozens of social media posts and videos falsely implicating Harple in Kirk's assassination.
So, we're going to scroll down here and get to some more of these.
Harple does the podcast with Sean Ryan.
And it was, I mean, I listened to the better part of it.
Undoubtedly, he's going to feel guilty for the rest of his life because whether or not, set aside whether or not it's deliberate, I don't believe this conspiracy theory at all.
And you can call me whatever fed slop eating narrative person you want me to, but anyone doing that, By the way, you're an idiot, but he went on Sean Ryan visibly distraught and he'll feel guilty for the rest of his life because, as a matter of fact, the roof from which Tyler Robinson allegedly took the shot I believe Tyler Robinson took the shot.
I don't necessarily believe that he acted alone.
I believe that people radicalized him online.
I'd like to know who was in the Discord chats.
I'd like to know who he was discussing with online beforehand.
I'd like to know how George Zinn, that old man who was subsequently arrested with CSAM on his phone, who claimed to be setting up a distraction so that the shooter could get away.
If I'm writing a book, I'm writing a book about a bunch of depraved sex fiend furry freaks who have their online community group and an old pervert who got into that community group online.
Nobody knew that he was an old pervert, pretending to be one of the young perverts.
And he knew because there was advanced discussion of what was going to happen, something was going to happen because there were posts on social media indicating that something big was going to happen at the campus.
People had foreknowledge of something, and you can't have foreknowledge of something without.
Prior discussions involving other people.
I wouldn't be surprised, although there's no evidence to suggest it today, if George Zinn, the old man who said, I shot and kill me, kill me, and who said that he did it to allow for the shooter to escape, was in on some online Discord community, had advanced knowledge of something going to happen, something does happen, and then he sets up a ploy, unsuccessful as it was, and then he gets arrested because he's got CSAM on his phone, by the way.
Regardless.
So Harple goes on.
With Sean Ryan, and now he's going to try to argue that he's a private individual.
Despite these two podcast appearances, Harpo remains a private individual and not a limited purpose public figure.
I think that that's not going to be the case.
I think he's going to be deemed to be a limited purpose public figure, which is going to require anybody making statements, factually incorrect as they may turn out to be, that those statements are going to have to be made with actual malice, which is knowing that they're false or with reckless disregard for their potential falsity.
Social media accounts that he does not use for posting content.
He has no public platforms to effectively rebut or counteract the statements.
That's not the criteria for a limited purpose public figure, as far as I understand.
His involvement in the controversy is limited to two defensive appearances.
He did not seek the publicity.
That is also not the criteria.
Nobody in any mass tragedy seeks the publicity, but once the mass tragedy happens, unfortunately, they become limited purpose public figures, depending on the context, in the context of that tragedy.
Okay, so he's going to try to argue that he's not a public figure, that he's private, so that he doesn't have to prove actual malice.
Harple's attempt to rebut Owen's defamatory statements soon proved fruitless.
As the very next day, Owens stated on her podcast that Harple should be fired due to his purported failure to ensure adequate permit or security during Kirk's speech.
That's a matter of opinion.
It's not going to get very far.
Later in the episode, Owens explained that prior to the event in September, Harple corresponded with Chief Long about the rooftop access.
She then accused Harple of criminal negligence, getting there, asserting that he did not follow up with Chief Long about securing the roof.
She then stated Harple should have followed up because it's your job and Charlie paid you millions of dollars to not pass the buck.
Also, You asked the police chief an either or question and he said he got you covered.
What does that mean?
No follow up.
That's what Charlie was paying you for.
That's obviously absurd.
That's not an answer that should be accepted by anyone.
On the basis of that answer, you, Harple, and his team should all be fired.
This is not the, I don't mean to be too critical.
These are not the strongest allegations for defamation.
Everybody said pretty much the same thing about Donald Trump's Secret Service team after the Butler failed assassination attempt.
And some might even say that it would be even more true.
Given that this successful assassination on Charlie Kirk was virtually identical to the failed assassination attempt at Butler, which was still a successful murder.
Someone was killed.
It was a failed assassination attempt on Trump.
Unsecured roof, perfect line of sight, the only place that you'd want to secure.
And in Butler, Pac Man perimeter cut out of it.
In Utah, Harple and the security team were told that campus security and local police had the roof covered, and they did it.
To me, what would have been even in their jurisdiction to do is an arguable question, but that does raise some questions as to whether or not there were some activists within the university or within the local police that allowed for that weakness to happen, or this is just the incompetence of humans.
Following day, paragraph 32, Owen's November 19, 2025 podcast, she repeated her accusations that Harple and his team misrepresented the availability of drones, claiming he was not convincing at all during his appearance on the Sean Ryan podcast.
Like before, Owen did not provide any evidence that Harple acted negligently.
In the lead up to Kirk's assassination, that he was dishonest in his interview with John Ryan.
Up to that point, Owen's attacks were primarily confined to Harple's alleged job failures.
This is where it gets interesting.
But beginning with December 9, 2025, episode on her podcast, Owen began accusing Harple of direct involvement in the assassination.
I would.
I appreciate they're telling a story.
You might want to leave out allegations where someone's going to read that and say, that's just clearly a matter of opinion.
When there's a security failure, the expected thing is people are going to say people who were at the helm of that security failure should be fired.
Let's get into the personal stuff.
Paragraph 35.
Owen's.
December 9, 2025 podcast, Charlie Kirk's last trip to Asia.
Owen opened by teasing that she uncovered new evidence regarding Kirk's assassination.
Well, what I'm about to tell you guys is going to positively blow your mind.
I just cannot see how this would lead to anything other than a full confession from the government about the military's involvement in Kirk's assassination, but I'm just going to deliver the facts here, see where they land.
In that episode, she received a quote, credible tip from a former military member, first referred to by Owens as Harry Myers, but later identified as defendant Mitch Snow, claiming that he inadvertently entered a classified meeting at Ford Hot Chuka on September 9.
2025, the day before Charlie Kirk's assassination, observed senior government officers in attendance, and that following the assassination, identified Harple as one of the individuals present for that meeting.
It's unclear how someone can inadvertently enter a classified meeting at a U.S. Army base.
Set all that aside.
Upon information and belief, it was during this December 8, 2025 conversations that Owens and Snow agreed to enter into a conspiracy to defame Harple by using Owens' network, including her podcast, social media, and websites, to spread this maliciously false theory.
Although Owens asserted that she fact checked Snow's account and that the facts are, quote, 100% honest, she provided no explanation of how this was done or what indicia of credibility supported her conclusion.
The purpose of these statements was to assert by implication that there was a government conspiracy to assassinate Charlie Kirk and that Harple was part of this conspiracy.
Let's get to some of these statements now.
According to Snow, as related and published by Owens, there were about 20 lieutenant colonels participating in a pretty important meeting at Ford Hot Chew Company.
On September 9th, the meeting was described as the type that is typically held ahead of an operation.
This is insanity as far as I'm concerned.
But this is where you get into well, everybody's going to know it's a crazy conspiracy theory, and everybody's going to know they're batshit crazy and it's all totally false.
And yet, you reach enough people, as Candace does, and a certain percentage are going to believe it.
And now look at Harple and think, even though, from what I understand, the meeting never happened, and Harple was certainly never there if any meeting happened, still going to believe it.
Owens reported that Snow told her, when an operation is being confirmed, you have these final meetings and they involve all the higher ups, and you are trying to do this very isolated location where you know people are not going to accidentally happen upon you.
Owens then reported that Snow told her she's confident.
He's confident he saw Harple walking out of the meeting with military officials, reiterating that she believes Snow and his story were very credible.
Again, she did not explain why she believed the story to be credible.
A potential defense that I'm going to see here is she's platforming somebody who's making some.
Arguably, but not arguably, demonstrably false defamatory statements.
By not challenging, by positively asserting, positively platforming, does that expose anything?
We'll see that argument.
Importantly, the description of the episode reads After today, I do not know how this leads to anything other than a full confession from the government about their involvement in Charlie Kirk's assassination.
Okay, let's get to some more of the statements here.
Paragraph 41 Owens advertised the episode on X, writing, Today on the show, I received shocking information which puts Charlie's last trip to Asia in a new light.
Yada, yada, yada.
Here it is right here.
Join us live.
Despite the verifiable falsity of her statements, Owens viewers supported, understood, What is this?
Owen's viewers and supporters understood via responses that she was claiming that Harple conspired with the Trump administration to assassinate Charlie Kirk.
And now you're going to have some comments.
And then the argument is going to be who's responsible for comments?
Who's responsible for what people understand?
To spare our tips inbox today, we have presented that a man in the military alleges with extreme confidence that he saw Brian Harple at a military base in Arizona on September 9th.
September 9th would in no way conflict with the dates Charlie spoke in Korea.
Thanks.
On December 12th, she posted.
Brian Harple has already been caught lying about what transpired on that day.
Did he also lie about having placed a 911 call?
Did no one from their team call 911 after Charlie was shot?
In reality, Harple did not lie about the events of that day, placing a 911 call, or anything else.
Oh, we can go on with this.
Pay attention to the characters in all of this with the tweets and the retweets.
Charlie Kirk, mysterious missing 911 call.
Harple claims that they called 911 on the way to the hospital, but when they arrived, he says the hospital didn't know they were coming.
Neither of those two statements are mutually incompatible.
This is a perfect example of a public question that Turning Point can easily answer.
Brian Harple was already caught lying, but when transpired on that day, did he also lie about placing the call?
Let's keep going down here.
December 16, Owens retweeted an ex post which asked, Who is Brian Harple?
Responding to the question of Who is Brian Harple?
Owens responded that Harple was, quote, Charlie Kirk's security officer that didn't so much as pack his wound after he was shot.
That's Tim Poole here.
On December 16, Owens brazenly stated that she had not received a cease and desist letter from Kirk's security team and that the team had no basis to sue her.
I mean, the audacity that you're filing a lawsuit and someone got murdered on your watch.
Upon information and belief, the defendant made a foregoing statement with the intent to provoke or challenge the plaintiff into taking legal action.
Let's get to some more of the statements.
Okay, explosive interviews, yada, yada, yada.
Yeah, let's go to the statements.
They are verifiably false.
Harple was in Dallas, Texas, the morning of September 9, and therefore could not have possibly attended a meeting in Arizona.
Owens had access to Harple's flight records, knew it was impossible for Harple to have been at Fort Hachuca on September 9, 2025.
December 17, apparently fearing a lawsuit, Owens reached out to Harple asking if he wanted to have an off the record discussion.
Harple did not respond.
Do we keep going?
This is on this list.
We want to get down to some of the more.
Thus far, it's going to be arguable.
I will see what the chat says in a second.
I can't see the chat when I'm looking at the document, people.
But.
Let's keep looking and just see what the most egregious false statement is.
Owen's campaign of misinformation should have ended as soon as she admitted that she viewed Harple's flight records, but it did not.
Instead, Owen's tripled down on her support for Snow's false theory.
On December 23rd, Owen's posted, Ford Hachuca confirmed.
The body of the post claimed that she had proof that Snow was telling the truth about Harple and contained a screenshot of what Owen's claims to be the incident report from Snow's visit to Ford Hachuca.
False Statements and Screenshots00:10:02
That's some good evidence right there.
Holy crabapples.
Owen's published this post.
And the attached screenshot to both just no story.
However, a closer inspection of the screenshot reveals that it does not confirm the existence of a meeting, let alone state anything about Harpole's whereabouts.
This screenshot does not place Harpole at Ford Hachuca and clearly depicts a cursor on the screen, indicating that the screenshot was taken as the text was being typed.
Upon information and belief, this cannot possibly be a true and authenticated incident report, as Owens claimed.
That's bad.
That's almost, what's his face bad?
Was it Kinzinger or no, the other guy there, Swalwell, I think it was the one who sent out a screenshot of an alleged death threat he got, and there was a cursor at the end of it.
It was either Swalwell, it might have been that other guy, Wiener from California, or.
Kinzinger, I forget which one of them.
The moral of the story don't freaking lie and don't be an idiot.
Okay, let's keep going down here.
The evidence Owens published did not in any way corroborate the existence of a government conspiracy.
Okay, despite confirming that she had viewed Harple's flight records, Owens followers clearly understood her post to mean that Harple had been at Fort Hotchuca involved in the assassination attempt.
We're going to skip through all of this here.
I think we got the gist of this.
Paragraph 74 Owens then stated, That's what I mean when you lie a lot and when you're planning things.
You're not supposed to be planning.
You don't think through every detail.
Do we have a little bit of confession through projection?
That's funny.
If you're reading that with confession through projection or accusing your adversaries of doing what you are doing or your compatriots, Mitch Snow, who is a proven, I mean, as far as I understand, proven demonstrable either liar or purveyor of incorrect information.
Yes, and the next day you expected Charlie Kirk to make it to September 11th, you would have been communicating about what he was.
All right, let's keep going down here.
We got the gist, I think, of what they're alleging.
Other social media has joined the amplification of disinformation.
As a result of the false and defamatory conspiracy theories spread and published by defendants, yada, yada, yada, Harple's professional and personal reputations have been damaged.
Additionally, he has lost out on business opportunities, suffered a great deal of emotional distress.
There is zero, zero doubt about that.
So then we have the incorporation defamation, incorporates all the paragraphs one through 81, beginning like, well, we don't need to summarize this.
The statements include, but are not limited to.
This is the cut and dry.
They'll make more, but these are the black and white ones.
Owen's December 9 podcast with Mitch Snow, she describes as credible.
I don't think we need to go over this because we did it already.
Owens is all of the podcasts between October 17 and 2025, paragraph 86.
In the filing of this complaint, Owens has also falsely and intentionally made at least five separate statements, suggesting that Harple had foreknowledge of the assassination and actively assisted in bringing it out.
Owens is falsely accusing Harple of criminal activity up to and including murder.
These statements include but are not limited to Owens' November 18 podcast.
She accuses plaintiff of lying about drone availability, asking, This is how these assassinations happen?
I'm not sure I read that in the same way with the same intent.
Owen's November 19 podcast, in which she again accuses Harple of lying about drone availability.
Accusing someone of lying is implying intent.
It's fundamentally opinion.
The fact of the matter is that what they did say was wrong in that they had drone footage that they had for promotional purposes that they took before the event.
And then they were told, from what I understand, no drones during the event.
We're going to secure the air and secure the roof.
And then the only question is whether or not you believe that they believe that, or if they did believe it, whether or not it was negligent for them to rely on others to ensure the safety of Charlie Kirk, who I'm sure everyone had the same security concerns.
Owen's December 12, 2025 post on ex Brian Harple has already been caught lying.
We got that one as well.
All right, so we go down here.
Let's go to the false light one.
The defamatory statements were of and concerning Harple.
These are all the legal criteria.
Okay, fine.
We can expressly by name, and they're all clearly, I think it's.
To suggest that he was in on it is clearly defamatory.
It's clearly false to suggest he had a meeting the day before, somehow suggesting he therefore participated in it.
And it seems that she knew or ought to have known, at least with respect to Ford Hachuca alone, that what Mitch Snow was saying and that she might have been positively asserting was false.
Defamation regarding professional unfitness.
Okay, we can get the same stuff here.
Where's the false light?
We want to get to the false light and see how they do that.
False light invasion of privacy.
Paragraph 117.
We're going to get the other stuff here.
By consistently and relentlessly painting Brian Harple as a liar, murderer, and conspirator and disparaging him to anyone who would listen, Owens has placed him in a highly offensive position.
False light.
Such allegations would be highly offensive to any reasonable person.
Legal criteria here.
Rather than accepting the official findings that the assassination was an unforeseeable tragedy, I don't think anybody's going to say it was unforeseeable, but it was definitely the result of oversights.
Owens has deliberately portrayed Harpole as a perpetrator and central participant in the cover up of the assassination.
We need the concrete statements here.
Owens' tortious conduct has both directly and indirectly through the corporate defendants.
Well, if they're getting false light and tortious interference, maybe.
Mixed up here, but false light typically is the statements are spun in a way that depicts the plaintiff in an inaccurate light, even if the statements may be partly true to some extent.
I may have bastardized that description.
And then you get defamation for Mitch Snow and the rest.
Civil conspiracy to defame.
The elements of cause of action for civil conspiracy are common design between two or more persons.
To accomplish by concrete action an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means, an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy resulting in injury.
Interesting here because I don't know why they would want to allege conspiracy if they don't have to.
You say who the this is my speaking out loud here.
Why I think they're alleging conspiracy when it might be something difficult to prove is a lot of the statements as we've been noticing when we go through this came from Mitch Snow.
And if the argument's gonna be, well, Mitch Snow said them and not Candace Owens, and then I imagine.
In order to tie that bow, they're going to want to prove a conspiracy to avoid any arguments that Candace is not responsible for the factual incorrectness of Mitch Snow.
That's what I imagine they're doing here, because otherwise, I don't know why you'd want to add to the burden above and beyond proving defamation, false light.
Now you want to prove conspiracy between two individuals.
This, I think, is a way to answer to any potential defense arguments that Candace is going to raise that the things you're accusing me of having said, Mitch Snow said, whether or not I had him on my channel, Podcast, whether or not I entertained the ideas, he said them sue him.
I'm not responsible for his words.
And they're going to say, Yes, you are, because you engaged in a civil conspiracy with him.
To that, I would say, even based on these four criteria, if you have to prove that, good luck proving that.
That's looking like it might be somehow very difficult, unless it's an implicit conspiracy.
That by going on a podcast, it's an implicit conspiracy.
And then you got count six, or as Ilhan Omer would say, count.
I can't even count V, Vi, aiding and abetting defamation.
This looks like it's against all of them.
Snow spread his false story about Harple when he told Owens that he saw Harple leaving the meeting.
So now this is how they did it on her channel, et cetera, et cetera.
All right.
I think we did this.
This is good.
Prayer for relief.
And we have fleshed through this lawsuit.
Dylan Law Group, Zachary Stone.
That's it.
His last name is Stoner.
Oh, my goodness.
Come on, dude.
That's Harmeet Dylan's law firm.
They.
They've been involved in some high profile ones coming out recently.
I forget what it was.
That's the lawsuit.
And now we're going to go to the chat briefly to see what people think.
When you read the black and white, the allegedly defamatory statements that are factually incorrect and tend to defame, the argument you're going to hear in this one is it's matters of opinion, it's matters of theorizing.
Everybody understands it as such.
And subsidiarily, without prejudice to the foregoing, Mitch Snow is the one who said them, not me, Candace.
And so go after him.
And there was no civil conspiracy to defame.
That's that.
And that is the lawsuit.
What do we do?
Are we taking.
Omar would say, Count she.
Viva reading through that legal filing is like listening in on a technical working meeting of which you have little knowledge of.
Oh, of the person listening in.
Yeah.
Look, when you do it out of my car or do it live in person, it's just going to be less editing.
But the bottom line is in a defamation, you want to see the.
A chart.
You want to see a chart of the allegedly defamatory statements.
And like with, what's his face?
Nicholas Sandman, when he was sued for defamation, and they literally had a chart of all of the statements that various entities made.
And then you had the judge go through them and say, statement of opinion, statement of opinion, statement of opinion, and then dismiss all of it only to revive it on a couple of claims.
It's the most useful thing to do.
But that's why I say, like in these defamation things, 69 pages or 68 pages excluding signature, and you want to make sure that you include.
Cut and dry, verbatim, unequivocally false statements.
In that, and there's a good argument here.
Some of these suggestions, I'm surprised that some people might not have sued.
But again, when you sue and you make it even more public, as Kash Patel can tell you right now, even if the statements are factually incorrect, it will draw more light on them and it'll cause some people to lend more credence and say, oh, if they're trying to sue to silence them, there must be truth to it.
Rumble Premium and Censorship00:03:38
So that's it.
Let's see what Rumble has to say about this one.
Go to the chat here on Rumble.
That's me right there, but on mute.
Here we go.
Okay, hold on one second.
What do you got?
You ever work with the.
Okay, hold on.
What do you all mean?
Families always stand behind.
Okay, love listening to Viva.
Such a great.
Oh, stop it.
Aloha, G.
It seems Viva always goes to premium when he locked down the channels.
You can't make comments unless you paste subscriber.
That's one way to censor.
Okay, that.
Do I do this?
I didn't bring the.
Sorry, I didn't realize we're not reading the comment together.
Going to premium only to thank and reward the people who financially support the channel is not censorship, peace friends.
I don't want to call you a buffoon, but when you make a statement like that, it also presupposes that you don't know that when I publish the audio, the podcast afterwards, it's of the entire thing.
It's not censorship to thank the people who keep this channel going and keep me able to do the work that I do.
And it's like, how free does everything have to be?
It's an amazing thing.
Everything has to be free.
Do I have to deliver it to your door?
And then people complain when ads run in it.
Like, oh my goodness.
No, it's not censorship to say, thank you, Rumble Premium, for the people who keep this channel afloat.
Thank you, the folks at Viva Barnes Law.
We're going to have a segment that rewards those who keep the channel going, who financially support it.
Anyway, so that's it.
Maybe you see these comments.
It's so irritating, but alas.
Viva, how do you like Florida so far?
Blitzkrieg Doom 69.
Florida's amazing.
We're entering May now, so it's hot and humid.
And it's beautiful.
I have been shadow banned by Viva.
Polish dog, you most certainly have not.
And that is it.
All right, so that's good.
I think we did it.
Hey, I got super censorship.
We're actually going to do some stuff.
Let me see what I got in the backdrop for an extra story afterwards.
Yeah, we're going to cover the newly released HD video.
And I'm going to censor it so that everyone out there can't see what we talk about behind closed doors.
Oh, and by the way, yeah, it is for supporters on locals.
I publish the segments also onto Comitube afterwards.
But yeah, this is the community part.
This is where I thank each and every one of you who supports this channel, who actually supports it with those who got in at five bucks a month.
Congrats, that was one hell of an investment.
$10 a month, 100 bucks for the full year for the full Locals Viva Barnes Law dot Locals dot com experience and Rumble Premium.
And let's do this now.
So hold on, we got to go raid somebody, I think.
Let me see who is up.
Who's up here?
We got Russell Brand, who's still on the front page, but I don't know if he's going to premium.
Either way, let's go raid.
We're going to go raid Russell.
He's doing Trump and King Charles.
What really happened?
We're going to go raid Russell Brand, and then we're going to go to our viva barnslaw.locals.com and the Rumble Premium after party.
If you like what we do, you know what to do, people.
Sunday night show is going to be a banger.
That's it.
Updating to raid.
And then we're going to update to Rumble Premium.
And we're going to look at that footage now, people.