That's it, it's over, then we organize the death squads for the people who wrecked America. This is a great American, he's a people that want to see great things for the country. You know they try and build them like a lot of erratic allergenics. It's not a radical agenda, it's called the second time. Alright, on with it, welcome to the radical agenda. It's a show about time with the ideas, the news, and the day. And whatever is on your mind usually when we take calls, but I got a guest again tonight. So we're not going to give you guys word one. I got too much to say to a good friend Augustus Invictus. Augustus Invictus has been a, he has long held a unique and special place in a history of erratic allergenics. It turns out we had him as a guest in October of 2015. It's been eight years I've been talking to this guy for episode 44 long before we had even contemplated the idea of stages to the pogrom. Back then he was seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination to run for the United States Senate. And I could tell just from the enemies that he had made that he was pissing off all of the right people and God damned, why like that, Neman? Thus began our friendship now eight years running plus for those familiar with his activities. It will come as no surprise to hear that he continues to make all of the right enemies among the most notable and energetic of these is Album All County Commonwealth Attorney Jim Hingley, a Soros back Democrat who replaced my erstwhile tormentor from that office, one Mr. Robert Tracy. And then let me fix this thing. Okay, so now you guys who are over there on radical agenda broadcasting and surreal politics broadcasting. Now you can hear us on the radio feeds because I fixed that problem. And so Mr. Tracy, my fellow Republican, he made a mistake all too common among members of our party you see. He tried to have it both ways knowing that his witnesses had lied under oath to frame me for a crime he refused to drop the charges against me less TBC is going soft on those Nazis, right? He calculated that by pursuing one fraud and not another, he could placate the mob without looking unreasonable in service to this calculation. He had written quite coherently about all the reasons it would be quite inappropriate to violate the First Amendment rights of the United right attendees who carried Tiki tortures through the University of Virginia campus on August 11th, 2017. But the people who think it admirable to torment the innocent under color of law in some circumstances do not know what it feels like to have their thirst quedge that he owes to them and entirely foreign concept. They are congenitally incapable of satisfaction and all they know is the drive to mayhem in chaos. The people who find this sort of behavior disreputable few though they may be in the city of Charlottesville are by no means energetic to vote for politicians who make scapegoats and human sacrifices of the innocent to placate mobs of insatiable bloodthirsty criminals. And so, predictably, Mr. Tracy lost his job in the following election to the aforementioned Mr. Hingley. And Mr. Hingley himself, though he ran on a campaign promise to abuse the powers of his office as no sane man would dare, even then did not begin dragging men from their homes to answer for this imagined crime of burning to intimidate. He set himself to the more mundane task of setting killers and drug dealers loose on the street and making his jurisdiction wholly intolerable for the law-biting, but it took him several years to work up the absolute nerve to do something so outrageous as to charge hundreds of men with felonies for a political demonstration approved in advance by law enforcement. Among those hundreds of men is our good friend Mr. Invictus. Now once again, a practicing attorney himself, Mr. Invictus found himself in a market for a colleague to represent him when he was arrested for this imagined crime. Being the sort of fellow he is and trained in the practice and law, he has been quite energetic and participating in his own defense and much I might add to the benefit of his, I don't know if the co-defendants is probably the wrong word but similar idea. Perhaps this is in part the motivation for the gag order which was just rescinded which had prevented him from discussing the case at all until just last week. And now freshly able to provide his valuable expert commentary on the subject in his first public appearance in years. Our dear friend Mr. Augustus Invictus joined us for the entirety of this evening's two hour broadcast to bring us up to speed on the latest in this law fair outrage. Mr. Augustus Invictus, I missed you friends. Good to see you again. Mr. Cantwell, my fellow Republican, good to see you again buddy. Right on and so let's you know you attended the Unite to Right Rally with the rest of us. You had you had been live streaming down there. You're you had a live stream video that was actually kind of important. I actually brought your live stream video was a defense exhibit in the signs V Kessler trial. You caught the moment that Thomas Massey took the first swings on people at the University of Virginia. Of course, you know that's conveniently overlooked by all the criminals who are trying to make this about Donald Trump and colonialism. Yeah, wow, here's that video is a sculptor that video shows everything from beginning to end the entire March from the start to the finish till the torches were put out shows everything. And they're claiming that actually shows that a crime was committed. It's amazing when like you said, antifoodle ones that started the whole thing. I agree with their assessment that it shows a crime was committed. They just really mixed up about the worst, you know. You know, I think I think that that video captures many, many crimes. I'd go so far as to say there's a lot of video of a lot of crime taking down taking place down there. You know, I don't I don't know about any criminals going to jail yet, sadly. And so that is that is an unfortunate circumstance, but not at all. You know, not entirely unexpected, I might say in clown world as we happen to find ourselves. And so during this event, you know, you and I were both supposed to be featured speakers at it. That was the idea over the next day. Yeah, on August 12th was kind of the idea. So backing up is what we're charged for is August 11th, the torchlight rally for those who don't know where we're there. Yeah, we were we were scheduled speakers for August 12th, the actual United, the right rally. Yeah, right exactly. And so, you know, I don't know about you. I found out about the August 11 torch march on August 11. I had no idea about this thing. Right. And so we were there at the meeting, the briefing, right, just came into being that night. You know, and so, you know, this thing was supposed to be it was such a secret that me and him didn't even know about it. And then we find out about it after it's going down dog finds that about it. And so it's going down dog publishes the details of this thing on the website. Mr. Victus is captured on my body camera from the meeting that many of you have heard me talk about where we're at this park in Jason Kessler informs us that it's going down dog is published the details of this thing. And I say to Kessler, I'm like, Hey, you know, I know we got a permit for tomorrow. The cops involved in this can get Kessler says no. And I say, Well, you know, if you want me to be involved with this thing, you're going to have to get the cops involved. These people are obviously going to attack us at the UVA if they're not stopped. And so he gets the he says you get the cops on the phone later in that video. Eli Mosley says he talked to the cops. The cops are going to be there. They're going to pay them over time. He says. And this does not materialize and all hell breaks us. And so when we when we go down there, Mr. Invictus, why don't you just tell us your experiences you arrive on a campus? I didn't really know where to go. I mean, clearly the auntie for better informed than any of us got there had a mill about looking for the rendezvous point. I'd never been to the campus before. We get there and people are handing out these teaky torches and then eventually they line us up and then people are lighting the teaky torches. And we've got security teams on both sides of this column that are marching through the campus. And you know, like I said, a film beginning to end and the entire tender of the thing is these security groups on either side keeping everyone in a file to march it very orderly and saying every time some radical leftist on the left or the right would start heckling the column or start trying to engage the security team wouldn't allow it and say do not engage. Keep walking. Nothing happened. Nothing happened until we got to the statue which like I said before I didn't even know where we were going. I don't think anybody knew we were going to the statue. This was an organized march where we were just following and we got there and sure enough antifa head locked arms around the statue. They don't call them antifa the prosecution. They called them VA students. They're the UVA students. They're not antifa. They're not BLM. They're certainly not leftists or radicals or political activists and all. They're just innocent students. Well, this happened to be this is very funny. So you know, this was they tried to do that at the signs of a Kessler trial. Right. And so then we're like, OK, do you know this person? Do you know this person? Do you know this point in the mouth? Right. No, no, no, no, no. Do you know if they're UVA students? No. You know, and you know, unfortunately it was not, you know, I was like getting the hang of the rules of evidence as this thing's all going on and you know trying to demonstrate who these people were proved to be a bit more challenging than I was prepared for. I was not able to identify. I still don't know who they are. And the gag order was lifted. But I shouldn't specify. I can't talk about whoever these alleged victims are because I not that I know who they are. I've never been provided with a witness list. They're weird. The victims obviously, but in the quarter order says I'm not allowed to make contact direct or indirect with whoever these imaginary people are. So I should state that for the record because this your podcast is obviously going to be used if my next hearing. Well, that's interesting. So you know, that's the I guess that's that's an interesting element of this thing in itself that will have to touch on you know who the victims in this in this supposed crime way bar. But you know, the so we get to the we get to the the the monument. There's a bunch of criminals there. They attack us. There's a fight. This goes on for maybe 60 seconds. If I recall correctly, it's not it's not five minutes. I know that it's less than that. And then after all of the mayhem, then the police like, Hey, why don't you just get lost is my recollection of it. Sound about sound about right to you. Sounds about right to me. Yeah. And by us. I mean, there were like a couple people by the statue. I mean, I don't even recall being near the statue. I was pretty far off. And I remember there being the antifa around the statue. And they were in behind holding a sign and you know, nobody sprayed me or knocked a torch out of my hand. I mean, I felt pretty disconnected with that whole scuffle. Well, that's a pretty good point. Right. So, you know, part of the part of the theme for a lot of this has been, you know, this is about the violence, right. But in your case, nobody's accusing you of participating in any violence. Right. No, the prosecution's theory is that we circled the statue. All right. And encircling the statue. We intimidated these people. And they felt not only that they couldn't leave, but that their lives were in danger. That's how insane. This whole thing is. Okay. This is actually something I didn't understand before. So my, my under what I thought the accusation was was the mere march through the campus. What they're saying is that the people around the statue, they're, they're the victims in this theory. Okay. So that's interesting. I didn't actually, I didn't actually know that until just now because that doesn't feature prominently into any of the coverage that I've heard. Right. I'm not hearing these people come forward and be victims of a crime here. Okay. I mean, they, they crane, they all claim to have been victims of violence. Of course, the whole town, you know, the whole town. When, when I question them under oath, they're not able to tell me who hurt them, of course, you know, but, you know, but the, that's, that's the first time hearing of this that the victims in the case of the people around the statue. So that's an interesting theory of liability here. Okay. So you're not allowed to talk about those people and, and we'll conspicuously avoid that. But, you know, I would just say to anyone who's interested to know who those criminals were, you can look at radical agenda stage six episode 28, I want to say the title of it was closing argument. And I went through actual trial exhibits from the science v. Kessler trial and I showed in great detail who those people were and why they were responsible for the violence. Top, the, the, the people who started that thing were not UVA students and they had to drop that lie before the end of the science v. Kessler trial. Okay. They started off telling the jury in their opening statement, the students, the students, the students. And they had to, by the time they got to their closing argument, they dropped that nonsense because they realized they have been caught in that lie. They're not students. Okay. There were a couple of students there, but they were embedded in the students of co-conspirators. Okay. The students of co-conspirators. When you look at the trial exhibits that I have there, there's an individual who's filming around that statue. And, and this person, strong word to describe this thing as a person, but you get the idea this, this individual approaches this scene, this crime scene that's about to occur. And warns his co-conspirators that we're nearby and says, hey, you know, there's a lot of them. And he says, I know, and the reason they know is because this person has been live streaming the whole time and doing head counts, doing recon for them. And when he approaches them, he films their feet. He goes around, he says, this is what we have. We have activists, students, students against white supremacy. And he films only the feet of these, of this black block criminal organization, but he brings up his camera and he films two faces who happen to be plaintiffs in a science of e-custle trial. And those people were John and Jane Doe to me until I walked into the courtroom because, you know, they were just so afraid of, you know, what might happen to them. And so that's very interesting. So these people are the victims of the crime. It's not that the general march through the thing is the thing, the, the, right there, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the in circling of the people at the statute. Now, as I've explained elsewhere, there is an ancient legal maximum, this, and I, I really don't care, the prosecutor hears this because, you know, what are they going to do. But there's an ancient legal maximum that's called volentine on feeding urea, the, the willing cannot suffer injury. So it used to be if you were engaged in mutual combat, it was understood, like, don't call us and tell me to arrest this guy. You were in this parking lot fight. Now we have this theory. Well, the state is actually, the state has a monopoly on violence. The state is now the victim in the case of a battery, even if it is quote unquote mutual. However, when you have a bunch of antifa who are encircling a statue, who deliberately got there to start a confrontation, and then locked arms, and now they're claiming they can't leave. That's just insanity. So I'm pretty confident this case is going to be dismissed well before trial, but I kind of hope it does go to trial because we're going to disembowel them. Well, sometimes not victims, not victims, probably, we're going to disembowel the prosecution. Yes, you're going to metaphorically humiliate lawyers in a courtroom. I understand the idea. Now, you, well, let's go to this concept. Let's, let's begin there. I mean, you, you still have faith in the law, apparently. You, you, you are a practicing attorney. You, you've been a licensed attorney for how long now? You, when did you pass the bar exam? In what year? Over a decade. I graduated 2011. So I think my first, my first bar exam was 2011. Okay. So you, you passed the bar exam in 2011. You were practicing for a time, but you got out of that business for a while, right? Actually, ironically, I had retired that very year of Charlottesville earlier that year. I had retired my license. I was like, I'm going politics full time. And then this happened. And I was blacklisted for everything. I ended up reinstating my license and going back to practicing law the next year. Okay. So you had been out. So you were, you said you were blacklisted in 2017. And then in 2018 or 2019, you got back into the, you got back into the business. Yeah, I'm in blacklisted from speaking. I was, I was scheduled to speak in Boston the very week after Charlottesville. I'm sorry. So you were shut out of like political things. Is what you, yes. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Everybody, everybody, country wide. No one would, would touch me after Charlottesville. So I was not allowed to speak anywhere, not allowed at rallies. You know, and then yeah, year later, I reinstated my license when the Ram case came around. And that's what I went back to. Okay. So you were involved. Were you, were you actually somebody's defense attorney in one of the, in one of the Ram cases or, or some of them? Yeah. And that's a long story. So I was involved with a lot of cases and a lot of them underground. We had a legal defense network at the time. You've been following Molly Conner's articles on the, on this whole thing. You know, I wouldn't say that I couldn't say that I've kept very close track of them, but they come across my right off in time to time. Yeah. Yeah. She's doing like a whole, um, do my biography really. And she's, you know, got well, I looked at these court records and he was doing this. And you know, he was in the courtroom in Los Angeles. And it, and like she thinks she's piecing together all these things and it just, everything I do is so off the, you know, the record. That it's hard to talk about it, especially when you know Molly Conner's watching this. And I don't want to tell her how wrong she is. Like I'd rather have just think she's doing a good job. Yeah, I was involved in the Ram cases and a lot of other cases. Okay. And so, um, there's obviously, uh, perhaps a greater incentive to come after you than some others. Now they've gone after guys. I, I, I'm tempted to say that you're the highest profile name that I've heard get indicted for this thing, right? I mean, I've been certain. Yeah. I haven't heard Spencer hasn't been indicted. Kessler hasn't been indicted. They can't indict me because I have a plea agreement with them from my plea agreement. I pleaded guilty to misdemeanors that I didn't commit, you know, in order to avoid trial on some nonsense. And part of the agreement was you can't charge me with anything else from my conduct that evening. And so angry though I was to, you know, to take the humiliation of that plea deal. Boy, am I glad I don't have this problem to deal with. But they, they haven't dited how many people now have been, do you know? I feel like it's about 10 people. Um, last I checked at not many. Yeah. Well, as far as the grand jury, I don't know. Um, but yeah, so only to the best of your knowledge. My knowledge, it's 25 really. That's what I was told by another lawyer, but I know that people who have actually been on the hook is about 10. Okay. And so, um, now some of these guys have already taken plea deals. What do you know about that? Well, I'd like to start by saying I know about the guy who denied them bond, right? Turns out to be the chief judge of the circuit. He's now recused himself from my case. To my knowledge, he's recused himself in the other cases, but I'm not sure about the other cases, but I'll tell you this. He accepted these plea deals. He denied these people bond and all the while he was present at the events. And that right off the bat is just absolutely egregious. All right. So what, let's, let's, let's pick that apart a little bit. So this judge, what's the judge's name now? War out. Okay. This is judge or al. And he said, and you, what was his, did you say he was the chief of the circuit or something? What was his, is the judge of the circuit court for Album, our county. Right, which means he's the boss of all the judges. Okay. So I know the judge that I had to deal with was a woman by the name of Higgins. He's above hers, the eye. He's her boss. That's correct. Higgins is the one who gave me bond, believe it or not. Right. But he's also the one who denied our motion to dismiss, but she's also the one who went for the gag order and the one who lifted the gag order. She's being the judge on everything so far, except for the fact that when we walked in to do the motion to dismiss originally, chief judge, Warro was sitting on the bench. And my attorney said, look, judge, I'm sorry. You know, no offense with all due respect. The motion recuse you because you were there. Your wife is in the media talking about these torch wielding Nazis who are terrorists and have held us hostage. He didn't even get into the more radical accusations about his daughter being Antifa who worked with the prosecutor in the events in question. We didn't even mention those things just the fact that he was there. And where specifically was he? What was his degree? He was at the church at St Paul's church and was an organizing meeting. And is that the church of fake Reverend Whistpooley? I guess I don't know. I don't know who that all I know is that guy had had been out at the hotel taking pictures of the license plate of the car was driving. That's all I know. Whistpooley was taking pictures of your car or the judge? No, the fake the fake priest. But you know, when a judge has an apparent conflict of interest, he has to recuse himself from the case. And it's not about yes, I actually would be partial in this case or I couldn't give it a fair hearing. It's the very appearance of a conflict. You need to disclose that. He did not tell anybody any of this not about his presence, not about his wife or anything else until we called him out on it. He had accepted guilty. Please he had denied men bond. He denied a man bond who had 10 kids at home in another state forced him to take a plea never said a word about it and finally recused himself when we said, look, I'm sorry, but you you cannot hear Mr. Invictus's case. You got to recuse yourself and he did. So now there's an outstanding motion filed by my attorney and another attorney to recuse all of the judges in the circuit because he is now being called as a witness and his wife is being called as a witness. And those other judges who are his subordinates cannot hear the case. I would say that that is well, give me the argument. How is it that his subordinates can't take the case? What's the argument there? He and his wife are both being called as witnesses and possibly as daughter. The fact is these judges have to determine the credibility of their own boss and his wife and his daughter. And what judges can possibly do that with a straight face and say, yeah, I'm totally being objective in determining their credibility as a witness. Do you know the judges on now I I understand I think of it's I'm not exactly sure what the structure of the courts in in Virginia are and I don't know if you can speak intelligently to this. You know, I in the federal system, you've got a district court and then a circuit court is the appellate courts, but you're in a you're in a circuit court. You're not dealing with an appeal. So it's obviously a different structure than that. What is are these judges are they elected are they the chief judge can't just fire higgins for example, right what's. The appointments thing works in Virginia, honestly, but I can tell you what the circuit means. So like here in in Florida, we have a county court and then the circuit court. Now this is state court in I think they call it a district court and a circuit court in Virginia is the same concept. Basically, you've got these little cases in county court or district court, like the the misdemeanors basically, you know, drunk driving or battery or whatever petty offenses circuit court is the higher court. That's felonies. The ancient concept is, you know, ancient Anglo American law that the judges would ride a literal circuit going through all of these neighborhoods and counties and they would go county by county hearing all of these cases that would come to them in the time of the size or whatever. And we've kept that concept here. So in some states like Virginia or South Carolina, these judges actually still rotate through a circuit like an ancient times here in Florida. Circuit court just means, you know, it's the higher court is felonies like one judge has one courtroom and they can have all the same cases they got their own caseload. But in cases like South Carolina and Virginia, and they still ride the circuit. So those subordinate judges, I mean, it really doesn't anywhere, even if it were here in Florida, subordinate judge judging the credibility of their own boss, the chief judge is just such an obvious conflict that you have to recuse yourself. There's no question about right. And so let's talk about the prospects of the law being adhered to here then. So if you have, if you have a problem in the circuit court, then there's an appellate court above them in any case, then right there's what's there. And then I guess there's an appellate court and then there's a Supreme Court on top of that for the state of Virginia. That's right. Okay. And then you have the US Supreme Court when that all goes to hell. Okay. Now, and so this would be you would not go to the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. If you were turned down by the Virginia State Supreme Court, you'd go straight to the United States Supreme Court. That's the structure of it. Okay. And so the prospects of you prevailing on legitimate motions pertain to return. Right. I mean, if they don't want to be overturned, that makes them look bad. It's the reason it's what the in theory is supposed to keep these people honest, right. In theory. And so you have filed a motion to you filed a motion to dismiss this motion was denied by judge Higgins, right. Correct. Okay. Now you're still saying that you believe the case is going to be dismissed before you before you get to trial. Are you taking this now to the appellate court in the state of Virginia saying, hey, she was supposed to grant this and she hasn't is that. If it ever gets to that point, yeah, I don't think it will, but you would have to wait until the conclusion of the case in order to do that. Now the denial of motion dismiss is not a final judgment in the case. So you can't appeal it right now. We'd have to appeal it in the event, the unlikely event of a conviction. Then you would go to the appellate court and say, look, they should have granted the motion to dismiss number one. They should have recused themselves. They should have disqualified the prosecutor's office. They should have done X, Y and Z, like all these corrupt issues. And then you have the major issue of, forget the standard, but it's like a cumulative effect of all these errors. And there are a million reasons to appeal. So that's why they have to get rid of it before trial. Or they're going to be just humiliated. But you do not have standing in the appellate court until you've been convicted of the charge essentially. So they can they can abuse you right up until the point of conviction without you having remedy is kind of the idea. Oh, yeah. That's right. That's right. Well, that's that's an interesting element in itself. Because I mean, you know, these people understand the punishment of process. Right. And so, you know, there's a there's this is the punishment. That's right. And they now, you know, I'll say, you know, in my dealings with judge Higgins. So far as judges in the city of Charlottesville go, you could do worse than her. She doesn't come out like she's a complete maniac. But she also is, I think. I don't think that she's immune to the forces of that city. And so the very charitable way of putting it. Yeah, I mean, she's clearly. She's she's held hostage. I mean, you could tell. I like telling this story because it tells like the real nature of practicing law. When I first went into federal court for like my first hearing in federal court. I noticed that opposing, I mean, opposing council was like, is the biggest law firm in Orlando? They were absolutely ready to crush me. And no questions asked like, I was going to lose this hearing. But we go and he's at the podium and I can see that he's shaking. And I can hear his voice tremoring. And it occurs to me that because I was raised in state court where everybody's fighting all the time like animals. I have no problem being in court. It doesn't bother me. And I can tell when another attorney is scared to be there. And judge Higgins was scared when she was reading her opinion into the record. She denied the motion. Yeah, on dubious grounds, I would say. But she did leave the back door open. She did say, I'm going to reserve ruling on the fact that this may be unconstitutional. And we're going to see what the facts say at trial. And depending on what the facts say, it may be unconstitutional. So I think that alone was an act of bravery on her part, but she is clearly held hostage by these people. Well, you know, that makes me think of the trial of Jason Kessler. Okay. If you remember the circumstances of that, I mean, they went through this whole thing right up until the point that the jury was deliberating. And Robert Tracy, it borders on suspicious that he would make this mistake, frankly. He for he like neglected to show jurisdiction, you know, just like the first thing that you do is a prosecutor. This happened in this city or whatever the whatever the process is. He failed to do that. And the judge dismissed the. And it was something that he he tried to refile the case. And he said, yeah, well, you know, the fact that he made a legal argument. I don't know the substance of the merits of it. I did read the motion at the time. But he's like, look, what you dismissed the case for is not something that need be dismissed with prejudice. This can still be brought. We can still put this man on trial. And she declined to do it at that point. And at that point, Jason Kessler was was out from under this. I'm familiar with all the inside baseball there. It sounds to me like if they had a jury, jury was sworn in judge dismissed the case. I feel like that's with prejudice. I mean, I feel like that's a double jeopardy issue. But I don't know the maybe I don't know the inside. I don't know his argument may have been meritless. It wouldn't be the first meritless thing that Robert Tracy did, you know. Speaking of Tracy though, that's a huge issue in this case that like you said in the the intro Tracy straight up said, this is not a crime. These people are exercising their first member rights. I cannot arrest them for this wrote a whole article on this and see feel weekly. And then Tim Heafy was hired by Charlottesville wrote this whole like hundreds of pages about everything that happened and said, look, this is just plain not against the law. If you want to outlaw people carrying torches on campus, you need to expand the law to include open flames and torches. Plain is day like not only the prosecutor, but the independent investigator also said this law just does not apply and that was the basis of motion to dismiss. And the judge was like, yeah. Tracy thought that, but he didn't say the judge couldn't make a ruling on it. So I'm going to just kind of dismiss it. Like I said, it really do me a crowns to dismiss the motion dismissed. Well, that's interesting. So, but she now you're saying what she's reserving ruling on whether or not it's unconstitutional. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? I mean, if there's a isn't the idea of a pretrial motion to avoid putting somebody on trial for something that's unconstitutional. Right. Right. Well, in Virginia, they do have a motion to strike. And this we take we have kind of the same thing and judgment of a quiddle motion here in Florida. In Virginia, they have this motion to strike at the end of the prosecution's case where you say, look, prosecution just didn't prove the case or you know a reasonable jury couldn't possibly find this person guilty or the conduct here doesn't fit the statute is charge under which is our basis of our motion is missing reality or this is unconstitutional. And so like I said, prosecution's theory theories is strong word. Their accusation is well, they encircled these people and they were holding torches and they didn't feel free to leave and they were scared for their lives. And this was a truth threat. And so the first amendment does not apply to truth threats. That's what they're going with. Okay. And I'm familiar with the truth threat concept because of course I had to deal with this in federal court. And so that is a that's a piece of case law. I think that the citation there might be a law or maybe something prior to that that a law is was citing. And so the idea is that, you know, if you say something that is I don't know. I'm trying to come up with something sufficiently ridiculous, but the idea being if you're if you're playing cards with somebody and you say like, oh, you know, if you put that ace down, I'm a kill you or something like that. And your friend understands that this is not a threat. You're not going to be charged with a crime for that. But if you communicate something that is not explicitly a threat and somebody receives it as a threat or that's your intent. Then that is what they call a true threat. And that's where the legal standard applies for the laws against threatening the threatening generally speaking is not protected by the first amendment. So the whole entire category of law is that, you know, a threat is an intent that is independent of the speech involved. I guess it's the sort of the way to describe it. That sound right to you. Yeah, it sounds better than I could have explained it yet. Absolutely. And so what the theory of liability here is that by by encircling the the criminals with the torches that the torches constituted the threat. And then therefore exceeds the boundaries of freedom of speech is the is the theory of liability here. And so that's what I'm going to say. But they have to prove that you intended to do this. Isn't that the case? Well, yeah, the prosecutor. Who again is Antifa. Yes, keeps repeating. Well, you can hear in Mr. Invictus' video that he says, oh, we forgot the pitchfork. So we just got our torches. And that is a joke. And this you do that as his evidence that we intended to kill these people. It's insane. It's absolute Antifa insanity. Just like, I don't know what gender I am. I'm going to cut off my genitals. Like that's the level of insanity we're dealing with here. Well, that is that is pretty amusing. The we forgot the pitchforks line. I remember that came up in the civil case, too. They said that. It's pretty funny. Now it's really now. It might be worth explaining for the audience. This is Al-Mawl County. It's not the city of Charlottesville. Now your jurors will be picked from among other places, the city of Charlottesville. And so you're not immune to this problem. But do you have any information about the, you know, the jury pool in Al-Mawl County versus the jury pool in the city of Charlottesville? Yeah, I mean, the city of Charlottesville is notoriously communist. They are UVA. They are all the blue-haired Antifa. I mean, that's the worst possible jury. But Al-Mawl County is still a Virginia country, you know. I talked to every law enforcement officer I can contact with from here in Orlando to Charlottesville and back. Every single one of them hates these prosecutors. Once them gone. Those prosecutors have allowed a crime to skyrocket. Leigh Park is now a homeless encampment. I mean, people are getting on the street. It's a nightmare. And I'm asking every single one of these guys, let me ask you this. You've got crime through the roof right now. Your jail looks empty to me. And you're going all across the country picking us up for this. How do you feel about that? And yet, without exception, they hate these prosecutors. These people in Al-Mawl County are not going to put up with this. It was, you know, the city of Charlottesville, they had, there was a piece in the daily progress that there was a quote, mass exodus of law enforcement from the Charlottesville Police Department in the wake of the United Right Rally that they were like, you know, any cop who was working in that city was like looking for another job because they couldn't, they could, they either had to get on board with this corrupt program or, you know, basically face, you know, the, the absolute havoc that these activists can bring against them in a court system that's not going to have their back. You imagine being a cop in a city of Charlottesville, you have to shoot some criminal. And then you're going to be, you're going to spend the rest of your life in a Virginia state prison. You're just not to carry a gun. You should just die. Yeah. I mean, you're like, you're, you know, it's, you can't, you can't do your job. And so no, no good cop wants to work in that city under these prosecutors for sure. And so that is, that is a powerful commentary on, you know, what it is that they're doing there. So, I mean, what is it? I'm sorry. So I started to get into this and I think that we got on to other subjects. I mean, the, the likelihood of you prevailing on any given motion, you know, what do you know about the appellate court? Can you speak to that at all? And the Virginia, you know, what do you bring it to? No, I don't know anything about it. Because I mean, it seems to me that these people don't fear consequences, right? I mean, they, you know, they clearly fear the mob in Charlottesville more than they fear the appellate court. However, you know, we're all aside. The other judges are still judges. They're still lawyers. They still have reputations that they've got to be concerned about. You know, they, they might be, you know, behold into the mob there, but like they've got to realize that this is going to follow them their whole lives. Like this is going to follow their kids say they can't do something this corrupt out and broad daylight. And just be like, yeah, I'm fine with that. Like eventually they're going to have to answer for this. Whether they say the appellate court or it's their kids saying what in God's name were you thinking back in 2023, 2024. I just feel like these, these guys have consciences and they're professionals. Again, we're, we're all aside. The other judges do. And if those judges do the right thing and recuse themselves because obviously their boss is getting called as a witness and his wife. And we have somebody from another circuit come in. No judge is going to look at this and see like, oh, yeah, this is, this is kosher. You know, like, so the example that I've been giving to people is this. Like I think I told you this too when I first talked to you. Is like if Martin Luther King is walking through Birmingham, Alabama and he's marching through with all his people, right? The KKK is protesting. And then they leave and KKK takes over the prosecutor's office. And six years later, drags Martin Luther King and all these people back here. No one in America would count and instead. No one would say, well, that is fair and equitable. And this is a just thing to do. Perhaps present company excluded. But I think most lawyers would be like, no, that is clearly a violation to do process. That is pure Bolshevism. You cannot do that. So at a certain point, those lawyers and judges are going to have to face that fact. Okay. And so the process you, you have filed this motion to this. Tell me about this gag order situation. So who moved for the gag order and what were the grounds for the gag order? Molly Conger moved for the gag order. Oh, it was originally judge. I don't remember some of these poor, poor UVA students say he shouldn't be able to talk about them in public. Given his past comments and you know, his willingness to talk about things on his podcast and blah, blah, blah. And so the judge is like, okay, I'll grant that. I had no objection to that. Again, I don't know who these people are. I have no reason to talk about them. I certainly don't want to contact them. So we agree to that on the spot. And then I get to back to the jail and I go to the magistrates office. And I'm signing the paperwork to get out of jail. And the judges pulled a switcheroo on me. And now the paperwork says I can't have, I can't make any public comments about the case whatsoever. And I was like, no, that's not what I agreed to. But what am I going to not sign the paper? So I had to sign the paper. I got out, had a file emotion later on to change the conditions upon. Can you, can you, do you have the language of that handy? Can you give me the precise wording of this? Not handy. Okay, actually my paralegal has the whole file. Okay, because that's, that's unusual in the extreme, right? I mean, you know, for, for one, say that you can't talk about the case at all is an extreme thing in and of itself. And then to have the agreement change, that's really substantial. Right. Looking at it charitably, you know, when we did go back for the hearing on the motion to change the conditions upon, the judge did say to the prosecutor, look, I meant that he can't talk about the alleged victims in the case. And I'm going to lift this gag order for, for all other purposes. Of course, he can make public comments. Do you have anything to say about that? So to be fair, I think it might have been a must misunderstanding or maybe one of her clerks got gung ho. I don't know, but it seemed to have been a genuine error. Okay, I wouldn't be the market against Tiggins. Yeah. Okay. And so, yeah, it would be extremely out of the ordinary for that to have happened. I would say so. I mean, even, you know, they've, you know, they've gotten out two gag wars against Trump, but they're limited gag orders. He's not allowed to attack the court staff in New York. And then, you know, they tried to move for something very sweeping in DC. Jack Smith is like, okay, well, you're basically, I mean, he went completely nuts that he's not allowed basically criticize the Biden administration. And the judge was like, oh, well, you know, I'm not going to say that, but you're not allowed to criticize the prosecutor, Mr. Trump. Right. And I would say, wow, I mean, that's even that's pretty extreme, you know, the idea you can't, you can't criticize the pit poll that the Biden administration sent after you was pretty interesting. And now he's, he's over at Rally saying that he's going to, that he's going to violate that real quick. Let me just get through a couple of these super chats here. Jack handy sends 25 bucks. Hail Chris, hail Augustus. Hail chat. Well, thank you. Hail Jack handy. And I must also hail the average generous real Tony soprano sends 100 bucks. He said, glad to see a gustus is doing well, looking pretty spiffy, bro. I hope the kids, well, need to get Chris in some pimping suits too. You are both great American heroes. By the way, do you think that giant mole on Molly Kongers face is cancerous? Like seriously, get that thing removed, bitch. Disgusting. Is, are you under the impression that Molly Kongers, she, she wasn't there. I don't think, right? So we can talk about Molly Konger. I have no idea, but all I'll say is Tony soprano is talking about my future wife here. Molly Kongers clearly in love with me. We are going on a date, and I'm probably going to give it up like the first man. I don't know if she was forfeiting your chastity for that. It's that serious. I think I'm in love, bro. I wish there were anybody on earth who loved me as much as Molly Konger does. Honestly, you know, she. My own kids love me as much as Molly Konger does. She can be one of the most obsessive people in that city. I believe that's among her mental disorders that she's being medicated for is something to do with obsessive, obsessive problems. And you seem to be the current. Now, you know, hey, look, you know, I'm not saying that you're not special, you're a special guy, but you know, you're a very special person with a mental patient who's obsessed with you. And that's, that's all I mean to say. You know, yes, you know, these things, you know, they're the best in bed after all. And so I'll, I'll try to refrain from being disgusting. Anyway, so, so you were met with this gag order. It looks like somebody other than the judge went and engaged in some error or impropriety. And we are in no position to say which you were under that order for how long before you got to go back there and, and alter the conditions of your bond. Well, so from June 26th to July 25th, I was in jail. I technically could have said whatever I wanted. I didn't have a gag order, but that would have been retarded. Oh, my God. It was granted bond. I was July 25th, I believe. And so from July 25th to last week, I was under that gag order. So that, what, what's that, two and a half months? Wow. So you're in jail for almost a whole month? I wasn't jailed for a whole month. Yeah. They kept me here in Orlando for three and a half weeks and extradited me to Virginia. So I have some awareness of this. My understanding is that while you were in jail at first, you were not seeking publicity. And so I did not call attention to this, but you were arrested in Orlando. I mean, were you fighting extradition? What took so long for you to get out of jail? Like you said, man, the, the process is the punishment. Yeah, I was, I was arrested here in the office in broad daylight with my sons. My sons were here with me. They knew where I was. Everybody knew where I was. This address is public. You know, somebody could knock on the front door right now. You know, they, it's not like I was running. I was in Virginia four days earlier. Like they could have just called me on the phone and said, hey, why don't you turn yourself in and I'd have been there. But they didn't do that. So when I got arrested, the judge here, who's now a judge on one of my cases, so that's, I'm going to bring that up to him. He refused to let me go. Refused to let me turn myself in. And then the prosecutor, again, the antifa prosecutor, who just happens to be homosexual, not that that's any of my business. He refused to allow me to go turn myself in. And he's telling my attorney down here in Florida. Well, we didn't realize he was a real lawyer. What kind of lawyer did you think I was when you had the cops show up at my office? That's pretty amusing. Yeah, well, we've conducted this investigation, but you know, we have no idea what he does for a living. Investigation, Molly Conner and the antifa did the investigation, obviously. And it's very clear, like they are the ones giving all the information. You can see in her first article, you know, she's saying she has an exclusive with the prosecutor's office. And then at the end of that article, she's listing attributes of everybody who's about to be arrested. She knew who was on this hit list before the police did. That's a very, very telling thing. So that's another reason, like these people are all going to get what's coming to them. It's only a matter of time. The smartest thing to do right now is for these prosecutors just dismiss the case and walk away. Now you mentioned the prosecutors are homosexual. I don't think that you're referring to Hingley, right? This is another guy, right? No, our cops. Oh, yeah. What personal property? What can we say about Mr. Tuffs? We can say that he was a former public defender. That's one of the most amazing things about this. So was Hingely. Hingely and Tuffs were both public defenders. They were both UVA staff law professors. They jumped ship took over the prosecutor's office in order to prosecute this case, which is why I give that MLK KKK example a lot. Like they were on one side. Jump ship took this place over in order to specifically prosecute these people. So we know that much. We know that he was an organizer at the time of August 11th and 12th. He's in the Hefe report listed with, you know, other antifa organizers in the same breath. We know that he was actively pushing Tracy and we've got emails from him now from UVA, which is, I mean, there's a lot of information in the motion to qualify the prosecutor's office. And he's, you know, he's the center of it all. I mean, he's the lawyer they put in there to do this. Now, you know, I got the impression that you're basically, this is a theory. I don't have a whole lot of evidence of this, but I think that there was basically like a bunch of, maybe it was UVA students or the national lawyers guild or something. Some, some group of, you know, lawyers who are not the people taking credit for this are basically creating the legal filings. Do you, do you have a similar impression here? Oh, I'm sure. I don't think he's obviously not doing this himself. And the information that he's getting on the defendant specifically me is obviously not him. So, for instance, for some inside baseball here, we had this bond hearing, right? Leading up to the bond hearing, my lawyers talking with Tufts, they've worked it out. He's like, yeah, I don't see any reason I'm not going to. Well, what we were talking about was, you were asking me, do I think Tufts is acting alone? Or is there a team working with them on this stuff? That's what we were in. The example we're giving was the bond hearing because leading up to the bond hearing, my lawyer talked with Tufts, and he said, yeah, I don't see any reason we would object to bond in this case. You know, the only question was going to be how much is it going to be and what are the terms going to be? But we get there and he does an absolute 180 when we show up. And then he goes and reads into the record for the judge all of these just list of defamation. And then on another list of actual things I did say in podcasts and speeches and interviews. And so the list of defamation is all of the criminal allegations have come before specifically. I won't even get into all that. I had to jump up at a certain point and start hollering and like, I have been found innocent. This is all outrageous. And Higgins told me to shut up. But it just it could not go on. But then the other list, which is the important part, is they had quotations from me from like 2013 to 2018. Letters I've written essays, podcasts. Somebody had been working on that and it was not tough. And I think it's pretty clear was Molly Konger and the Antifa who had assorted all of these things about civil war and executing journalists after a fair trial, of course. And all these radical things that I had said in my political speech, he's now using them to say this guy is a total danger to society and should be denied bond. But again, to her credit, Higgins was not having any of that. But what do you know about the involvement of the national lawyer's guilt in all of this mess? I don't. But well, I'll find out. I would encourage you to, you know, when you go through the videos of the mayhem on August 12, there's a lot of green hats there. And if that doesn't stand out to you, you'll notice those hats from time to time in the future. If you learn to look for them, they show up places. I remember the legal observers. Legal observers, which is another, it's a fancy way of saying co-conspirator with those guys. And so, you know, the an I question Elizabeth signs about this, what's your involvement with the national lawyer's guilt? And oh my god, is she panic when I asked her that question? She's like, oh, it's not like I get their emails or anything. And I was like, well, what is your involvement with the national lawyer's guilt? You know, she really didn't want to answer that question and she panicked. So did Marissa Blair in the signs of a Kessler trial? Both of them were like, you know, they're both law students, they were both law students at UVA, right? And, you know, they were mixed up with the national lawyers guilt and my suspicion is that this whole entire thing, you know, that they're involved in this. Basically, you have a bunch of lawyers who are behind the scenes who are basically, you know, I don't know what their capacity is or what their, you know, their acumen is. But they're basically drawing up all of these legal filings that are finding themselves into courtrooms. And their work was showing up in my criminal case in the federal court in New Hampshire too. So like, you keep on seeing like the same things. It's the same body of work keeps on being replicated in different contexts. It's this basically opposition research firm, if you will, that is working with prosecutors offices and plaintiffs counsel and all this stuff to bring as much legal trouble as they can for us with the singular purpose of, you know, preventing us from taking over the government, essentially, with their, with their afraid of, right? And so, you know, they're all out of work. They're all done for as soon as we take over. And they know it. As far as their, their acumen, I mean, I'd say, you know, to be fair, they're obviously great lawyers and, you know, toughs as much as I despise him on a personal level. He is a good lawyer. Like he's, he's a well-spoken guy. He's clearly smart. He's making good arguments. And he, you know, I think his whole career is a joke, but he has a lawyer. His, his acumen is, it's undeniable. And these guys working with him, like they're clearly good guys. And I think that's a compliment to me personally, because I remember, you know, you were there. We had the same people after all of us in the Libertarian party. I still wake up some mornings, and I thank God that I'm not in the Libertarian party. And I have nothing to do with all those losers. Like, I think of the difference between my enemies and the Libertarian party back in the day. And the enemies I have now. And I thank God. Like, I have a completely different caliber of horrible people trying to kill me now. So, I think it's a good thing. You know, it's, you could tell a lot about a band by his foes, right? And so, you know, and so I think it does, it does say quite a great deal. You know, that, I mean, that was what brought you to my attention, right? I'm like, oh, all the same people that I hate are trying to ruin this guy's, you know, political career. He must be on to something. And, and here we find ourselves eight years later. Here we are. Yeah. So, let's see. I mean, what, where should we go next with this, my friend? I mean, what am I, what am I missing so far? Well, I think we talked about motion recuse in essence. We talked about the motion dismiss, which was denied. We didn't talk about the motion really for a subpoena duke is techam or to disqualify the prosecutor. I guess that's where we should go next. Okay. So, you're trying to subpoena what records from who? So, from Tufts specifically, like I said, he's outing in the Hefee report. He is an antifa organizer and was on August 11th and 12th. That alone is egregious enough to disqualify the prosecutor's office. Okay. So, what do we have? Can you tell me anything specifically about what Tufts involvement was in August 11th and 12th? You say he was an organizer. He's in the Hefee report. He's in the Hefee report as being an organizer, like a liaison between the police and BLM. Well, that's, that's amazing. Okay. So, that's, that's an interesting thing by itself, because, you know, the, the lawyers get to the iceberg, like that's just, like a line in the Hefee report. Like that's a nothing comment. But then, another lawyer had gotten his emails from UVA, from other people there, did a FOIA request. I mean, that's in the motion to disqualify the prosecutor's office. Because it's not just Tufts. I mean, when you have a conflict in a lawyer's office, whether it's criminal or civil, you've got a conflict that is grave enough that that attorney has to be booted from the case. If he hasn't been partitioned off from the other people in the, in the office, you got to disqualify the whole office. Like, if it were me, and I've got five other attorneys working with me, and it turns out one of these other attorneys at my office was, you know, I don't know. He used to be the attorney for a guy that we're now going against. Like, he got to be, he got to be removed from the case. And if we didn't quarantine him, our whole office would have to be taken off the case. And that's the case here in Charlottesville. Because it's not like Tufts is acting alone. Hingeley is in there with him in these hearings, which they are clearly worried about. Our motions are dismissed and the motions are recused. Like, they're clearly worried because now Hingeley is in there himself. He wants to be present. So Tufts has not been partitioned off. They have to disqualify the whole prosecutor's office. And again, him just being an organizer those days, that's like the tip of the iceberg. Everything that came after and him working with the antifa to push the prosecutions of these torch-wielding Nazis, which again, involves the judge's wife, all that is coming to life. I remember, I think I remember a story was he one of these people who like threatened to resign if they did not bring the case. Is that? I don't recall that. You mean resigned from UVA? I thought that I thought there were people who were threatening to resign from the prosecutor's office. If he didn't bring the case. No, that couldn't have been him because he was UVA at the time. And possibly public defender at the time. He couldn't properly have made that for him. I gotcha. Well, so you've got this motion for records to show what their involvement in the case was then. The records, the records to show their involvement in the events that lead to the case. Right. Because you have some information, at least from the HFU report suggests that that Tufts was some kind of organizer. Do we have any specific information about Hingley being involved in the events or is that? I think Hingley is just the white-haired guy that could run for office. That's the guy that, again, I don't know if his national lawyers go or what, but there's clearly a cabal here that has gotten together and said, you know what? Hingley is the guy he should run. He's the Albumoral County Prosecutor's Office, the Joe Biden of that position. He's on the right. He's the one being pulled by the puppet's portrayings. Yes. He's the figurehead here. So one of the things that is the standard in Virginia to remove a prosecutor from a case is qualified a prosecutor from the prosecutor's case is personal animus. And we've got that in spates. His own statements, his own actions, not just being an organizer, those nights in question, but everything after that. Jumping ship to the prosecutor's office, prosecuting this case, being at the candlelight vigil. All of this shows this is all personal animus toward his political enemies. So he was a public, was he an Albumoral County public defender on August 11th, 2017? That's what he told my attorney in Florida. Yeah. That's fascinating. So he was the public def, if I had, or I'm sorry, well, wait a second. My understanding of it is that they don't have like a public defender's office in Albumoral County or do they? The private practice attorneys are basically assigned. No, they do. And it was hingely who did it from what I understand from local Charlottesville attorneys. They're involved in this case now. Hingeley was the one who spearheaded the movement to make a public defender's office in Albumoral County. Okay. And now he's a prosecutor. Okay. That's interesting. The very interesting. So they didn't, they didn't have a public defender's office. This guy's like, we need to have a public defender's office because what they, I understand other people who have had cases there, they basically get private counsel assigned to them at taxpayer expense is my understanding of how. That's what happens. Yeah. And I mean, we do that here too. I mean, we've got an established a well established that was public defender's office here in Orlando. But still you can get conflicted off that case and you get regional conflict counsel or you conflicted off that too. And you can just get an attorney assigned to you. I mean, that's pretty standard practice. Okay. So they have a public defender's office, but they in for whatever reason it's common to assign private counsel in anyway, but they do have a public defender's office. Okay. Well, that's interesting to know. And these guys are like, well, you know, we're the ones who, these guys spear the creation of the public defender's office. And then they leapfrog from that to the prosecutor's office is sort of their career trajectory. That's right. That's interesting. And so I mean, you know, this, this phenomena of the public defender turn prosecutor, this is largely, this is a project. This is not something, this is not a common career trajectory for attorneys. This is something that's being engineered. Is it not? It can. Okay. So I mean, to be fair, yes. And then the people will sometimes go from public defender to prosecutor. They want to see both sides of the aisle, see how the other side works and, you know, I've, I've, I worked with somebody, well, not anymore. I did work with somebody in the prison ministry here with the Catholic Church. And I called him one day said, hey, can you take this case? And he's like, sorry, I went back to the prosecutor's office. I mean, that happens. You know, my own public defender in South Carolina used to be a prosecutor. It's more common in the other direction, though, and not from the prosecutor to the public defender, but prosecutors become private defense attorneys because they get a pay raise, that way, generally speaking. Exactly. It's not very common. It happens, but it's not very common for the public defender to, prior to say 2015, it's not common for the public defender to become the prosecutor. That's, that's a, the, the frequency of that occurrence is a recent phenomenon spurred on by a project, I think, is my understanding. Right. And that project is clearly to prosecute political enemies. There's no question about it. I mean, and they did it explicitly. It was in the public debates. He said, I am running for this office so that we can prosecute these torch-wielding neo-nazis, terrorized our town. I mean, they said it balls out in public. And I mean, you know, that's been a subject of some controversy in Trump's cases, right? I mean, the Latisha James notoriously, she said, I'm running for office. I'm going to get Donald Trump. And, you know, in New York state, he's basically making the case that she's not qualified to bring the case on account of basically doing it as a campaign promise. But that's not, you know, some kind of legal axiom that they can't do that, I guess, huh? Well, we are making that argument. So I would not concede that. I think that's a due process issue. I think it's a basic fairness and equity issue. You want to call it either protection or due process. I mean, you cannot just run on the notion that you're going to prosecute somebody for something that happened long ago before you ever took office. You're just going to take office so that you can prosecute something that already happened. Something that, by the way, the old prosecutors did not believe was a crime. I mean, at the very least, you're talking about something ex-post facto. Are you talking about unnecessary or unreasonable pre-litigation delay? I mean, there are a hundred reasons that something like a Tisha James is doing or Law and Tuss and Hingely are doing. That is 100% against the entire spirit of American law. Well, let's talk about pre-litigation delay. That's an interesting concept. So Virginia does not have a statute of limitations. But the reason that there is a statute of limitations is to put a hard limit on the abuse that is independent of the concept of a statute of limitations. The pre-litigation delay is a prejudicial thing that actually exists regardless of a statute of limitations. Do I have that correct? Yes. So, statute of limitations is specifically designed to prevent a prejudice against the defendant. Because when you charge somebody or, I mean, this is in civil cases too, if you sue somebody, for instance, after several years, like you're suing on a contract, you're suing them ten years after this contract was allegedly breached. That contract, like, it disappeared. It does not exist anymore. How could you possibly go to court on this? So, we set statute of limitations because evidence disappears. Witnesses die or witnesses, even if they're alive, they start forgetting things after a couple of years. You can't remember details about things. Evidence goes stale. There are a hundred things that go wrong. You have to have some kind of limit on bringing something. Now, Virginia does not have that statute of limitations. Fair enough. However, you have to still engage in the system of justice with some sense of fairness and equity. You have to prosecute with some sense of justice in mind. It's not that they didn't know who we were. Me specifically, everybody knew that I was there. I took one of the most famous videos of Charlottesville. Everybody knew. I mean, I was on camera. I was in interviews saying, yes, we were there. I've given speeches about it. Everybody knew that I was there. Everybody saw me on camera doing it. And for them to wait six years, they can't use that. Well, we didn't have the evidence. We couldn't have taken these people to trial. We didn't have the identities of these people. We needed to do whatever it was. You know, they don't have any of those justifications. But all the evidence is disappearing. Now, I still have that video, thank God. But, you know, who knows where these witnesses are? Who know? I know, you know, some witnesses have left the country. That's severely prejudicial to me and to the other defendants. Yeah. Some witnesses are now the prosecutor. Some witnesses are now the chief judge. Severely prejudicial. So that's why we have statutes limitations. But that doesn't mean that you can just bring anything willy-nilly 80 years later, like you're some secretary at the Holocaust at Auschwitz. And you know, this is such a worldwide outcry that we need to nab a 93-year-old lady for saying, you know, there were no gas chambers when I was working there. I mean, you have to have some limits on the abuse of government power. Well, that's, you know, that's the thing. So I mean, the pretrial delay constitutes a prejudice to the defense. And that and that and prejudicing the defense is something that is, that is legally actionable by the defense in the absence of a statutes limitations. Is that the case? Yes. Okay. And we are moving to dismiss based on that. I mean, we've already done a motion to dismiss on the super easy out. I mean, we gave them an out like, look, just take this. So we don't have to hang you publicly. And they didn't take it. So we're filing a separate motion to dismiss based on pre-litigation delay and several other things. Okay. So that motion has not yet been filed. The pre-litigation delay motion to dismiss has not yet been filed. That's something that is forthcoming. All right. A lot of work coming. You know, you know, you think about, so these people basically are claiming that there are a bunch of innocent UVA students and that they were surrounded through no fault of their own and made to fear for their lives and all this nonsense. And, you know, among the things that might be relevant to that is, I don't know, their communications say, their text messages, you know, this evidence might not exist any longer, right? I mean, this is all of the evidence that you need to get for the purpose of discovery. You're going to know how I discovery as a consequence of the pre-trial delay as one example, right? Right. And you know how you know they're implicitly admitting that. No one has even bothered to pretend that they need my cell phone or my emails or my communications. No search warrant for anything like that because they know full well it does not exist. No one keeps their cell phone for six years. No one has text messages or emails from six years ago. No one has discord messages or Facebook messages, Twitter messages from six years ago. They know it or they would have gotten it from us when we were arrested. So, that's the two-way street. Well, interestingly, communications from one side have been preserved, right? They've got all the stuff from what they did before. And they didn't investigate the other side. And so, you know, so they've got the discord, they've got all the stuff that signs V-Castle was subpoenaed from us. But there's no information. You still don't even know who your victims are if F-Sake. I don't. And so, I wasn't in any of that discovery. Right. Because signs V-Castle, I was never subpoenaed. In that case, I was never served with that lawsuit. I dodged a magic bullet for that one. Nobody ever served me. They got a default judgment against me for God knows what reason. But I didn't have to go through the discovery process. I think God spared me that. Well, I'm going to have to talk to you about that where we have you back on. That's worth discussing. But the- Sure. And so, in any case, you know, there's a bunch of, you know, the investigation was entirely one-sided six years ago in any case. Of course. And now you, as a defendant in the case, are prejudiced in that you can't go and obtain discovery of evidence from six years ago, right? And the law enforcement of the time had absolutely no interest in discovering anything about the other side. And so, you know, there's no evidence. The capacity to investigate the crime is now gone. And your pre-child delay is prejudiced. It is prejudicial in that capacity. That's basically the idea behind the motion that you're planning to have forthcoming, right? One of the prongs, yeah. Yeah. Another is that fairness argument. I mentioned about, you know, the KKK and Martin Luther King example. The Cannopy countenance. And then there are several other things. I mean, there's a million reasons to dismiss this case by law. So, again, I don't think this will ever go to a jury trial. I don't think any of these judges, no matter how pressured they are by the city. I don't think any of them are insane enough to work this go to trial. Well, I, you know, that would be, you know, it'll be interesting to see how that pans out, my friend. I, you know, I hope that you're right about that. But I have not been given a whole lot of reason to place great deal of faith in the courts in recent years, sadly. Well, I don't have faith in the courts, to be honest. I have faith in God, man. I've, as that's all you can do, you know, well, you know, that's an interesting subject. I mean, I, I think something tells me that in my experience, well, I don't know that God would go out of his way to rescue me. I should pray more maybe if I want that. But it seems to me that there's a lot of suffering is allowed to go on in any case. And these people seem to be intent on inflicting it, you know, we can learn from that. And there's an argument to be made that, you know, there's a spiritual purpose to that say. Sure. I mean, you got to look at the, the battle lines drawn here. I mean, you have actual gay antifa prosecuting us. I mean, you have actual socialist dog moms working, collaborating with these people in the open. You have, I mean, the worst scum of the earth acting as the prosecutors, acting as the journalist, acting as the behind the scenes people. And you have that very sharp demarcation. And on the other side is us. I mean, it's a, it's a literal battle of good and evil here. So. And if we, you know, get martyred, you know, whatever, that's just how it goes. But I really don't think it's going to come to that man. I think it's going to be total victory. Well, I sure hope that that's the case, my friend. We could use, we could use a one, we could use one in the wind column. You know, I have, I have reason to be skeptic. I have reason for skepticism about this. I mean, if Donald Trump can't get the courts off his case, you know, the idea that we're going to is. And he could win too. He could win the whole thing. I mean, what's happening to him? What's happening to us is completely unprecedented. You know, I've won everything. I've had a lot of false allegations made against me for years. I win every time. So I'll see any reason I wouldn't win this time. I mean, there's obviously a lot of reasons like the corruption and Charlottesville and the present state of political affairs in America. But I don't see it going that way. I feel pretty confident here. So, I don't know. So the, if you, if you prevail, what do you think, what do you, do you think that these people stop? What do you think they do next? Oh, I don't know. I'm sure they'll make up something else to give me. That's what we signed up for, man. Give me for something. You know, you had, when you got back into law, you said that you sort of retired from politics. I understand you've been podcasting for a while. And the podcast is centered on the law. Is that my understanding? Yeah, crime and punishment. I just talk about legal issues. Well, you know, until my arrest, I would say every single episode. Look, this is a legal commentary. We are not talking about politics. But after my arrest, it's like, you know, the jig is up. All politics and law are the same thing now. Nobody's making any bones about it anymore. There's no such thing as an abstract rule of law that we all care about the dignity. It's all about getting to office, prosecute your political enemies. That's where we're at now in America. We've ended a new stage of this republic. Well, I mean, that's kind of my observation here. I mean, you know, they have... I don't think our legal system can recover from what's been done, frankly. We've taken off, you know, the justice system essentially exists on a polite fiction say. That this is a machine that does things according to a set of rules. And it can be... What comes can be predicted based on, you know, how things are supposed to be. But actually, it's just people doing stuff is actually the law, right? The legal practice is the behavior of human beings at the end of the day. And like, if the people who are in charge of that system decide to do nefarious things with it, then there's actually nothing that can stop that from happening. There's actually no substitute for decent people in your government is what we're sort of discovering, right? And so we're sort of met with this situation where that disrupts, you know, to say the least of it, that disrupts public trust of the institutions. And appropriately so. But trying to regain that trust, I'm not sure how that looks. And I don't see that that is a good thing. I think that there's a lot of people in what could be described as a dissident ride or what have you. That they're sort of like cheering for the downfall of the system. It's starting to look like they're going to get their way. But you know, that's not something that you, you know, it's very easy to destroy things. It's remarkably difficult to build them. And so, you know, we're facing a situation where, you know, these people are discrediting the legal system with what they're doing. And I don't think that they're, I don't think that there's an, I don't think that that's something they consider to be an unfortunate side effect of what they're doing. I think it's actually a central purpose, you know, you, you, you actually sued Donald Trump for rape. And you put a lunatic on the stand. And, and you actually don't find him guilty of, you don't find him liable for the rape, but you find him reliable for sexual assault. The same thing they do with us in the, in the science case, they sue us for a racially motivated violent conspiracy. They hold us liable for harassment. And then they just run around acting like they want is if there's nothing wrong with the, with the entire fraud that's been perpetrated upon the system. They, they do these things basically for the purpose of discrediting the legal system. They're not, they're not really officers of the court. They're anarchists who are tearing it down. Well, I mean, the fact is that's always really being the way the criminal justice system is. It's just nobody's cared about it till now. Because now it's all political and everybody's on the hook, not just criminals. You know, you would have these prosecutions where, I mean, every day, every day, it's not like it's something in the past. I mean, every day since I've been practicing law, you have prosecutors who will just throw stuff at the wall and they'll say, yeah, you're looking at 30 years. But I tell you what, I'll drop this to a misdemeanor if you want to take a plea. You're looking at six months probation. Right. You got your probation, you terminatorily at six months. That's how the game is played. It's always been like that. But that's how it is for domestic violence and robberies and theft and who cares about those people. They're not even really human. But now it's been brought to every average citizen is now on everybody who's conservative. Everybody who's right of Hillary Clinton is now on the hook and you're looking at criminal charges for being at the wrong rally saying the wrong thing online. So it's kind of like the Magna Carta, right? Like you used to be able as King of England just throw anybody in jail. These are peasants who cares when they started doing it to nobleman. Then it was like, wait, has this been how our legal system's been working this whole time? We need to do something about this. So they made the Magna Carta. And that's where we're at now. Like, are we going to have a Magna Carta or are we going to have all-out civil war for the next several generations until something shakes out? I could go either way. Yeah, I mean, it seems to me that it's difficult to predict the future under the best of circumstances and with all the chaos being intentionally created, that becomes a substantially more difficult endeavor. Say that, you know, trying to anticipate what's going to happen in the next 12 hours, much less than next 12 years becomes perilous, perilous journey. I didn't see hang gliders coming into freaking Israel the other day. That was not on my list of things I was predicting. No, no, and then something could pop off. You never know. Right. And so, you know, the, what if you, if you're convicted of this thing, what are you looking at? Five years. Okay. Now, in the Virginia court system, you know, I, I recently got done with the federal government, as you know. And in the federal court system, they basically, you have a statutory maximum and then there's what are known as sentencing guidelines and your criminal history category maces up with your offense level. And you know, you find these things on a spreadsheet somewhere. They don't have that in Virginia. Do they? No, most states, that's a very federal court thing and a lot of federal cases like they know what they're doing the fed. So really a lot of the times it comes down to arguing over sentencing. That's what the whole case comes down to. But in state court, yeah, they don't have that. They have maximum sitants like the five years is the maximum citizen. And they don't go over that. They'd have to charge me with something else. They could give me probation. They could give me time served. I mean, they could offer tomorrow, well, not tomorrow, Saturday, but they could offer on Monday. Look, just take a plea. We'll give you time served. We'll give, well, withhold adjudication. Just go away. So they try to do to me in South Carolina. Like, we'll give you adjudication with held. We'll give you time served. We will give you an expungement. We'll give you everything. Just go away. I was like, fuck you people. No, we're going to trial. So that's what we're doing in Virginia, man. I don't care what they come out with. I will go to for five years if I have to, but we're going to trial. So, and if you in Virginia, I understand it is unique in that, well, while the judge is ultimately the one who passes sentence, the jury makes a sentence recommendation. That's kind of like an uncommon thing is my understanding, right? Well, I mean, that's that's kind of how it is. So I mean, a judge can say, all right, that verdict's insane. I'm throwing this case out. They could do that, but I mean, that never happens to it. It's a power that the judge has. Sure. Well, that's the motion to just that's the motion of strike you're discussing, right? So they make a strike as after the prosecution rests. If that's denied, then the fence would have to put on a case. But I mean, I don't know about Virginia. You know, most places that I know of if you're at the end of the trial, jury comes back with a verdict of guilty. The judge should be like, I'm not accepting that. It could it could happen. I don't know. It just happened to my friend Ian in federal court, interestingly, you know, Ian Freeman, my my, uh, Urswout radio colleague from free talk live, you know, he he was convicted of a whole slew of charges in federal court by a jury. Um, he moved pre trial to have this money laundering count dismissed because, you know, he had been basically approached by somebody who was acting on behalf of the federal government. I forget if it was an actual employee of the FBI or whatever it was a rat or what, but guy came and basically said, Oh, I'm a heroin dealer. I want to buy Bitcoin from you to conduct my criminal business. And he's like, well, now that you've told me that I can't do business with you because that's a crime. Right. Right. And the guys like, can I go use your Bitcoin ATM? And he's like, I can't give you permission to go use the thing. After you say that to me, the guy drives 40 miles away uses the Bitcoin ATM and they charge him with money laundering over this. He's can be he. Yeah, that sounds like the fizz he moves. He moves pre trial to dismiss that charge. It's denied at the close of the prosecution's case. They moved to dismiss the charge again. They deny it. He defends against that charge. He is convicted of that charge by the jury. And in post trial motions. The judge dismisses the money laundering charge saying, obviously, you're not money laundering if 40 miles away from you, somebody's doing something that you're unaware of. Right. And I was like, good for him, man. That's unheard of that a judge would do that. What's unheard of is that, you know, he's it wasn't that the judge was exposed to new facts during the course of this, which is the sick thing. Okay. So, you know, he's now sentenced to eight years in prison on the basis of a verdict from a jury proven willing to convict him of a crime he didn't commit. You know, and so like, you know, it's it's it's good that he got it dismissed. I'm glad he wasn't facing sentencing on that charge clearly. But, you know, it's it's wild what they what they all allow people to get away with, I'd say. Well, I mean, the judge might have said, I don't know the facts of the case, but the judge might have said, look, this isn't a matter of law. This is a factual matter. Got us into the jury. But then he's probably thinking the whole time, you know, unless the jury is mentally deficient, like they're going to see this and then when they come back with guilty, the judge is probably like. What what is wrong with you people? He probably thought it wasn't a matter of law. It was a matter of fact for the jury to find, but the jury was just retarded. So he made the decision himself. That's what it sounds like. Yeah. Good for him, man. Yeah. It's awesome. Oh, it's good. He got it dismissed in the end. That's for sure. And so, you know, it's it's one of those things, though, you know, that, you know, it seems to me that, you know, pre trial motions, you know, they're supposed to prevent these things from occurring. And it's unfortunate when they when they don't. So you could face up to five years. It's the jury's going to make that call. That is, I mean, the judge obviously has has control. The jury makes a sentence recommendation. And then the judge is ultimately the one responsible for it. So the judge in theory can say, no, you people have completely lost your minds. We're not going to impose that sentence, but typically in Virginia, that's what happens, which is why people plead guilty. They don't want to face the wrath of a bunch of Charlottesville citizens. I mean, that's not just Charlottesville. That's America. You know, I mean, people plead guilty every single day all across the country to things they did not do. Because they don't want to be rolling dice. Okay. So we are back. That is very good news. And so I am very sorry to our guest and to our audience. You know, I've talked about this before that when I've had guests on the show before, sometimes like right towards the end of it, we've had this situation where this like CPUs, it spikes. And I actually have a solution to this problem that I've been testing, but it isn't quite ready for prime time yet. But I really want to have a gust of sun here today. And unfortunately, it is the worst that it has ever been. And that is unfortunate because this is one of my favorite people to speak to. And I'm very sorry about that. But we are going to have him back after I fix this nonsense. And so we're going to talk to him at great length because you know, you think this is interesting. He's got a really fascinating history. He's been involved in a lot of really interesting things. And he's had a fascinating journey. So after I get this mess straightened out, which I, which I actually expect to have accomplished pretty soon. And then we'll deal with whatever problem comes after that because you know, that's that's life. But anyway, so let's try to wrap this up with almost 1130 anyway. You've been very generous with your time. And I'm grateful for that. We've basically got this situation where you're facing this just cabal of left wing fanatics who's taken over the legal system in Charlottesville in Elmore County. You face up to five years in prison. If you are convicted, there's not, you know, you've got some pretrial motions coming. You have some hope that if the courts can't save you, perhaps God can. And what's what's your people take away from this tonight, my friend? You know, first of all, go back to church. I wouldn't that listen. Second of all, always keep fighting. You know, I mean, I really don't hold it against the guys who took please, man. Like I said, one of those guys was from another state being held for five, six months until trial. He's got 10 kids at home. Like what choice does he have? You know, I saw my first round in jail, like, dude, just losing their apartments can't take, can't get their kids to school, losing their truck. Like what are what their whole life on a part, they take a plea so they can get out of there and fix their life. Like that's probably already number one if you're a family man. So I'd say for those of you who can fight, you have a moral obligation to to do so. And I also say, you know, one of the things I've been remiss in and I've thought about for years, you know, I as one of the speakers at Charlottesville is one of the people there is one of the public figures there. You know, I had a I have a serious debt to this day to everybody who is at Charlottesville. I think a lot of us who were leaders of that time fell through on a lot of people. And I include myself in that, you know, more than anybody because, you know, like I said, I was retired at the time this happened. Only so much I could do. I did write to certain lawyers trying to get involved. But after everything blew up, you know, I should have done more. Could have done more didn't. And now I think this is this is a way that I can I can basically pay a car mcdec here. So I'm happy to be involved in this. I'm happy to be helping everybody as best I can. And hopefully, you know, if I win this thing, everybody wins this thing. That's what I'm hoping for. Well, you know, they've they've really put us in a situation where we don't we don't have the option of walking away from it anymore. You know, they have they have created a set of circumstances in which the situation with which we are met is that people who would have much rather walked away from the whole thing left without that choice. And I think that in the wake of Charlottesville, it's I think it's an astute observation. You made that, you know, that the people who were involved in that thing really. I don't I'm not sure they could have done any better. I mean, we were unprepared for that situation. We had no idea what we were walking into. And the other side knew exactly what they were doing. Importantly, right? We all think we're going to go down there. Ra Ra Ra Ra. It's going to be another pikeville. And they knew exactly what they were going to do. And we were completely unprepared for that. Well, you know what? Now you've got a bunch of people who understand, you know, who have been through it. And you've got it's all well documented. And anybody who wants to understand it has the capacity to do that. And so as things go forward, you know, the other side is going to come up with new ideas. And they're going to they they're never short on innovation. These people. But we are we are better prepared for the next struggle. I guess so far as to say. And one of the things you're saying like about you don't have a choice. You you published something just a couple days ago about Trump and saying Trump does not have a choice to walk away or to be safe. He only has there's only being powerful. Yeah. And we're the same way. You know, I've been out of politics for several years now for like four years now. I've been completely out of politics. I've nothing to do with it. And then they show up in my office and drag me up there and put me right in the middle of everything all over again. You don't have a choice to just go practice law and be with your kids and do MMA and just, you know, screw off and go do your own thing. Like they will come get you no matter how long you think you're out. Like they will put you back in it. So you have no choice now. Yeah, the that line I borrowed that from a from a man whose I don't know if I'd go so far as to call him very wise, but he's very intelligent. And he said we do we don't have the choice to be safe, only powerful. And that line. I don't think that it might not be prudent for you to mention this man. I'll mention him. He goes by the name of Emily Gossensky. And he was saying that all throughout all their riots and all their mayhem. Okay. So now the I have I have said goodbye to our guest. And I'm very sorry to him and to the listener for these for these problems that we've been having. I as I mentioned, I'm actually I think I'm pretty close to solving this. I actually think that I can do this without any new equipment. But I was still troubleshooting this at the time that we had our guest. This is a problem that the the way that we bring the guest on it. The CPU is to shoot shoots through the roof. It's on the same computer that I'm doing the stream on. And I have a I have a way to address that. But I had some problems with it that I haven't been able to get worked out before today. And so, but you know part of the reason that it takes me long to troubleshoot these things is because I'm doing this on a budget. I'm one person. Okay. I've the people who have paid me a bunch of money already just pretend I'm not talking to you. I'm not talking to you. If you're somebody who's been listening to show forever and and you know and you've gave me $10 five years ago or you've never paid before. Consider supporting the show. If you're somebody who has a talent that you might be able to lend. I'd be interested in talking to you go to Christopher Cantwell.net slash how can I help all the ways to help finance the production or Christopher Cantwell.net slash donate my my cash app is edgy Chris. There's lots of ways to do it cryptocurrency all that stuff. Okay. I would really like to I think that we do a quality show here. And when we have things like this happen. I it's difficult for me to maintain my composure. Frankly because we have a great guest like that who comes on discusses important subject matter. And then you know fundamentally something that could be solved with money gets in the way of something really important and I get really upset about that. I'm not trying to I'm not asking you to buy me a very nice car. I I want to try to get this thing so that I can bring somebody on and discuss an important topic with them and say goodbye and not have a problem. And if we could get that far I'm willing to I'm willing to defer upgrades to my lifestyle indefinitely. Okay. Well not indefinitely I'm 43 years old. I'd like to have a wife and stuff you know and that'd be nice to be able to do but I'll worry about that later. I think that if I can continue making a good content we get this stuff out there. We start doing a little bit of promotional consideration. We'll get to the point that we need to get to. But for now it is 1137 and you have all been generous with your time as well. So I'm going to say good night to you. I'm going to hope that you have a very good weekend. I'm going to work on this issue with the equipment that I do have available to me and hopefully I can get this straightened out very soon but we'll be back for a comparatively trouble free cereal politics on Monday. Of course our member chats happen every Wednesday for cereal politics dot com slash join members. If you are a cereal politics dot com member you can also get them access to full house members H a U S members dot com and they have they now have two pieces of content. Up there for your listening enjoyment ladies and gentlemen and there are a bunch of great guys and I'm really happy to be working with them and we're once I get a couple of these other things straightened out. We're going to start bringing other content producers in once I just don't have to be embarrassed about the problems that I have in my studio and we're working on that we I am working on that very hard. And I thank you very much for making that possible ladies and gentlemen will see you Monday Wednesday and Friday 9 30 PM every week. Thank you. That's it. It's over then we organized the death squads for the people who wrecked America. You know what you call people you can't call to enemies and if we want to divide our society. All we have to do is keep doing what we're doing. A radical agenda of the event has turned into an opportunity to the last to push a racial and radical agenda implementing the radical agenda is the only thing they tell about their bad efforts. They want to do this. They're radical agenda. Down your throat. This is great Americans. These are people that want to see great things that they got to know they try and build a light care. One of the radical agenda is not a radical agenda. It's called the second amendment.