27:35. So you don't have freedom of speech unless you get standing in court to address the violation that I am committing against you.  So freedom of speech only exists and freedom of assembly only exists and freedom of religion only exists in that you have the right to go to the government and enforce orderly Society.  Without the right to redress the Grievances you don't have the other rights that's why it's so foundational in my opinion I haven't heard this anywhere this is my kind of on track This Is My Philosophy of Law that that is the most foundational right.

28:13  Civil society breaks down without the ability to address things in court. If you can't get Justice in the court, you get it in the streets.  That's where we are headed because the courts are so broken and they won't hear cases.  "The claim is not plausible on its face."  This phrase is used all the time all three of my cases are dismissed based on standing, based on.  Missouri and Texas against Pennsylvania got dismissed on standing using

28:55. I'm going to get into that now using my case and I'm going to go through the "Three Prongs of Lujan." BTW, this is a Substack it's my first circuit Court of Appeals opening brief I don't write like a lawyer you'll see some stuff that a lawyer would never write because they would probably lose their license they would definitely be hated aware of it yeah John's substack is called COQUIN DE CHEN, French for "naughty dog" or "bad dog."  Steve Kerr said I can't promote you if you're going to have that as your avatar. 

A couple of Latin phrases:

1)  "Lex injusta non est lex," an unjust law is no law at all.  We're looking at natural law here, and as Congress creates a law that is adverse to the Constitution then you have a right to break that law.

2)  "Malam consilium quod mutari non protest," bad is the plan that cannot change.  If you set out a plan, you're 10% into your plan, and you realize, "Oh boy, the outcome is going to be worse than where we were then at the beginning."  Well, what are you going to do?  You're going to change your plan.  Well, the problem is they created a plan in March 2020.  Oh, they're not changing.  The plan, oh, unfortunately, they're just incompetent.  It's like, no, the plan is going as they planned it to be always.  They're doing well according to their plan.  I say "Malam consilium quod mutari non protest," because the people out there should realize that wait a minute they recommended Remdesivir on April 21, 2020, and they're still recommending it now.  They talk about a study that occurred in March, April, and May 2020 and that's it and they never looked at it again.  

With those in mind let's make a change else being slave by tyrants enabled by cowards.

Okay here's my case against the governor, the public health commissioner, individual medical examiners, and the Chief Medical Examiner.  Okay here's the argument: Three Prongs of Lujan.  I said Injury In Fact.  The words that they use are generalized grievance.  My case is a "Generalized grievance."  I just read to you what Article III was.  It doesn't have anything in there about standing.  So what does Lujan say about it?  Lujan says it must be "Concrete and particularized."  Your complaint must be concrete and particularized well who decides that?  It's another subjective decision of the judge.. what you're going to see and I'll just tell you you're going to see all these terms that are legal terms that are used in every case and in the adjudication of every legal term it's subjective, subjective, subjective, and subjective.  So the first test of inquiry of Lujan is "Concrete and particularized," so I was very particular in my claimed injury.  Basically I got thrown out of Law School; not just that, I couldn't get into any other law school.  Why?  Because they enacted vaccine mandates.  Why did they enact vaccine mandates?  Because the state said that everybody was dying from COVID-19 and that the vaccine will save you from COVID-19 and that the vaccine is safe and effective.  All of those were lies, and I intend to prove that if I ever get heard in a substantive argument in a case.  I intend to prove that these people didn't die from COVID-19.  Most of them are lies.  I show in the evidence, in Exhibit F of my case: blunt force trauma to the head; blunt force trauma to the torso; fentanyl overdose, all called COVID-19.  I have vaccine deaths where people died within hours of the vaccine and they called them COVID-19 deaths.  This is the irrefutable proof that I have that you won't find in research papers that are bantered about and debated on every podcast.  I don't do research papers.  I give you hard facts that any jury, any judges, any layman can understand.  I just can't be heard because I was dismissed on standing.  So my injury being "concrete and particularized," that's to say that I did get thrown out of Law School.  I did lose the $28,000 I spent for the first year I did lose a year of my life studying law and I'll never be a lawyer, or get a law degree because I'm 60 now.  Should I go back?  I don't know, but yeah so there's definitely 

35:00. John, on that question yes you should I have a friend of mine whose grandfather after being a dentist until 87 years of age went back to law school at 87 and graduated at the age of 94 and practiced law 'til he died when he was 105 in Peru.  So there you go

I would agree with you otherwise, where otherwise means my dad and his dad didn't see 70.  So I don't have a lot of time.  Maybe I'll live to be a 100.  Chances are very low.  I won't get into medical stuff, but I hear you.  I might go back, Charles