Just a minute
I'm coming
Just a minute
Hello everybody, this is legal man. Welcome to the show. It's gonna be a good episode
This is bonus material bonus show kind of thing that goes to the legal legal analysis
I did even this bonus material runs long way long almost three times as long as a regular show
And I didn't even finish the video because I just got too frustrated and it just gets I think two repetitions because the errors are the
Same again and again and again and I'll attach the video so you can watch and you can maybe you can pick up the errors
He makes again and again all the misleading crap. He does so
You guys already know I'm America's most trusted and beloved lawyer and I'm a self-certified master practitioner
So we don't have to go through any of that and since it runs long. Let's just go ahead and get the show going
So let's continue this discussion of the legal eagle
Why you have to wear a mask why the government can make you wear a mask?
Kind of show that I was breaking down as I'd warned people the
Simple fact is it's totally impossible to go through that whole thing in anything more than it's going to take a long time
So I'm gonna I'm gonna definitely do some more of it here and see how far we can get and I may summarize some of
The remainder just because like I said the guy talks really fast and he just packs in so much shit
That's that's wrong and upside down and needs to be corrected each time that it takes a long time to go through it
So
All right, let's go ahead and get the thing going again
I was he was right at the point where he was playing a Trump clip about
Calling Florida man and something else. So let's go ahead and and just back up a little tiny bit and start playing it
Localize government you have 50 of them and as a result most mask orders are coming from mayors and governors
Police powers are not unlimited
But in a pandemic governments have much broader authority to impose regulations that protect the population from a virus that has serious
implications for public health
Okay, see how all that stuff was just assumed in there that there's a deadly virus is public health
See none of those things have actually ever been challenged in a court. We haven't seen the evidence
Isn't that really the big issue? Isn't that what people are actually complaining about is that it's just you're getting this
Pontification from jokers like Fauci who have vested interest in pushing this horseshit
And then there's no real way for you to flush it out and to make them show you any evidence
Isn't that the real problem there that even if that were true that the government gets more police powers and to protect
You blah, but wasn't that the whole issue that people are very suspicious about why these orders are being issued
And whether or not they're actually being issued to help you and protect you
Isn't that really the whole issue? It's just assumed away with his statement and argument of why it happens and why the police powers are
Okay, and this is what I've been doing for a year trying to show people that this shit is all just assumed in that this official narrative
Is just something you're never going to be get away from
They're never going to allow a true airing
That's why none of the red state governors or mayors or anybody else or trump for that matter
Ever bothered to bring up all these other very highly qualified doctors who were speaking out and getting professionally ruined and destroyed
Shutdown off youtube while jokers like this get pushed on youtube. See because there really isn't any issue
There's a huge question about the whole entire science of so-called virology whether or not they've even isolated this virus
Whether you can even catch a virus
This is all sorts of issues that have never been flushed out and addressed
They just get pushed away through the entire system that runs peer review, which of course also is just completely full of shit
See so they just slip that in oh, it's a deadly pandemonium
That's all just built into the argument. That said the way the court cases go too
I've already broken down the supreme court case
That just simply imported all of these same exact kinds of statements into the case and then did the analysis from there
Because that's the way the system works. So once you're in the system, it's over
So guys like this can run around pushing this shit and nobody catches on say in a real court
I can help stop them right there. Hold your honor. Hold I got a question
You just said they get it from all this stuff. Isn't that the entire issue we're talking about here, mr. Legal, isn't it?
It's just assumed away. Now. Let's listen to some more of this fast talking shit
At the same time citizens have rights that cannot be taken away by any particular laws
And if a law appears to interfere with the constitutional right those whose rights are affected can challenge that law in court
Okay, you see this you have rights
He doesn't mention any of the ones that can't be taken away
And every kind of time he talks about the rights during the rest of the video
He talks about how the government can take it away for all these different made up reasons
And people talk about these constitutional rights. They're not constitutional rights
They're rights you have that the government is not allowed to infringe on
The amendments have some shit in there that say what the government can't do
But the government's in charge of interpreting it under this narrative
So the government it just blows through all your rights. The supreme court is upheld for sterilization
The supreme court is upheld having the government
Force you into the military to go kill people or be killed for whatever pay right they care to dream up
And what do you mean? What rights do you have? I'd love to hear some of these so-called rights
It's just make any sense. They never issue them. They just say it. These are Barnum statements
Let's listen to more as for fast-talking horseshit
Constitutional rights include the freedom of speech the freedom of religion due process of law and equal protection under the law
So because mask laws are so every one of those things is a Barnum statement
And every single one of them has a million different exceptions
He just said you have these constitutional rights that can't be infringed blah blah blah
And then he gives a listing of things that
Every single one of them has massive amounts of exceptions and don't provide jack shit
And if anyone can't see that over the last year where if the government can simply close your business
Not allow you to go out not even allow you to hug your relatives
While you wear a mask the talk of constitutional rights is just a made-up thing
See, this is the fundamental problem with this analysis. It's Barnum statements. They're all made up bullshit
When you actually start exam and they fall apart and every time it's like well, let's stumble all I'm when they disagree about
Oh, well, I think you do have a right, you know
Well, how do we settle it you settle it by having the government tell you what the truth is
The government tells you what the government can do
That's the system that's supposedly set up to protect your rights from government infringement
The government will tell you whether government can infringe your rights
See, that's fundamentally the problem with the system that if you actually have these rights
And the government's not allowed to infringe them then the last entity that should be in charge of telling you whether or not the
Government can infringe your rights in a certain case is the government
But that's the system that's supposedly set up that these people believe in and push
And that's the fundamental confusion and distraction that goes on in all of these arguments
That cannot exist. See that can't ever exist and expect to ever preserve any freedom
It can't it'll never work. You can't have the entity you're attempting to restrict be in charge of
Judging whether or not the entity is entitled to restrict you. It doesn't work. It can never work. See, I can never work
I don't care how many fancy phrases you have about due process and freedom speech and everything else
It will always go away and that's exactly what you see. That's exactly what you see in this country
Let's continue on
Let's start with making an analogy. Let's talk about government bans on public smoking
If there isn't a specific right, then it's highly likely that the government can outlaw a certain conduct
Did you hear that? Did you hear that? So once again, your rights have to be expressly given to you by government
Unless government gives you the right, you don't have the right. See how he's turned that that's the key right there
See, that's the key that if you don't have this right, what are you talking about the idea that the government gives me
My rights is absurd. Nobody thinks the government gives me my rights, but that's exactly how the argument's made
So this is exactly how it works with the smoking ban
And this is a classic example of the smoking ban example he gives is a great one to break down. So let's listen to it
For instance bans on smoking smoking is basically like wearing a mask
Except it's the complete opposite
Obviously the constitution says nothing about a right to smoke for smoking to be a constitutional right
Then it would have to fall under one of the other recognized constitutional rights
Do you see this? Do you see how he's doing exactly what i'm talking about?
That the constitution is supposed to list out your rights. If it doesn't list out your rights
Then you don't have the right. The constitution doesn't list any rights. It's absurd
There are no rights listed in the constitution. The bill of rights does not list your rights
It says what the government is not allowed to infringe on specifically
Well, the reason that bill of rights was never necessary is because the the federal government is supposed to be an
Express limited government. That means you have to go into the constitution text itself and find where they would be allowed to write such a law
Where is it? There's no right in the government to ban smoking. He's flipped the whole thing this idea that
Unless you can point to something in the constitution that prevents the government can do it that they can do it
No, it's the opposite the government has to show that it has the right to limit your ability to smoke
It's absurd and where does all that stuff come from it comes from the cdc
Which of course is also totally unconstitutional. There's no authority to be there at all
So the entire analogy is is proving my point not theirs
That this entire system has run on and has no chance of ever protecting any kinds of actual rights of the people
Just no chance at all. So let's listen to more of this bullshit
Smokers actually challenge those laws on two theories
One that smoking is a personal liberty protected by the due process clause of the constitution
Or two that the equal protection clause extends special protection to smokers as a group
Now the due process clause of the constitution prohibits the government from depriving individuals of liberty without what's called due process a law
This means that a legislative body must have an adequate justification for passing a law that affects someone's liberty
Okay, you hear all this you hear all this bullshit all these assumptions about government's authority
Right all of them and this idea that you have due process comes from the 14th amendment
Which is never even properly ratified, which I've done entire shows on showing how improperly it's been interpreted
It's all just out of horses. It's just government expanding government's powers over and over and over again. It's utterly ridiculous equal protection
It's the same thing 14th amendment equal protection. It comes from the exact same
wording it's not from the constitution itself
It's from the 14th amendment which came after the civil war, which wasn't even a civil war
See every part of this analysis is fundamental bullshit
And it puts the onus on the people to have to come forward and show why the government's not allowed to do something
That's not the way it's supposed to work the government's supposed to have the obligation to be able to prove it can do it
But this argument has been completely flipped on its head
Such that the people themselves have to come forward if they can even have standing to challenge the cases
And then they're then they're put in these little tiny boxes inside these these government courts
That didn't limit the way you can even challenge it forget the evidence and everything else
You can't even get past the legal hurdles. See it's all bullshit. You have no chance inside this system none
And so when you're listening to analysis like this unless you're very well versed in the law like I am
It sounds super credible because it's consistent with everything that runs around out in the public too for arguments
And and there are no lawyers who are speaking in public on any kind of
Media radio television large youtube channels huge podcasts who can explain it the way I do that nobody out there doing it
That's all they don't get any kind of support
Right, they just get this jokers like this just get endless support. So let's listen to this great smoking analogy
He just thinks he's so proud of himself for
The smoke-free workplace laws in court on the basis that the laws violated the due process clause
They alleged that the laws took away a smoker's liberty without adequate notice or reason
But the courts uniformly rejected this claim
Since the smoke-free workplace acts didn't involve a fundamental liberty right such as the right to privacy
The courts used what's known as the rational basis test to determine whether the government could regulate that particular conduct
Okay, so there you go. Yeah, he's going to talk about the rational basis and I'm going to listen to that
But here's the classic case. It's not a fundamental right like your right to privacy. Well, where is that from?
That's from basically that roe v. Wade and that other case I talked about with the the pill back in the 1960s
This right to privacy is just something the supreme court's dreamed up and creates itself
And then he talks about the rational basis test and the rational basis again
It's just something the supreme court's dreamed up the idea that the people have agreed
That the government with any rational basis at all is entitled to restrict these liberties is ridiculous
What's the point of saying the government can't do it if the government can simply carve out an exception
That just says well if it has a rational basis, then it can infringe it. How are you protected?
How are you protected as the right protected?
If the government can dream up a standard that just says well if there's a rational basis the government can limit it
See it's meaningless. All these things are meaningless. They're just word games. It's just a
Fantastic box that people are in that the vast majority of lawyers don't see because the way you make a living as a lawyer
The way you make money is by arguing inside this box
And i'm sure this guy makes a great living arguing inside this box if he doesn't just make his entire living off this crap now
Because this is the way the thing works
This is the way it works the supreme court has said who cares what the supreme court said the supreme court has said all sorts of stupid
Shit, and it's reversed itself. It's not the law of the land. I did a whole fucking episode on it
I just it's unbelievable to me that this stuff just goes on
Unchallenged in any way out in public. It's completely unchallenged all of these basic narratives are unchallenged by guys like mark levin
And napolitano and all these people these big time lawyers who get all this media press
They don't ever challenge these
Fundamental assumptions that are just totally and completely dead wrong and are in contrary to liberty. That's how I know they're controlled opposition
I know they are
Whether they believe they are or not it doesn't matter they are because what they push is a guaranteed loser for people
So now he's going to discuss the rational basis test and listen listen now absurd this is and who the hell's ever agreed
Any of this crap think of it like a sliding scale
The more a law interferes with a fundamental right the more scrutiny a court will have in interpreting that particular
Totally made up barnum statements the more
They infringe a fundamental right. What's a fundamental right you and I agree disagree about it
See the this constitution doesn't say anything about any of this stuff
This is just all totally made up by the government in order for the government to have more ability to
Oversee you and expand the government's authority. That's the part that they simply leave out
There's nothing in the constitution about this
They act like this is part of the constitution because the supreme court has dreamed it up and says it is the test that's used
It's just made up. So it's just totally made up. Nobody has agreed any of this
Nobody not even the people who voted on the stupid constitution 240 years ago
Let alone me or you or anyone else alive
These made up tasks that the supreme court dreams up. They dreamed them up 100 years ago some of them 150 years ago
It's all made up. You haven't agreed any of this
They make they make up new shit every single time they come up with opinions
They dream shit up and just like this and the people just run around acting like it's the law. It's not
Nothing the constitution says when the supreme court issues an opinion, it's the law nothing
It's just this is another thing. They've just taken over
Let's listen to some more of this stupid crap. I'm starting to get pissed
I can just tell even though I listened the whole thing several times before I did this
I'm I can feel myself getting pissed because it's just so outrageous to me that this stuff goes unchallenged
It goes totally unchallenged. I've never ever found anybody
Anywhere in media of any kind of sort who does the analysis I do
Just doesn't happen. It's just outrageous to me
Let's continue
Particular conduct you can think of it like a sliding scale the more a law interferes with a fundamental right
The more scrutiny a court will have in interpreting that particular law
And the more it just involves regular conduct that doesn't involve a fundamental right
Well, the less scrutiny and that's generally what the rational basis test is
Often cases are won and lost based on the particular test that is applied to that law
And generally if the court applies a rational basis test that law is almost certainly going to be upheld
The rational basis test requires simply that the law must be rationally related to a legitimate government goal
This requirement sets a very low bar for the government. A law will be considered constitutional
So long as the law is not completely irrational or arbitrary
So I don't get it if you have a standard like this
In what way is the government limited? See it's not it just has to be
It just has to not be irrational. So that's that's no protection at all
See, so it's just all word games. Oh, you have a rational basis test a three-prong rational basis test
You look at the blah blah blah. It's all bullshit. There's no protection
So the court itself dreams up this idea that there's a sliding scale and different bases and
Three prong test this and two prong test that it's all made up
See all of this stuff is made up. And so this guy presents this stuff as he's right
Of course, if you have a rational basis test, it's over. Well, who the hell says it's a rational basis test?
Who said that the government said that's how the government should be analyzed?
It's ridiculous. How the hell can you win in a situation like that?
It's just so stupid and nobody challenges it
For smokers, this was very bad news
The government had ample scientific evidence that smoking causes health problems and second hand smoke harms other people who are exposed to it
And smoking wasn't even a contagious virus spreading without warning
So at the end of the day it was easy for courts to uphold smoking bans because there was a rational basis to connect the smoking bans to
The legitimate public interest of helping public health. There you go. Well, what about fast food?
That kills people all the time all sorts of things kill people
So I mean the government can just ban any of that stuff anytime it wants anytime it has a rational basis
It does some jacked up science
Fund some horseshit research. It's just all bullshit
There's no way to win in a system like this to talk about rights
People having rights and the government being limited and all this other crap when
This is the kind of system that's being used absurd
Well, how the hell are you gonna win if you're gonna apply a system like this?
If this is the legal standard the government has to meet
So if they apply this rational basis test to your mask, how the hell are you gonna win?
How the hell are you gonna win? How long do they use a rational basis test for the second amendment?
Oh, it's a rational basis. These guns can cause violence. Therefore it's a rational basis government has the right to ban them
Oh, that's much reasonable. There's no way to get around it. All these things are Barnum statements
It's so stupid. I just all right. I'm gonna try a little bit more
So with that background, let's talk about COVID-19 mask orders with COVID-19
The CDC estimates that up to 35 of people infected have no symptoms but are still contagious
Did you hear that? See how they just they import in this asymptomatic
And transmission system that the CDC has dreamed up that there's just ample evidence is that our horseshit
And there's no trial about it. See no one's ever gotten a trial on it
So here's another example of importing in the standard narrative into the analysis
That's now going to be done under this rational basis test, which has already itself flipped on all these things on its head
Well, how the hell are you gonna win? I mean, how can you win inside this kind of insanity?
How can people be okay with this?
Why do lawyers not speak out in media? Why? Because all the media is owned by six companies. That's why
All of it's totally controlled all the educational systems involve all those curriculum
They all push jokers like this in this absurd analysis. You have to go to a law school
That's accredited by the state and learn all this stupid brainwashing about how the supreme court this
The analyze at that and he's told it's a rational basis this before you can even take a bar exam
Which then the government again make sure that you're on board with the official narrative before you can even practice law
Even the constitution itself says that your right to counsel can't be denied and there were no such thing as law schools
When the constitution was written, it's all upside down. See every piece of this is totally upside down
It's just
It's just so weird to me that
Uh, whatever. Let's just keep playing it
Reduce the chance of infected people transmitting the respiratory droplets that contain the virus in enclosed spaces
Mask orders are on pretty firm legal ground. There you go. If you import the official narrative then
Of all the shit without any actual trial of the issues and don't make them prove anything
Then they're on solid legal ground. Why because the legal ground is something they created in order to push shit like this
It's just such a circular load of crap. I don't understand why people are okay with this
I don't get it. I don't understand how people run around claiming they're free when this is the system that we live in
And it's just amazing to me
And it goes over Gavin Newsom's orders because I think he did this thing a long time ago
It's stupid. It's just fucking ridiculous. Let's listen to it
Look at california governor Gavin Newsom's mask
What an excellent example
Governor Newsom ordered people in california to wear face coverings when they're in quote high risk situations
Including inside of or in line to enter any indoor public space
I say visiting a hospital or other health related building and waiting for or riding on public transport
Okay, so how the hell are those high risk situations indoor public spaces?
Maybe the only person indoors maybe there's only two people in a warehouse
You're in an indoor public space. How's that a high risk area?
See high risk area. That's just a made up barnum statement
Waiting for public transportation. You're standing outside. You're in a high risk area. It's all idiotic visiting medical facilities
What's a medical facility?
You can be going in to get some orthopedic physical therapy and everybody in there is perfectly healthy and fine
Oh, that could be asymptomatic and all this other bullshit. See none of this is true
See if it was actually cross-examined it all fall apart
But instead it just passes and this guy's really slickly produced videos
They must brainwash people out the ass and people leave it thinking they're so fucking
Informed when they're just so brainwashed
God
Transportation or ride-sharing vehicle. Sure. Sure. Now the california emergency services act is the source of the governor's power to me
So the government gave itself the source of its government power by writing a law to give itself the power
This is so stupid and these acts as I I've gone over myself when I went over on my earlier shows
I talked about how
They're not even following these acts. That's why they're having to rewrite these laws now
To fill in all the stuff that they ignored in their acts before
Right, they just they trample this stuff anytime
Why because there's no cause of action because you can't go through the government to hold their feet to the fire
Because the jokers like this push this kind of nonsense. So here the government gets its authority from the act that the government wrote
Law gives the governor broad authority to respond to state emergencies like the covet 19 pennants the governor's
Okay, so the government meant declares an emergency then the government gets broad powers to respond to the emergency
They just declared so the government this is how the system works is it's a total circle that there's no way out of
It's idiotic and all these stupid laws. They're now writing again are the same thing. They're codifying law
I think I'm going to do that damn texas law too because I already did florida
Texas has got some good some stuff. That's maybe a little bit better
But some stuff that's way worse and it's the same kind of thing where they just codify this ability for the government to lock you down
Whenever the hell they want to whenever some government so-called expert says something issues a proclamation
There's a so-called emergency or pandemic or some shit and now we must do this
And that's it and guys like this push it off and claim that these are all about constitutional freedoms
It's just upside down nonsense
The authority to take public health measures was already approved up by the supreme court
Temporarily when churches challenge governor new sims temporary orders on large public gatherings
Which I did shoot for an injunction barring enforcement of the order the supreme court denied their motion for an emergency
Injunction chief justice roberts caution the courts shouldn't second-guess emergency measures that local governments imposed for health and safety
Especially quote while local officials are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground
Okay hear this so the while local officials are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground again
All they did in that in that case, which I did a show on
Was just import the official narrative about exactly what the cdc said was supposedly going on with this faked up pandemic
That's all and all these supposed measures and everything else they described and they're helping and shaping
Keeping people safe and wearing this and all that evidence shows that's it. How can you win?
Well, the entire purpose of the court is to make sure that the other governments aren't doing something where they're stepping out of line
That's the right you're supposed to have to go in there
That's the whole reason for having it's supposedly the check and balance
Well, if the if the check on and the balance is telling you that they should be very careful
About stepping in when local governments are doing then how how is that a good check?
Who the hell has agreed that they need to be extra careful in overseeing this overstepping by the government?
It's just all made up. This is all made up. It is impossible to get out of this. It's so stupid
Newsom's mask order relies on the same law and rationale
So what if people sue?
And then he shows a video clip
With some, you know people acting like idiots instead of
Anything to do with the kinds of arguments I make of course
More making fun of people
Yes, they're not going to show people like me
They're never going to have people like me who can actually blow their bullshit arguments up
They're going to show someone throwing a tantrum acting like a fool
And that that gives the impression that the other side of the argument compared to what he's making
Is just these people throwing tantrums and being foolish. First of all suing a business over this
Good luck. You're never going to win on something like that, but he's not even distinguishing between
Government action and non-government action
And of course the businesses just rely on this idea that the government has required it through these government restrictions and regulations
And of course, oh again, that's just all part of importing in this
official narrative fact set
And then this strange set of laws that they had that allows the government to do it if the government says
The government can do it and that's all the rights you get
Since you only get your rights from government because you have to look in the constitution to see if you've got a right
It's just it's so silly
Well, people like the woman in that video will certainly sue Newsom and other local authorities who issue a mandatory mask order
Representatives like Kentucky's Thomas Massey thinks that there's no way that any patriot would ever wear a mask
Or get vaccinated
Which would actually be kind of funny if it weren't so sad because George Washington
Conducted the first government funded inoculation in American history when he had the entire continental army vaccinated against smallpox
This is a classic example of saying because government's done it in the past. Therefore the government can do it
It doesn't make any sense. This is a system to use all the time
Oh because someone did something in the past they weren't allowed to do that now sets a precedent that they're allowed to do it in the
Future
It doesn't make any sense. These things are irrelevant whether somebody george wash him give a fuck about george wash
He was a mason the 33rd degree mason anybody who thinks that man was fighting for you and your liberty and freedom
He wasn't the man was a social climbing rich person
He was known as the town destroyer for murdering people and wiping out towns french and indian wars. It's ridiculous
It's all absurd
All this stuff is ridiculous who cares what george washington did it's not part of the law
I haven't agreed to it. None of it's relevant
It's just
God this stuff's so ridiculous
Our unprecedented lunacy that americans have never ever put up with how do I put this nicely? That is an ahistorical interpretation
Face mask orders were common during the 1918-1919 pandemic
They were enforced with citations and fines much like authorities are proposing today
Some people were even jailed during the influenza pandemic
There were even influenza courts where people could contest their citations. Unfortunately, there aren't really any written decisions from that era
Would you know that there were that hurts? That's a shame. There are any written decisions and it's all just made up
Shit the fact that the government's abusing your rights. They also threw the japanese people in internment camps. That was fine
That was fine. We also had slaves all these sorts of things exist. They aren't they aren't evidence. They aren't proof
They aren't legal justification
They don't prove any type of right or authority for the courts or the or the government
They don't the fact that you can find examples of things is irrelevant
The fact that this thing was going on if you go back and look at this actual flu pandemic and all this stupid crap
There's a lot of big big question marks about it. That's where a lot of the research was done about showing that
They can't show this even this system of
Transmission is true. They constantly were swabbing all sorts of things and
Trying to get people infected with the flu. They never could do it time and time and time again
They could never reproduce what the scientists claim was happening never could and this mask order. Who cares?
This is they also approve the federal reserve. They also
Jammed through the income tax which they misused all sorts of things that faked up the teddy roosevelt deal
The spanish-american war war war one go down the list. What do you mean?
Just showing some example of abuse in the past isn't isn't justification or legal reason or anything else
It's silly. It's so fucking ridiculous. I don't understand how stuff like this passes off
But you can see how he makes the order and then he talks about the jacob some case
Which I also uh pointed out to people and did a show about and talked about how
Jacobson which is that flu case and supreme court screws you not to mention that they've already approved for sterilization
Wow, let's finish this some of this stuff
Pockets of resistance to mass firing but the flu pandemic was deadlier than world war one
Which was still raging at the time and most people saw wearing a mask as part of their civic duty
How does he know what most people thought?
How does he know that? What kind of a ridiculous statement is that?
How would a lawyer make a statement like that and act like that's a reasonable statement?
Most people thought it was part of their civic who says
Who says
And that flew killed millions of people allegedly at least in america millions and millions of people. Okay
So what are we at? We have faked up numbers on this pandemic, but they they equate the two as though they're the same
So the sliding scale about your fundamental rights. Oh, that's all out the window if they just simply declare an emergency
So maybe it's an emergency if it just might kill 50 000 americans as opposed to millions as opposed to the 600
So pose thousand that have died. Where's the scale? Where does it end? Who challenges it? Where's the legal implication?
See all these things are unanswered
All these things are swept aside all the important issues are swept aside with analysis like this which occurs inside
Of the box. Let's keep going
When people did challenge the citations judges simply deferred to the government regarding masks and closures
That's basically what chief justice robertson even
And he thinks that's okay
So when you challenge the government the government simply the court simply defers to the government
And that's the way it works that the court which is there to supposedly protect you and keep the government in check
Just defers to the government. How does this make any sense to people?
So it doesn't make any sense if you listen to it
But the brainwashing so deep about the idea that the court's there and the checks and balances these barnum statements
That people never pick apart because people like me don't appear anywhere in their stream of information
That's the problem
So here we go. Now justice roberts. He's just a real piece of crap that guy sucks as a justice
And he's just he's obviously just a compromise human being his his opinions suck everything about you don't get to that position without being
Compromised of course none of that's even discussed can't even bring that up. Oh, it's outrageous. You can't say stuff like that
Okay, I say we have to keep quiet about the truth and just keep going on and pretending we're patriots
What a little shit are we about freedom or not? Are we about freedom or not? If we're about freedom, then we need to talk some fucking truth
Fucking justice roberts. All right, let's go
Oh, the group of churches could cite to a specific fundamental freedom in this case religious freedom that
Theoretically could have been curtailed or at least implicated in these laws
But the fact that we're in the middle of a pandemic really matters
See this see so your first amendment right to freedom of religion that's all out the door as soon as the government decides
We're in the middle of a pandemic
The church wasn't saying it wanted to go around and infect people and force other people to do so
The church is saying we have a right to exercise our own freedom of religion
The people want to come here voluntarily and they want to
Supposedly take this big risk. Well, do they have every right to of course?
All that stuff is just swept aside with this idea and that that decision by the supreme court under the
The religious case I did a year ago now. It's outrageous. It's terrible
And that's how I knew for sure that all this stuff was going to move forward
And again, here he is talking about all you have a fundamental right unless oh unless there's a pandemic
Oh, then it goes away. Well, where's any of that in the constitution?
Where is any of that?
Where is it saying that your rights go away if there's a pandemic an emergency where it doesn't say it anywhere
There's no such thing as an ability to declare a national emergency. It's just made up shit
You can't let the government declare an emergency based upon government standards and then restrict your freedoms because there's a government ordered
emergency
I don't
It's so obvious
All right, so let's listen to the rest of his stupid analysis
Then he goes on to Jacobson, which I warned people. Oh, it's only a five dollar fine or something. You'll see
Just always being used like this
There is one supreme court case that should probably control the outcome of all of these different mass classes in Jacobson versus
Massachusetts the court considered whether the city of Cambridge could make a smallpox vaccination mandatory
The person who sued the city alleged that the immunization violated the equal protection and due process clauses and violated the spirit of liberty
embodied by the constitution
But the supreme court held that the city was well within his police power authority to mandate this immunization
Justice Harlan rejected the claim that each person is quote a law unto himself and could act with no consideration toward other people
Quote the liberty secured by the constitution of the united states to every person within his jurisdiction does not
Import an absolute right in each person to be and all times and in all circumstances
Holy freed from restraint
Well, what kind of an absurd opposite standards though?
That's the only option is that you're free without any kind of circumstance or restraint
Well, that's absurd. They act like that's the opposite side of it as opposed to addressing
What's actually going on here, which is they're demanding that you take some poison jab. You don't want to
Again, it's a typical case where you have the supreme court telling us supposedly what the limitations are on the government
And they set this preposterous standard that makes no sense
Why because the supreme court itself has never cross examined supreme court itself has never put on trial
These decisions just pass and become so-called law
See the system can never work. It's never ever ever ever ever going to work
And no amount of getting the right people in there anything else can ever fix the problems
We have with the way the government is supposedly set up. It's never going to work
And this Jacobson case is a classic example
And this is absurd. All right, let's go on
Since smallpox cases were prevalent in Cambridge and the disease was increasing
The government was justified in taking responsible measures to protect citizens from smallpox
Did you hear all those barnum statements?
This is what I'm talking about. See this is this is the way the analysis always works
Okay, this is the way it always works every single time
It's a made-up thing inside of a box full of barnum statements
That's all and all the talk about freedom of liberty and rights there. That's all bullshit
In practice, none of it exists because of these barnum statements and made-up systems. That's all
Which is us that for a lawsuit against mask orders to be successful
The litigants will need to show that there is no rational basis for the law
Which is an incredibly uphill climb
Because there's lots of evidence and arguments that mask orders have at least a rational basis to the legitimate aim of public safety
There are several strands of evidence supporting the efficacy of masks
Laboratory studies of respiratory droplets
Right concluded that masks can block nearly all of the droplets
Epidemiological studies like a recent one published in health affairs have concluded that masks slow the COVID-19 growth rate
The study compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states in the district of Colombia
It found that the mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth
Which became more apparent over time
Okay, see the so this is all to justify the fact that all you have to do is be able to produce some phony baloney study
And now you have a quote rational basis and that's the way it works
It doesn't matter you don't get to go into court and challenge the studies. So you don't do that
That's not the way it works. I've showed people that again and again
Whatever the official narrative coming out of the CDC or these state agencies
Whatever they say as so-called reason
That's the basis and it forms the so-called basis for the rational basis to then restrict you
And that's the way it works
And so because there is no procedural mechanism to challenge these jokers in the health and the cdc and fda and all these different people
And to bring them up and make them
Explain themselves and prove any of this stuff
All they have to do is just point to this stuff and just say there's medical evidence and blah blah blah
And therefore we're doing for public safety and that's it and that's it you lose
See, there's no way to win any of this is the fundamental problem is that people don't understand
What this system is and that's why I try to go over and over and over again
I just try to show people this is the way the system actually works
This is the way the system actually works and all those other things that you hear out in media
And that your constitutional conservative lawyer friends talk about they're not true. That's all they just aren't true
They don't ever work and they never can work
All right, let's keep going
There's lots of other data out there that sure I could cite and there's tons of other data
We'll search we'll probably don't show you it's all but so far
We've just been talking about the states versus the federal government. There you go
COVID-19 has brought out a very interesting if terrible legal issue as between
Governors and municipalities
What happens if governors and mayors actually disagree with each other about COVID-19 orders or specifically
What happens when the mayors want mask orders and the governors say that there shouldn't be mask orders?
The outcome of these conflicts depends
See so now we've got government fighting government because there's so much government
The government wants to restrict you that the government doesn't want to restrict you how you're going to win this
Who's going to determine it? Well, governments can all go to determine it. See all this stuff is so hopelessly silly to me
I don't understand why it's not just super obvious to people
Now we're going to hear all about the different ways that the government if it's a local government has some authority
But may not have sufficient authority. We ran into the same problem in texas with local authorities were issuing all sorts of
Restrictions that supposedly conflicted with the state authorities and that governor avid's executive orders and all this shit
Which are just made up things anyway. All this stuff is just layers and layers of made up crap
It's so impossible to unpick it all when you listen and we're only 12 minutes into this video
Think of all the different ways this thing has been misrepresented and confused people and misled them
Just look at them all 12 minutes in
I mean
Ah, my god, it's
All right, we're going to listen to a little bit of this about the so-called conflicting crap
It doesn't even matter all to me because if they're codifying all this solidifying all this they're going to have it all locked down next time
They're going to have it all worked out. There's not going to be these issues aren't going to exist next time
Because they're going to have them on they're going to foresee all these so let's listen to this little bit of stupid shit
Depends on how much power the cities have under the home rule doctrine
Home rule is the idea that municipalities and counties have autonomy to act with respect to their own affairs
40 of the 50 states operate under dylan's rule
Which means that municipalities only have specifically enumerated powers in other words the municipalities like cities and counties
Only have the power that the state governments actually bestow upon them
This is why georgia governor brian kemp filed a lawsuit to stop at lanta and 14 other georgia cities from making masks
Mandatory kemp asked a judge to overturn lanta mayor keisha lance bottom's orders
That were more restrictive than his own no block her from issuing additional orders and instruct the city council
But guess what none of this happened that they were wearing masks the whole damn time in georgia
See so when there's a situation where you might be able to restrict government i.e. the state wants to restrict the city
It doesn't end up working again the courts once again fail to actually work for the people it always ends up expanding government
I see it always ends up expanding government. This is the nature of all these things these arguments they sound so
Real and they sound so official and technical and complicated to average people
But their bottom line is very simple for anybody to see and that is the authority of government keeps growing
And it has for 240 years and now they just have the authority to do anything they want all the time
And people don't even question it
That's the bottom line on all this the rest of the stuff doesn't matter
It's all bottom statements and made up shit that you got a thousand exceptions to the bottom line is the government basically does anything it wants
That's all and you don't even have a legal standing to complain about most of the stuff the governor had to sue
The people currently allowed to sue they don't give it any authority and just like these new laws
They don't give the people any authority to question these people and make them prove up anything. It's just all shit
Let's go on
Not to ratify her actions and force her not to make any public statements claiming she has authority that
Not a damn thing happened now so far the georgia mayors have bound to defy kemp's orders and fight his lawsuit
They can actually make masks mandatory to stop the spread of kovat 19
Why don't you try ignoring a government order and see what happens to you and see how quickly you get thrown to the ground
Taged and hauled off like those videos he showed earlier
But when government decides to ignore the its own limitations that are it's been given
Well, they just they just do it with impunity and nothing happens to they're not down there and arrested
Why didn't the governor go down and arrest him like they would any other person who's violating his sub called fucking orders
Why because it's all a game people see this is all a game and this is why I was saying
I hesitated to ever even break down one of these guys videos because it's impossible to make it make sense because
every single statement is total bullshit that comes out and has to be explained and
I don't think i'm gonna even gonna finish this video because
It's it's pointless. It's literally every single thing he says has to be broken down because it's got a misstatement
And an assumption built into it. That's just not true and and or to ignore something that should be brought up
That isn't and so the whole thing is pieced together in this slick production. That sounds so
credible and believable, but in order to break it apart it takes so long and
He goes on and shows how the ADA doesn't actually even work either and I've already told people about that
The ADA is never going to work in a situation like that
You're not going to have a legitimate
Disability that you're going to be able to present and it wouldn't matter anyway
Even if you did it's not going to allow you to walk around without a mask
It's just going to make you such that you have to call in your order and they'll do shopping for you because those are reasonable accommodations
You're not absolutely have the right to run around without a mask on because of the ADA
That's not even the way it works and he goes through that and he gets all that right
Because the system is set up
Of course to produce that exact result, which is that you have to stay home. They actually have this thing gives you rights
It doesn't really give you jack shit rights. It just doesn't and
I'm frankly. I'm tired of breaking this thing down because it's just the same thing over and over with this guy
It's just it's constantly misleading people by this underlying fundamental assumption that whatever government
Courts say is what governments must follow and that that's the way the system is and those are your freedoms
And unless you have freedoms given to you in the constitution that you don't have freedoms
And unless the government says you have freedoms and it's going to protect them
You don't have freedoms and that the government tells you the analysis and the and the rational basis and all the other
Standards that it applies in order to determine whether or not the government has authority. There's no way to get out of this box
There's no way to
I just don't think it's going to help to go over the rest of the video. You get the idea
Okay, this is the crap that's out there and I'm telling you right now
You never ever ever hear media members who are lawyers stepping out and telling people the things I tell them
They don't do it. They all stay within that box that narrative about the government being able to be in charge
Of telling us what the government can do. That's it and as long as you have that it's over
So I'm getting sick of this guy. I'm just going to start. I'm just going to get more angry at this
Listening to the city is seeing his smug face act like he's so fucking
Right about all this crap. He's just misleading people
I don't know if he does it intentionally or because he's just he makes a lot of money off this stupid shit
But I don't understand how lawyers are okay with this. I don't
Get it. It's is confusing to me as all these doctors who are okay just giving poison to their patients and following
So-called best practices and just doing whatever they're told. I don't get it
Are you not supposed to think for yourself as a lawyer? Is that not one of the main things you're supposed to do?
Is that not what your clients are counting on they're counting on you being an independent thinker and analyzing it
Yes, of course, if someone comes to me, I'll tell them. Look, here's the system
You're never going to it's never going to win with this mask shit
You're not going to but I'm not going to tell them that it makes sense and that it's constitutional
And these are your rights. That's the part I don't like
Yeah, I can tell people the the bare truth is you're going to do whatever the fucking government tells you have to do
Because you don't live in a free country because you live in a country that is a complete con job
That you have to get permission to do any and everything
And the people call it freedom
And jokers like this go on and on and on and I've looked at some of the titles of other shows
And it's all the same crap every time I watch it. There's just importation of this standard narrative
That's just a complete lie that doesn't help people. That's all it just doesn't help people
And it doesn't tell people the truth and it totally misrepresents what the country is
It totally misrepresents liberty and freedom
It totally misrepresents consent your rights go down the list
The narrative isn't true the narrative is a lie
That's all and the fact that it's an accepted line that every side just keeps pushing it nobody ever hears about
It doesn't change the fact that it's a lie. It just doesn't
Oh my god people. I don't know
I just
Basically to analyze about nine minutes of this guy's video has taken me almost 50 minutes
Think about that. This is why I'm not going to continue on. It's pointless
It's just totally pointless to continue on so
I don't even know if this is a decent show. I have no idea if this is decent bonus bonus material
I can't tell because it's so weird to have to break something down. It's this
Ridiculous. It's this confusing. It's this fundamentally flawed
It's very difficult to break it down and I just don't know how the show is going to come off
So, you know, let me know give me some feedback on it
and uh
I don't know, you know, the movie's coming out
I should be out by close to the end of the year or so
Maybe the beginning of next year and it's going to be pretty cool. I'm looking forward to it. I really am and
I really appreciate you guys being in here and supporting me and
I don't know how we get the word out because I can just tell from watching
A significant portion of time now
It just takes time for the messages to percolate and circulate out in the public
And that's why I've kind of you know changed up the patreon and reduced the amount of public shows
So I don't burn out because listening to jokers like this without being really paid for it
Is just not easy for me. It just isn't if someone's hiring me. I'm getting hourly rate
I'm go talking about this stupid joker all day long. We spend hours and hours and hours joking about it, but I don't
I don't know. I just
It's very frustrating when I have to look at something that stupid and listen to a guy like that
Who just is allowed to run on and on mistating things
two million
Subscribers to his channel just
Imagine how much damage a guy like that is doing imagine if I had two million subscribers
And we're listening to my podcast how different this place would be
I can't even get I mean come on. I get a handful of people that listen. That's it
So anyway, thank you for being here you guys already know I'm legal man on twitter
So I don't need to tell you about that you already know about the show
You don't know about everything else. I just want to thank you guys for being here and supporting me
It really helps me mentally to know there's some people out there and I hope
I hope my ability to break these things down helps you guys at least some even if it frustrates you but
I wanted to do that show because I've gotten a lot of requests for it
And I wanted to show people why I'm hesitant to do a show like this because there's so much to it
It's very very difficult to do in a very concise fashion because
He just he says so much stuff that needs to be addressed. There's no way to break it down
And now maybe people understand why I don't do these kinds of shows as much because
They're they're difficult. They don't really I don't know how well they come off. I really don't
I'll be interested to hear whether people even like this bonus material or not so
Because I'm not always a great judge of these things
So that's it. I'm done. I'm gonna wrap this thing up
Um, you guys have been a great audience
Hope everybody has a nice night or day wherever you are
Take care