Thanks to Martin Armstrong @ Armstrong Economics and to Coffee and a Mike.

01:23, ARMSTRONG. Britain is Orwellian on steroids.  It's just crazy.  Britain is giving a guy 20 months in prison for saying that "I'm tired of my money going to illegal aliens who rape our kids," and they gave him 20 months in prison for that.  Worse than that, they're actually saying that they want to extradite people from around the world who criticizes their government.  I mean what is this, the British Empire all over again?  And they don't respect territorial jurisdictions.  And so if you say something against their government in Phoenix, you can be criminally charged in Britain and extradited to prison there for 20 months?  I've never seen the world just completely fall apart like this nothing is respected anymore nothing.

02:35, MIKE. In regards to the UK, two things.  One, I'm in Arizona, and let's say I say something disparagingly about the UK government.  What would they do, have the DoJ send FBI to my door, cuff me, put me on a plane, and ship me over there?  

02:52, ARMSTRONG. That's what they think.  Legally you would be entitled to an extradition hearing, and the law would be they could not extradite you unless it is also a crime in the United States.  It's like the entire rule of law has just been trashed and set on fire, and burned, and all the books, like Hitler.  This is going too far it's just simply gone too far.

03:35, MIKE.  But we look at it in relation to Europe.  I don't know what the solution is, but in regards to the UK, you've got these people who went down and they caused havoc, and they caused damage.  What we both know is that the UK is one big surveillance state, so everybody that was there got caught on camera so what do you do if you're a patriot over there because how are you going to overthrow the government if that's the plan I don't the government is too powerful right now just sit back and continue hide?  

04:15, ARMSTRONG.  Usually the way a government falls is when it's own people within the government no longer support it.  S o when the police refuse to exercise these laws, things of that nature.  If you look at the 1991 coup in Russia, the hardliners didn't want to . . .  there was a proposition for Russia to join NATO, and they staged a coup against Gorbachev.  He was on vacation, they stormed his house, etc., and Yeltsin stood on the tank in Moscow and said, "Do not fire on your own people," and they didn't.  Because the military stood down, the coup failed and Yeltsin became president so that's the key it's when the police and the military do not support the current Administration regardless if you're talking left-right, or whatever, historically that's simply the way it goes.  The problem with what the UK is doing now is that they are risking Civil War because this is what happens when you are trying to suppress people.  Google 1844.  We were just coming out of the sovereign debt crisis, etc., in the United States.  They were called "the hard times" in the aftermath of the panic of 1837, and this is when all the Irish were coming in migrating to Philadelphia.  So they were taking jobs that the citizens were losing because of the recession, and that turned into gun battles on the streets of Philadelphia

Saddam Hussein, a defiant leader of the Arab Nation, 2006

This hits different 20 years later pic.twitter.com/1SLNhFUp04

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) August 17, 2024

Saddam Hussein, 1937-2006, was the 5th president of Iraq from 1979 to 2003.  He also served as prime minister of Iraq from 1979 to 1991 and later from 1994 to 2003.  Saddam was indicted by an Iraqi "Special Tribunal" for crimes committed against residents of Dujail in 1982.  Why did it take 24 years to bring this charge?  

A few weeks later, he was charged by the Iraqi Special Tribunal with crimes committed against residents of Dujail in 1982, following a failed assassination attempt against him. Specific charges included the murder of 148 people, torture of women and children and the illegal arrest of 399 others. 

 

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

The increase in the unemployment rate tends to be smaller at the start of a recession, but it gets large quickly, per Bloomberg

The increase in the unemployment rate tends to be smaller at the start of a recession, but it gets large quickly, per Bloomberg: pic.twitter.com/bvo4bmOmf1

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) August 16, 2024

Here are John's courses.  

We're being underwritten.