PROJECT VERITAS OUTS JORDAN TRISHTON WALKER, PFIZER CONSULTANT

You won't find this levelof entertainment just anywhere. 

What a meltdown. https://t.co/9MBDgrKyiy

— Gonzalo Lira (@GonzaloLira1968) January 27, 2023

DON'T GET A MEDICAL OR RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION? WHY NOT?

DON'T GET A MEDICAL OR RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION?  WHY NOT? 

why would your adversary offer you a remedy? Because it's not a remedy.   --Jon Jay Singleton 

medical exemption might be easier, but a lot of times the medical exemption can legally be denied--and doctors are told not to give it.  --Singelton

06:45  The EEOC is deliberately participating in the violations you're experiencing at your job and with retailers.  

06:53  They're not a remedy.  

06:55  They're trying to falsify the initial records so that you will not have a case if you go beyond the EEOC, if you go to court, your case will get dismissed. 

Find the video here under "Are Exemptions a Trap?"

Jon recommends not getting a medical or religious exemption.  It's not the best, correct legal procedure.  

00:20  An exemption is an exclusion from a legal duty.  So there has to be a legal duty for you to qualify for a legal exemption.  And there are criteria for that; not everyone is exempt from a certain thing.  Most understand it in terms of taxation.  So, if something is a non-profit, like a church, it's exempt from taxation because it's a church, as long as that money is used in that way.  But there's a legal duty to pay taxes, you see, and the legal exemption is an exclusion from complying with a law.  It's an exception to the law.  

00:50  By its nature, it says that a legal duty exists that you are asking for an exemption from.  So if you ask for an exemption, you're forfeiting the great arguments, the burden of proof, shifting the burden of proof on yourself to say that the legal duty exists. 

1:09  You're acting as if there's a legal duty.  And now you're just asking for permission not to be included in that.  And so those who are trying to push this on people love that.  They want to set that up so they can always just deny the exemption because it's a privilege, not a right, like the right to informed consent is a right.  You don't have to ask for permission for the right to informed consent. 

Right.  So there's something really tricky about it.  Using the idea of exemption means you're asking for a privilege rather than standing on your rights by denying that there's any policy that can even ask you to do this in the first place.  It's kind of like knocking out the foundation is a stronger way to go about it than asking for an exemption.

01:48  Notice how when someone is telling you to submit to accommodations, and I don't know what accommodations we should talk about, the mask-wearing and all that stuff, notice how when someone does that, that organization or individual offers you the opportunity to ask for a medical or religious exemption.  At that moment when someone is doing this to you and he becomes your adversary, why would your adversary offer you a remedy?  Because it's not a remedy.  It's not a real remedy.  

02:18  Are they even revealing the criteria for a religious or medical exemption?  No.   

02:25  We see a bird's eye view of all 50 states.  What's happening is someone gets an exemption and someone else wants it and someone else wants it, and a week later, a month later it's revoked.  It's because it's arbitrary.  Capricious and arbitrary.  When you file for an exemption, a lot of times people just fill out a form.  Who gives you the form?  The very person who is denying your rights, making you think you have an exemption.  So you fill out this form, but nowhere is it disclosed what the criteria are that constitute an exemption, like a medical or religious exemption.  The criteria are never disclosed.  The way you find out what the criteria are is you go look at case law.  And then in order to enforce those, you've got to spend $25,000 minimum if not a $250,000 in legal fees to go through a year's long, several years process to prove that you have a religious exemption, and possibly a medical exemption, the medical exemption might be easier, but a lot of times the medical exemption can legally be denied--and doctors are told not to give it.  The whole thing is a trick.  It's a dead end.  It's a way to create a false record of something that has no legal defense or no legal merit.  If you had to try to enforce something on your employer or business or something.  In the end, it's going to be enforceable, and everyone's going to look at you like you're just a joke and that you don't know what you're doing, and you really don't.  You cannot rely on a religious exemption or a medical exemption.  The criteria for these are never disclosed [by whom? isn't it disclosed by the law?]  And they're never going to tell you what they are.  You can even go look up the case law, and who knows what they're making up in the background, it's ad hoc, it's capricious, it's arbitrary like Melissa said, and it shifts the burden of proof.   

04:26  The Burden of Proof.  90% of cases . . . 

04:30  90% of cases in court don't go to trial.  They get resolved in what's called a Summary Judgment Hearing.  Summary Judgment is a way to get out of trial.  It's overused but it's very effective.  90% has to do with whether or not the plaintiff has the right to sue.  That's all they talk about.  They don't even talk about what you're suing over.  

04:52  They don't even get to the merits of the case.  It's just "Should the case be here, or should it be there? Do you have the right?  Are you on time?"  All the little rules and things . . . 

05:00  So if you do not have the Burden of Proof on a situation, for example, if a person tells you, "You have to wear a mask to come into this building."  Now at that moment, you don't have the burden of proof to prove that you have to wear a mask.  Yes, there has to be proof that you have to wear a mask.  And what is that proof?  The proof is that you are a direct threat, and the only way to prove this is to conduct an individualized assessment to establish that you are a direct threat and that therefore you have to submit to the accommodation of wearing a mask.  How can someone ever conduct an individualized assessment or diagnose you without your consent?  They can never get to that point.  So, the burden of proof stays where it is.  So if the store or employer, whomever, wants to enforce a measure or accommodation like this, it has to go to court.  If you claim an exemption from something, you have to go to court.  Totally different.  

05:57  People have convictions they want to protect, and so they rely on religious or medical exemptions.  What we're saying is that using either of these exemptions is a trap.  The burden of your exemption falls on you and establishing the criteria is very difficult.  Your exemption is not going to be held up by the EEOC.  In fact, the EEOC tries to guide people into religious and medical exemptions and tries to change their charges because that's the path that's been carved out by these "creatures."    

06:45  The EEOC is deliberately participating in the violations you're experiencing at your job and with retailers.  

06:53  They're not a remedy.  

06:55  They're trying to falsify the initial records so that you will not have a case if you go beyond the EEOC, if you go to court, your case will get dismissed.

07:03  And interestingly, what you claim in your EEOC is basically what you're locked into what you're able to claim in court.  We've had some clients, who after their consultation with the EEOC, who changed their claim back to a religious exemption .. . don't do that because that's the case that you have to argue in court.  

07:30  There's no exemption guys.  No medical, no religious exemption, even if you can get one and weasel through it, it's still a legal dead end.  Even if you get it, you're still going to have to submit to the examinations, the temperature testing

"Now, you don't need to be violent to be a psychopath."

And there was a chapter in that book, called "Natural Born Persuaders," about how psychopaths are better at persuading. 

clinicians, the medical experts couldn't countenance the possibility that there'd be benefits to psychopathic characteristics at large.   --Dr. Kevin Dutton    

The evil geniuses of persuasion, the con artists, who've learned it all from first principles, learned it all from the streets, living on their wits.  So who learned more about persuasion, me, the boffin, the nerd, or the guys who learned it from books.  Turns out it was a bit of a draw.  He knew all the technical terms, but they knew how to do it, and they are the evil geniuses of persuasion.  They were all of them, without exception, psychopaths.  Now, you don't need to be violent to be a psychopath.  They had no conscience, no remorse.  They were pretty ruthless, and they could destroy people's lives not by violence but by fraud and deception.

Is that the definition of a psychopath, the willingness to inflict harm on other people for your own benefit without caring about it?  

No, that's more of a sadist.  Now you do get sadistic psychopaths.  It's interesting.  When people hear the word psychopath, they tend to think of real-life serial killers like Ted Bundy and on the silver screen, your Hannibal Lecters.  But actually, Konstantin, when psychologists like myself talk about psychopaths we're, in fact, referring to a distinct set of individuals 

But actually, Constantines when psychologists like myself talk about psychopaths we're, in fact, referring to a distinct subset of individuals with a specific constellation of personality characteristics, such as ruthlessness, fearlessness, mental toughness, self-confidence, coolness under pressure, emotional detachment, 

They also exhibit focus, charm, charisma, and of course, those trademark deficits of conscience and empathy you hear so much about.  None of those traits is necessarily a problem in itself.  In fact, all of them dialed up at the right levels and deployed within the right context can actually prove rather useful.  The key lies in context (timing and circumstances you find yourself in) and level.  Imagine these qualities I've just listed comprise the hodgepodge of knobs and sliders on a personality mixing desk.  So if you twiddle them up and down in various combinations, you're going to arrive at 2 conclusions: 1) no size fits all, 2) by its very nature, there's going to be certain jobs or professions are going to demand those mixing decibels be turned up just a little bit higher than average, demand precision engineered psychopathy.  

For example, imagine you've got the skill sets to be a top surgeon but you lack the ability to emotionally disengage from the person you're operating on.  You're not going to cut it, are you?  

Imagine you've got the skill sets to be a top lawyer but you lack the almost pathological self-confidence to be the center of attention in the middle of a packed courtroom, that narcissism to be the big shot in front of a jury. 

Context is key.  When writing Flipnosis, 2011, I wanted to know if there was a DNA of persuasion that you know would make you We're all capable of it, but can we all find the key?  

I was talking to conmen, and they were all psychopaths.  And there was a chapter in that book, called "Natural Born Persuaders," about how psychopaths are better at persuading in general than the rest of us.  They've got that charm, that charisma, but also they're not caught up in the emotion of persuasion.  They can almost move you around on a court like a top tennis player.  When that chapter came out for review, all the reviewers zoned in on it, and they said, if psychopaths are better at persuasion than the rest of us, then what else are they good at?  Turns out that psychopaths are very good at a lot of things.  But when the book came out, many thought it was controversial because many didn't know what a psychopath really was.  They looked to the media, saw Hannibal Lecter, and thought that all psychopaths were rapists, serial killers, and suicide bombers.  Second, the clinicians, the medical experts couldn't countenance the possibility that there'd be benefits to psychopathic characteristics at large because the only psychopaths that they'd seen had been the bad ones on the screen that had been referred to them from forensic, clinical settings.  By the very nature of their jobs, they were going to meet the top surgeons or the special forces soldiers or the CEOs.  His book is the only that argues that there are benefits to psychopathic characteristics.  Most of his people would agree that he's won the argument.  

The guest's name is Dr. Kevin Dutton.

"Why India Did Not Allow Pfizer's Covid-19 Vaccine"

Rudyard Kipling said –  If you can keep your head when all about you    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,    If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, —you’ll be a Man, my son!

🚨BREAKING — "Why India Did Not Allow Pfizer's Covid-19 Vaccine"

1. Indian regulators required a local safety & efficacy study.

"Pfizer refused to do a local trial."

2. Pfizer wanted legal immunity from vaccine injury.

India refused.  https://t.co/90NlP0JLHp

— James Cintolo, RN FN CPT (@healthbyjames) January 23, 2023

ARIZONA: with 99.999% confidence that 291,000 bad signatures were accepted in the 2022 election. Now you add this to the 300,000 ballots that we know had no chain of custody.

.@KariLake: "One of the experts said with 99.999% confidence that 291,000 bad signatures were accepted in the 2022 election. Now you add this to the 300,000 ballots that we know had no chain of custody... It's just outrageous." pic.twitter.com/w4M5e1IZtm

— Kari Lake War Room (@KariLakeWarRoom) January 25, 2023

At the 00:35 mark, she mentions Wendy Rogers.  And Shelby Busch at the 00:55 mark.