And Brady, ready to go? We'll get this show on the road.
Sure. Brady willing and able and appreciative.
Very good. All right, everybody. Well, welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
In today's discussion, this group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost,
through the darkest days of the COVID scam responses.
With the desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health,
the scam continues with authorities in America and Australia talking crap again about the need for masks.
Stephen Frost has stood up against government and power over the years
and has been a whistleblower and activist. His medical specialty is radiology.
I'm Charles Covess, the moderator of this group. I'm Australasia's passion provocateur.
I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 30 years ago.
Over the last 12 years, I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine damage and damage from bad medical advice.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company, and I'm engaged heavily in industrial hemp because hemp will help farmers to be successful.
And successful farmers are a massive defense against government overreach.
We comprise lots of professions here and we're from all around the world.
Many of us thought that vaccines were OK. Now, many of us proudly say, yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers.
And indeed, many of us are supporting a movement of totally banning all vaccines.
I say again, I've yet to meet a parent who refused to vaccinate his or her children who regrets that decision.
I've yet to meet one. If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat and where you're from.
If you publish a newsletter or podcast or radio or TV show or you've written a book, put the links into the chat so we can follow you, promote you and find you.
And even if you're a regular attendee, please keep putting your links in because there's so much material in the chat to find it again is difficult.
Plus, the new people coming on the call will find your links.
So please don't hesitate to keep repeating your promotion of what you do.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War Three and that there are various battle lines as part of this war.
Some of us understand the development of science and that the science is never settled.
One of those elements of science is whether or not viruses do what they do.
Some of us believe they do. Some of us don't. Some of us do not. Some of us are on the fence.
The science is not settled. Arguing everyone knows that to be the case.
Well, we're in the place where the science is never settled.
The meeting runs for two and a half hours after which for those with the time, Tom Rodman runs a video telegram meeting.
Tom puts the links into the chat if you're able to join.
We will listen to Brad Guy, our guest presenter, for as long as Brad wishes to speak.
And then we have Q&A. Stephen Frost, by long established tradition, asks the first questions for 15 minutes.
There's no censorship. It's a free speech environment.
Free speech is crucially important in our fight to preserve our human freedoms.
If you're scared to speak up, that's the beginning of the end of your freedom.
If you're offended by anything, be offended. We are genuinely not interested.
We reject the offence industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.
I have nine standard responses to anybody who says, I'm offended, Brad, by what you said.
And I'm happy to email that to. In fact, I'll put it into the chat, everybody.
The get ready. You know, when anybody says I'm offended, use one of these nine responses.
And one of them is, what do you mean by offended?
Just think about that. When somebody says, I'm offended, you say to them, what do you mean by offended?
And then you shut up and you watch them be like a fish with their mouth going.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love. Fear squashes you. Love, on the other hand, expands you.
Living life from fear is a shitty way to live.
These twice weekly meetings are not just talk fest and extraordinary range of actions and initiatives have been generated from linkages made by attendees in these meetings.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people put the details into the chat, if by what Brad says today or any guest presenter, send them a direct.
If you want, if you don't want to raise your hand, send a direct message to Brad and say, I can help you in your work.
Brad, my wish for you is you get swamped by people wanting to help you in your work.
The meeting is recorded, is uploaded onto the Rumble channel.
And now welcome to Brad Geyer.
He's not a criminal attorney. He's an American lawyer who works in the criminal space, former Department of, former, what do we say, former Federal Officer.
And thank you, Brad, for giving us your time, wisdom and insights. You've spoken to us before. We're delighted to have you again.
And thank you to Stephen Frost again for creating this group over two and a half years ago and for organizing Brad to be with us today.
There's Stephen. Hello, Stephen.
Hi, Charles. Hi, Brad. Thank you very much for coming on.
Thank you, Stephen. Thank you for having me again. Thank you, Charles.
So over to you, over to you, Brad. Unless, Rose, if you've got something urgent you want to say before Brad starts or is your hand up for questions after Brad finishes?
Okay, we won't worry. All right, Brad, off you go.
All right, so I'm going to give everybody. So, as Charles was so kind to reference, we were able to sue Gilead in state court in California.
Where that stands now is Gilead has moved through its very large law firm to remove it to federal court. We're going to contest that.
I think that it's a mechanical apply the facts to the evidence decision for the court and I think it's very likely that we will go to end up in federal court.
There's not much we can do about that. But we're alive and well in that litigation and plotting forward.
That is a consumer fraud based suit against Gilead.
And we chose California because it has a really good consumer fraud statute.
In the process of compiling that suit, we discovered that it looks like Pfizer was actually the manufacturer of remdesivir in its Kansas plant.
And there's all kinds of as is laced interlaced throughout this entire what I believe ultimately will be determined to be crimes against humanity.
Just perverse incentives and strange embedded conflicts of interest that will take years to unravel.
So that was what I was here for last time. This time I'm here because last week I was able to I was contacted by customers of the Himalaya Exchange, which is a stable coin platform in the crypto space.
These it's not really clear how many there are. There are certainly tens of millions of freedom loving, heavily weighted towards ethnic Chinese who live inside China and outside of China.
And they loosely affiliate around an ideological leader named Miles Gao or Miles Kwok.
I liken him the government's not going to like this and you'll see this in my filings that I'm going to file.
I'm going to drop another new I'm going to drop another salvo tonight on my former colleagues.
By the way, I really enjoy working with my former colleagues, but we like to go go like this.
And it's sort of understood by both sides. I never make it personal, but he's sort of like the Martin Luther King of the Chinese freedom movement.
And just like Martin Luther King was the ideological leader, it didn't therefore follow that he had a financial interest in any given church in the Southern Baptist among Southern Baptist churches.
So the US government went in and in in September of 2022, they seized all the reserve accounts of the Himalaya Exchange.
As I said, it's a crypto stable coin currency.
The stated purpose of the Himalaya Exchange was to provide economic freedom for its members, some of many of whom are in China.
And as many people know, with these closed financial systems that seem to be constricting us on a daily basis, it's getting harder and harder to spend on what you want, where you want, how you want.
So it was it was geared with that ideological purpose in mind.
They seized these reserve accounts. So if you put in ten thousand dollars, you got ten thousand dollars in HDO, which is Himalaya dollars.
It's like monopoly money. And then based on how much monopoly money you have, you would receive HCN, which is Himalaya coin.
It's essentially like a share price when it was issued in September of 2022, they issued it at ten cents a share.
It shot up to the fifties, believe it or not. Fifty dollars or so at the time of the seizure in September of 2022, it was at twenty four dollars.
It was at twenty four dollars since that time after post seizure, it's gone down to fourteen dollars.
So we estimate that the damages to the to my clients, I have three thousand three hundred and forty five clients.
We came up with a very smart way, I think, to authenticate who the clients are, allow them to communicate us with without us having to compromise their personal information.
Because remember the kind of the Chinese government, CCP and its accolades in Western nations, including the United States and Europe, certainly, and Australia, have these auxiliary police forces that harass these people, do all kinds of things to them.
If it's found out that somebody is speaking up for freedom and liberty outside of China, they try to reverse engineer it back to to their Chinese family and then they get harassed.
And even worse, people get thrown into the gulag. So this is really serious stuff.
For some reason, the U.S. government decided that this was going to be its enforcement priorities.
And if you followed me or well, no one's followed me.
But if you were in my loosely affiliated group since two thousand and fifteen or thereabouts before that, really, really going back to two thousand and nine for some priorities for the United States government have completely been, in my view,
corrupted. I'm not suggesting there's corruption.
I'm just saying that the enforcement priorities have been corrupted.
And one of the reasons why how you can have crimes against humanity raging the way that they are is that there's no deterrence.
It took more than 10 years of of concerted effort by enforcement agencies in the United States and elsewhere to create the kind of risk reward ratios without any deterrence that allow mass hospital deaths like we saw under coven that allow the revocation of informed consent, which allow the approval of drugs based on a platform.
And also scientific fraud.
The reason that that was all able to happen is that our systems devolved this 2009 and rewind so you can get the full scope of this because you're from what I call the public health science world.
And one of the challenges that we've had in the last couple of years is that we've had a lot of people who have been involved in the public health system.
And I'm going to give you a full scope of this because you're from what I call the public health science world.
And one of the challenges and what the next phase we're going to be going into is merging public health science world into the enforcement world.
They have erected barriers between discussions and expressions of concern in the public health public safety sphere sphere and basically prevented it from getting it over to the compliance enforcement apparatus that should be.
Looking at this stuff, investigating it and prosecuting it. They've they've basically prevented the development of thoughts, thinking conventional wisdom, common shared beliefs in this space.
So we're going to go very soon. Our nonprofit is going to sponsor a humanity restoration board that seeks to restore all that.
But so you can understand from your world, the public health science world, what happened in the rule of law world that is really driven disproportionately by the US Department of Justice, I would say.
And it's in the international space, its embassies and the inspectors general in the inspector general community.
Basically, when stimulus was being, you know, in 2008, we had one point two trillion in stimulus that was going to be awarded.
And I think it was six hundred billion dollars in TARP funds to basically what ended up what ended up happening, I believe, is it's somewhat nationalized our financial system and somewhat nationalized the media.
It intensified the revolving door structure between government and industry.
And it underwrote further outsourcing of heavy industries from the United States outside of the United States.
And simultaneously, we started to chant the mantra inside of government that you could basically prevent fraud by doing a lot of training.
And we sent out all of our inspectors general and the Antitrust Division and the Criminal Division, its attorneys and prosecutors and the prosecutors from the Civil Division that do the key 10 cases whistleblower suits.
And they did hundreds of thousands of trainings to provide an explanation for how, after all, the stimulus funds have been handed out, the stimulus funds have been handed out to the public.
And I think that's a good explanation for how, after all, the stimulus funds have been handed out, there would be no fraud.
I mean, they gave one point two trillion out just in stimulus.
And by 2014, 2015, that money had all been awarded and there was no fraud.
They put it all onto a computer.
And we were out in a place where we could all serve as watchmen and report any signs of fraud.
And what the public didn't know is that the US government's enforcement agencies were completely shut down.
We could not open up investigations.
We could not conduct investigations into procurement fraud, grand fraud, theft of taxpayer funds, corruption, nothing.
It was literally like our case filings after 2010 fell off the table.
The Antitrust Division, which had always served as a place where agents could bring their cases.
If a US attorney's office, there's 96 US attorney's offices that have a politically appointed US attorney.
So it tends to be more elastic.
I think the economic term tightly tied to the policy directors, the administration.
Historically, if a US attorney's office declined case for whatever reason, the Antitrust Division, if it was in procurement fraud, grand fraud, or competition, the Antitrust Division would pick it up, work it up.
And that was really how we turned around the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, 2008, when we built this really successful war zone fraud task force.
But that was shut off. And you could literally could not open up an investigation.
And the Antitrust Division, we went from a hundred.
I remember we saw there was a White House budget proposal and it had the Antitrust Division as having 160 grand jury investigations.
And the Antitrust Division's grand jury investigations were somewhat unique in that we, their grand jury investigations of industries.
There's multiple companies, often large companies, in each one of those 160 investigations.
And in a typical investigation, you might have 50 or more individual subjects.
So this was a massive swath that just blanketed the economy with our investigations.
And we saw this White House budget for the next year that it was going to go down or grand jury investigations were going to go down to 50.
And we all joke this is when I was still in the Antitrust Division was 2012 and we were joking about how this must have been a typo. Somebody left a one out.
Right. And we got totally shut down.
They put a computer system on that made it impossible to open up investigations.
It also made it impossible to keep investigations open.
And they, it set a whole host of things that basically made it extremely difficult to investigate anything in procurement fraud, grant fraud.
The FBI, for instance, which we worked with very closely, was ordered to focus on housing auction fraud, if you can believe it.
So they just put all the resources in housing auction fraud.
They announced success and I think 2014 that all fraud in the intergalactic universe had been prevented with $1.2 trillion in spending.
I attended a presentation by then Vice President Biden, who was the head of the task force, who named, I forget the cases, but it was like two dead Social Security payee cases.
It was like 0.01%.
I think they were claiming that the one point of all the money that had gone out the door, 0.1% was impacted by fraud, if you can imagine it.
So flash forward to today.
Since that time, our investigative agencies have largely been diverted, focusing on enforcement priorities that really have no real benefit to the country, I would argue.
While things that are actually threatening our prosperity, certainly maybe even our existence, blind-eyed has turned to that.
The most vivid example of that, I think, is January 6.
And today I put a Twitter post in the chat because I declared earlier today that the tide has turned on the January 6 front.
Why do I say that? Because Joe Rogan, who has a podcast, expressed what I think is the growing awareness of people in the United States, whether it's right or wrong.
It's the developing conventional wisdom that the US government and private agencies have put a lot of time and effort into preventing from happening.
It looks like it's happening.
That the conventional wisdom of the United States is that January 6 was a situation where there was substantial design failure by our government.
It's much worse than that. He goes much further than that.
He gets into the suspicious actors and the bad actors and the participation by the government.
And among other things I've done is I've represented four January 6 defendants.
And I really focused, I've done thousands of hours of video review.
We had a hardscrabble team of video reviewers, many of whom are inside the gulag itself.
We were organizing them to get the video review that was under court seal.
As that starts to come out, there's going to be a growing awareness in the United States that they were sold a bad bill of goods.
So it put me since 2021 into the unenviable position in front of courts to counsel that they act with due care.
Because in my view, they are being led down the Primrose path, as were some of the investigative agencies.
This is going to start to unravel. And that's good news for the rest of us in the medical freedom movement.
Yes, we have CHBMP.org and former feds group.org and former feds.org and 50 other state websites.
We have a website for each of our 50 states.
We have thousands of members. We have 200 in some number that are actually on our platform using our work platform for operations work.
But we have thousands of members and we're growing. We can't even, we're really having a hard time, frankly, managing the growth.
Last month, we've done two events that overlap.
So we sponsored a medical freedom conference. At the same time, we were protesting at a Kalamazoo, Michigan, I think, at a Kalamazoo, Michigan Pfizer plant.
So we're at the point now where we're doing two events that overlap.
My aspirational goal is to get to where we can do a dozen events at any one time.
And I think we're budgeted to do that. We've also done, I think, 1300 recorded victim interviews of hospital, people's experience in hospitals.
We've helped all of those victims recover all their bills and their records from the hospitals.
And we're preserving and storing them for future inquiries from federal law enforcement and state law enforcement.
Right now, they're diverted. They're chasing paraded grandmas on January 6.
But as we start to unwind that, and there's going to be a high level of demand to get the FBI, the offices of inspectors general back into the business of enforcement and actually going after criminal conduct that threatens our very existence.
And we have a I'm not going to release it yet, but we have a proposal for a task force for 2025 that is very similar to the task force that we did in 2008 when we were losing the war in Iraq.
And we can turn everything around in about two years. I think we could get to over 500 case filings, criminal case filings in the Department of Justice by about 2020.
The end of 2027, we can get to over 500 criminal case filings. Again, this has all bleed over effects.
To the rest of the world, we have, for instance, taking the UK, I worked extensively with your competition unit, ACC in Australia.
We work the serious fraud office in the UK.
We've worked with the London police and as they start to realize, because these are again, career, loyal career civil servants, and they realize the level of scope of the depravity and just how we've all bought into this really corrupted record.
This corrupted public record that is not the actual objective truth. We're going to get more and more help from the inside. I don't believe I would be here talking to you if I wasn't getting help from the inside.
So let me flash forward and we're going to go right back up to this. Why is CBDC?
Why is CBDC? Why do we designate CBDC as an area ripe for attack?
We identified three, you know, these are all just basically ambushes by the worst characteristics of government, whether it's Jan six, which is a government ambush to target those exercise in the First Amendment rights, or it's.
Our efforts to hold hospital homicides when people went into hospitals for help and what they were met with was a perverse, really insane set of incentives that.
Made it very difficult for hospitals and doctors do anything other than.
Apply them with this FDA death protocol that ended up killing so many, or it's stripping the world of informed consent and contravention of Nuremberg.
And also the Helsinki protocols and our constitution. These are these are just government ambushes as is CBDC. You see them pulling off. They're pulling back on ATMs.
They're entering into partnerships with the private industry where private companies for a whole array of incentives agreed to refuse to take cash anymore.
And I was I was made aware of this tendency and this trend in 2015 when I was contacted by Hong Kong businessmen who are mutilated coin providers.
Mutilated coins. It sounds like it's I'm sure that's something no one's ever heard of before, but around the world at the end of a lifespan of a car, they're all sent to junkyards.
They're ground up. They run a magnet over it. They pull all the steel out. They put it through a float tank. All the cushions float to the top.
And what you're left with is something called Zorba. Treaded aluminum. That's put onto hundreds of thousands of containers.
And at that time in the world production cycle, it was being sent to China to be picked through by peasants.
And I went and I visited thousands of these facility. I'm sorry. I saw thousands of these peasants working in about maybe a dozen facilities.
And at the end of the production line, coins are coming off these lines.
Palettes of pennies, for instance, for which there's no economic incentive to send them back to the United States to redeem them.
You could. And if you if you tendered them, the US government would be required to pay you for that palette of pennies.
Nickels coming off the line. Same thing. Nickels are different metal composition than dimes, quarters, half dollars and dollars.
But there's an economic incentive to provide the dimes, quarters, half dollars and dollars.
And in fact, there's a whole number of providers that had provided this for many years.
US government through radical enforcement made all sorts of false claims in a in a forfeiture application with civil forfeiture that put my clients at risk of being thrown into a Chinese gulag because lo and behold, the Chinese government reads our Department of Justice filings like they're actually real.
In this case, they were false.
We made the government aware of it.
And this is the first time when I got the I had the awareness that even when I was pretty sure that I convinced the government that they were barking up the wrong tree, they continue to bark up that tree for motives that are unknown to me.
Long story short, we had litigation in New Jersey and Pennsylvania federal courts when they realized that I was going to crush them.
They gave my clients all this money back. But in the process of that, they never got the program back up.
They got it up in a limited way to do two more protection will melt for other other providers.
And they've never gotten that back up.
So right now, nobody's accepting these mutilated coins. And this is concerted conduct. This is also going on in Deutsche Bank and also in the UK.
So this is what prime me to this whole idea that our governments are trying to get out of physical currency and the mints and the treasuries are really collaborating together.
And there's something larger that's a foot. So they clearly don't they clearly don't like startup crypto exchanges, even if there aren't books laws in the books to really criminalize it or make it a civil violation, quite frankly.
So it's like they just all kind of decided that they're going to go after these guys, regardless of what the laws are.
And that's that's where my 3345 Chinese ethnic freedom movement clients found themselves.
The government came in, seized these reserves, and I had to basically go into court and make a filing seeking relief from the judge in the criminal matter in the US v.
Miles Kwok criminal prosecution. And this is really the third the third leg of what is a three part three legged stool, if you will.
The first one is wind up January 6th. The second one is medical freedom.
The third one is abort CBDC and use these as educational programs to sensitize our queer civil servants of whom I am a loyal former colleague of.
I think what's been done to them is is well, not quite as bad as as what's happened to others, but it's bad.
And I have the aspirational hopeful view that as we continue this education of this joint educational process, that we're going to get more and more help from people inside of government.
I believe people inside the FBI and inside of the Department of Justice are helping me.
And because really what we want to do is we want to restore our system.
We want to get it to where in the United States, our Constitution reigns supreme and there's no there's no, you know, these efforts to sunset it or swap it out for something else.
We're going to need we're going to need an enlightened group of dedicated people in all of our nations to go back into government.
Not engage in see sawing.
Purges, you know, like what I worry about our purges like, it's almost like there's a there's a part of this effort. That's maybe this is naive, but a little bit of unilateral disarmament.
Where to get these agencies back to mean.
We're going to have to have to take an enlightened view and not do it the way that it's historically been done where political parties just trade back and forth and carve up the spoils.
We really have to think more in terms of being stewards and set up a governance and compliance system that that can withstand the ages.
And I thank you for letting me go so long and rambling so so long. I very much appreciate it.
Brad, that is that is well articulated.
And I like the term monopoly money.
I'll make a couple of comments before Stephen starts with the questions that any any of you have questions put your hand up after Stephen will take those questions in terms of each one of us in our respective countries.
What offer can we craft and this is a very important question.
In terms of each one of us in our respective countries.
What offer can we craft and this is an open question. I don't expect you to answer, but it seems to me that if those currently in working in government who might be supportive of what we're doing in the freedom movement and this meeting is this group is all about freedom,
truth, justice, ethics and law and law and the lawful operation, the proper operation of our respective constitutions.
What offer can we make to your colleagues in and you're a great resource for us in working in government.
And I'm thinking along the lines we should tell every public servant we know.
You know, this has been a fraud.
Please come clean.
The sooner you come clean, the better it will be for you.
We're not going to, you know, in the middle echelons, we're not going to put you in jail.
But be aware that there are millions of people on the freedom movement.
Come and join us now.
And to the same end in Australia, in Victoria here in Australia, there is a big there's a big protest movement going on by the police, but they're complaining about lack of income.
They want to they want to pay rise.
But this is an opportunity for us to walk into police stations here and say, hey, we are on your side.
And how else can we liaise with you?
That's my question, sort of rhetorical question.
What thoughts do you have on that as to what we could be saying to all the public service that we know in the countries in which we are?
This is a this is a tough challenge because we need to find the balance.
I'm concerned about we have to provide it.
You know, when you're in a when you're in a struggle with your opponent, it's always served me well.
If while I'm, you know, challenging that opponent, if I could figure out where it is, I want to maneuver them to where where's where's the place where they can retreat to?
You know, I don't want to corner a snake.
Right. So I've given that I've given a lot of thought to that.
I think that if if if we if we if we frame it in terms of changing enforcement to traditional forms of enforcement without connecting the dots on what it all means at the end of the day, because what it all means at the end of the day, if you do, if you file for it,
if you do, if you file 500 cases that involve procurement fraud, grand fraud, science fraud, big pharma fraud and health care fraud, it's going to be really easy to, I believe, to push that into a crimes against humanity narrative.
Right. So, but I think I think we hold back on that.
And we just as faithful stewards, we just say, look, enforcement is really falling short right now. Like, in the United States, we have rampant human trafficking. I know there's human trafficking organizations that are for sadly are probably working with our government to do this.
Like, that's that's got to be wound up. And I think that my former colleagues in government, they're probably frustrated with that as well.
Bread and butter health care fraud without.
Telling that in the context of the overall narrative of what happened in the nation's hospitals, just do a straight treat that as a straight health care fraud enforcement matter and hold off on tying it all together.
That'll be more and more gradual process because what I don't want to do is have somebody look at what we're at the change we're advocating for and have them conclude that it's a death sentence.
And on that front, I have a draft amnesty program that is it's inspired by part the apartheid amnesty program and the antitrust division, the Department of Justice is what became the corporate leniency program.
And it's a, it's a way to encourage whistleblower initially, it's a way to encourage whistleblowers to increase it from a trickle to a stream to a river.
But it also, it forces right now our conversations about these issues are all happening happening in the public space in the science space.
And a lot of the, the idea development and concept development that that would ordinarily have with participation from the enforcement community, at least the United States.
It hasn't happened because things like what we have here in the prep act, which allegedly conferred immunity immunity on everybody.
So in the US, like it was, it was considered gospel that nobody would be able to bring a lawsuit against the hospital or a doctor and be able to recover because of the prep act.
But I can, I can tell you, I didn't believe that. And we've referred 90 cases out at this point, nine zero cases in the United States and multiple states.
And not a single one of those cases that was taken by an attorney has been dismissed yet.
The point being that there's this, there's this default narrative that that is almost accepted as an article of religious faith by those who are not awakened yet.
And I'm really seeking advice from all of you how to modulate that that awakening process that developing narrative, how to try to structure that so that, you know, you don't go too hard in a direction and get.
Like, I don't want to do anything that causes intense resistance. I'd rather get rather create a dynamic prisoners dilemma where you like, like sort of what you would call a political dilemma.
You know, like it's now or never, you know, you got to come forward.
And I think we're at the at the at the beginning of being able to develop that that marketing program.
And you guys are all like crucial for figuring that all out.
Very good. Very good. I think that's that's that's well said.
We have to do our thinking to say how can we assist in this process.
But that's good news around the 90 cases that have not been dismissed.
All right. Thank you, Brad.
So, Stephen, the frost next 15 minutes are yours, buddy.
We can't see your smiley.
Where are we now? Well, I'm not sure it's smiling.
Two seconds.
Yeah. So, Brad, thank you so much for speaking to us.
I wanted to ask you about, well, the UK.
We've got an inquiry, a public inquiry, so called.
I think under the provisions of the 1921 Public Inquiries Act.
So I presume that it's a public inquiry.
I think it's a public inquiry.
Public inquiry, so called.
I think under the provisions of the 1921 Public Inquiries Act.
So I presume that evidence is being heard on the road, but I'm not sure about that.
I need to check on that.
That's very important because in an official public inquiry in the United Kingdom,
evidence must be heard under oath.
So there's always the risk in people giving.
It says that people could be charged with what's it called when you lie under oath?
Perjury. Perjury. Thank you very much.
So, but the current narrative is this, Brad.
So coming out of this public inquiry in the UK, no less,
the narrative that they wish us to be in is that the UK is not going to be charged
with what they wish us to believe is that lockdown happened too late
with nothing said about the evil of lockdowns in the first place,
which by the way, nobody wants to know where the lockdowns came from,
but we know where they came from.
We came from China.
No other country in the world practiced lockdowns before 2020,
except China, as far as I know,
and then there's some of the other Asian states around like Burma.
Oh, it's not Burma any longer.
It begins with R.
Can you remember?
Myanmar. Myanmar.
Thank you very much.
Jill's a UK doctor.
In fact, she lives in the same town as I do, amazingly,
and the population of that town is only 29,000 and she's awake.
So I'm so for much of that's true.
We got it.
Yeah. So thank you very much, Jill.
You actually know your geography.
That's really great.
Most Brits, by the way, don't know their geography these days.
So I was going to say that what they want us to believe in the UK,
clearly coming out of this inquiry, everything fits in to was the lockdown too late?
That seems to be the remit.
And we're all going to agree on the lockdown was too late,
but actually nothing about the evil of lockdowns, where they came from.
But very interestingly, Brad,
at the end of Boris Johnson's evidence,
where he was kind of eating humble pie for not realizing how dangerous it was and all this,
he actually said that this stupid woman who's heading the inquiry,
I can't even remember her name, she's completely hopeless.
Well, she thinks she's very efficient, of course,
and everyone else thinks she's very efficient, but I'm sure that Jill doesn't.
But she so she was saying to something to something.
Oh, yes, she was sure it was very difficult for Boris, you know, former Prime Minister of the UK,
to give evidence about the lockdowns.
You know, the guy was Prime Minister of the UK.
If he finds it too difficult to give evidence of the inquiry,
it wasn't him saying this. It was her.
And so he took the opportunity.
I don't know whether it was planned.
He took the opportunity to say that there was something that he wanted to say,
because he didn't think he would meet her again.
That's what he said. It's a joke, honestly.
They're both in London.
They can't go to a party without meeting each other, I wouldn't think.
So anyway, he said publicly, I don't know whether this was under oath.
I need to check about the under oath thing.
Jill, could you check on that? Maybe help me find out.
Because that's an extremely important point.
We had the same thing with the David Kelly inquiry, which wasn't a public inquiry.
Of course, it was a hard inquiry.
It was an ad hoc inquiry.
And it turned out that the evidence wasn't heard under oath.
And nobody knew that until we came along as doctors.
But the point is this.
How do we do what we need to do at the present time
if people don't understand what the problem is?
You know, what the criminality is, if there is criminality?
So I'm wondering now, aloud,
how we get people on our side to understand the key questions
in the mind of a criminal lawyer preparing for criminal cases in the future.
That's what I want to know from you.
If you can answer that question, I'd be so grateful.
I think so what I see focusing on is grant fraud,
procurement fraud, false statements, conflicts of interest.
And focusing on I filed a case against Facebook,
which I ultimately had dismissed without prejudice.
I filed it in December of 2020.
And it has pages 46 through 108 has the recitation of facts as we knew it then.
And we use the old Department of Justice style,
where anything that's in your cross memo has to withstand the passing of ages.
And I think it does that.
It was the lowest common denominator.
Things that we had, you know, were really verified.
I would focus on the development and approvals around Remdesivir
and the vaccines and the sabotage of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin
in that 2019, say July 2019 through, say, January of 2021.
And I would focus on and I'd get some grand juries and paneled,
get all the records and just try to understand what happened.
But, you know, you're going to end up with lots of criminal cases, frankly.
I mean, if I had to if I had to pick one cluster to look at,
it would be that the first hydroxychloroquine study, I think it was,
where they purported to look at hundreds of thousands of patient files from around the world,
like that would get totally rolled up.
Anybody that had any involvement with that whatsoever would get rolled up,
and they would all be cooperating to let us know what exactly happened there.
And then I would like I do what I think what we're doing now,
which is trying to find like Bilbo with smog,
looking for noticing that there's a scale missing on the dragon's armor and letting Legolos know,
you know, we're trying to be archers like I'd say that that's the Gilead case,
picking a state that has consumer fraud statutes and taking a shot at it.
And then we have just this scatter shot effort,
which is to refer as many cases out to attorneys that are willing to shoulder,
you know, put their shoulder against the wheel and try to encourage as much collaboration as we possibly can
and use like their, you know, attorneys like to differentiate and they everybody sees things differently,
just try to stimulate that process.
And eventually we're going to we're going to find a way through.
And then once, you know, we have.
So, Brad, I was thinking you said you said at one point in your talk,
you said that you were collecting testimonies from 1000, I think said 1300 people who'd been hospitalized.
That's extremely important.
And why is it important? We need the we need to collect that evidence now.
We can't wait five years or even two years because people have difficulty in understanding what has been done to them.
And on top of that, they they don't want to talk about their time in hospital, for example.
But of course, you realize as a lawyer that it's extremely important we have those first hand testimonies.
How do we encourage people to preserve the evidence?
Because I'm afraid that in two years time, certainly in five years time, people won't remember what happens.
And they don't know what's happened to them now.
So I don't think they'll know in five years time.
And they think because of the distance, you know, time wise, that it's not important.
So it'll just fade from the memory and everybody will think, oh, well, that was the time that everybody was locked up at home, you know, but they won't actually remember the horror of it.
And that was sort of where.
So we we.
It's the part that I didn't say is so I was in Vietnam from February 1st to May 15th of 2020.
And in fact, I was going there on Sunday.
I'm working with one of your members, Patricia Finn, who's, you know, tremendously talented.
And she thinks she has a way through like Legolas.
She's she's my Legolas or she's Bilbo, depending on how far you want to strain the analogy.
And we want to file on behalf of foreign vaccine injured in the Second Circuit Federal Court in the U.S.
And she thinks that we can get through.
And I was I was headed there, but I had a visa problem.
So I pushed it off to the end of the year.
But the point was, I was there in February 1st and by the second or third week of February, I was the doctors I was working with.
All knew that the way to protect yourself from covid was to drink lukewarm water to tea and just take sips and it take one hydroxychloroquine a week.
And that was well understood there.
And, you know, how how we went from that to the insanity in the U.S.
I'll never know because it clearly doesn't have anything to do with lockdowns because Vietnam really wasn't in lockdown until like August of 2021 after they released the Pfizer vaccine.
And we have, you know, we have a dozen plaintiffs so far who say that grandma went in or a health care worker went in, got the Pfizer vaccine, came home and everybody in the household got sick.
So the whole cause and effect problem, which you're yeah, I mean, this what what these guys do, what these scientists do and what they get grant funding for is to obscure cause and effect.
And to misattribute harms to extraneous factors that aren't connected to their, you know, their payday.
Yeah, and that's going to be a big challenge. I mean, really, that's that's all of us.
Just pushing back, educating one on one, trying to publish, trying to get the word out.
Yeah, it's just what we really need is to put this group in particular, but others, you know, in our communities and in our countries to understand the importance of preserving the memory of what happened.
Because I think the people have their personal memories. They don't understand that it's it's the accumulation of all these firsthand testimonies, which is going to win over the public in the end or be the final nail in the coffin of the criminals who are actually up for trial.
They don't understand that their personal testimony is as important as it is.
Everyone in the UK, for example, in the US has a story to tell, and it's all important because it's part of the human story.
How do we get this picture of what happened all over the world?
So that's what I'm interested in.
I think if we're not interested in that, then nobody else is going to be.
We have we have volunteers ready to interview anybody from any country that wants to tell their story.
And the part that I left out of that, my last what I said last time was that Eisenhower, General Eisenhower gave us gave us the business plan.
When you stumble on, you know, death camps, you know, you know, you're going to have to go to the hospital.
When you stumble on, you know, death camps, he just gave every every staff source and a typewriter and said, just start interviewing anybody that has any connection to this camp and start interviewing people in the community.
And let's try to get a handle on what happened here, you know, in terms of cognitive, cognitive psychology, math, psychology, we got to we got to learn what that happened here.
So I really just we really just took a page out of his book.
The gay plan was there, but we can we're we're happy to take on as many in the UK or Australia who want to share.
In fact, this is the part that we really haven't I put in the chat our commonalities document that was done at our first summit meeting among our members.
Tracy Bird went around and those are the twenty five commonalities that we came up with.
No matter where you were in the United States, these are the twenty five things you you know you are going to see.
And it'll be very interesting to see if they are different from folks in the UK or in Australia or Germany, et cetera.
So I think with maybe talking in parallel, Brad, I'm not quite sure that that's why I'm going on about it.
But I just wonder whether you so do you understand what I'm talking about that we need to educate the diarists, if you like.
We need to educate the people who are going to record what's happened all over the world.
And that's a big job, but it's very important.
Oh, you're you're you're you're you're absolutely right.
And this actually you're doing that right now.
I mean, we're doing that on this that this group from the very beginning has been doing that.
These are these are there for everybody to see. This is a running documentary basically.
And, you know, and thanks for having me on.
And, you know, if if anybody wants, you know, we have we have these volunteers and they're wonderful.
Most of them are widows from the hospital treatment protocols or their vaccine injured.
And they're they're more than willing to help anybody though. And we'd love to join up with organizations.
You know, we're currently in the next month or so we should our our website system should should be an international based system.
And but, you know, you're absolutely right in terms of preserving the record.
All our government agencies are required in the US, at least required to preserve all their records.
Now, what's really disturbing is something happened and they no longer followed that those guidelines after January six.
We know that we know that the Secret Service deleted all their communications.
We know that D.O.D. deleted their communications around January six.
And I suspect we're going to find a lot of that. Spoilers. Issues obstruction of justice issues.
I'd be shocked if we don't come across that in regards to in regards to covid.
I mean, you can see references by I think it was Fauci about they're in the spoilation regard.
You know, don't send it from this email address or, you know, we shouldn't talk about that an email, you know, things like that.
I've seen references like that. So we have a we have a control group that they currently.
They currently benefit from sovereign immunity, but they're working so far outside the scope of their authority, actual, apparent or implied authority.
And they're acting criminally, certainly unlawfully.
And ultimately, these I don't believe that these these immunities are going to hold up just like the prep.
And by the way, I was right about the Prep Act. Well, I'm actually not right about the Prep Act until somebody makes money, but at least preliminarily all these suits have survived.
And I'm here to tell you, I don't think that these immunities are going to hold up for these government officials.
So, Brad, do you have people if so, if I so I know a few people who would like to give testimony and there must be many others, you know, if they were asked whether and they're going to give testimony.
You know, if they were asked whether and they were reminded how important it is, their personal testimony, because they're not going to think it's important, but we think it's important.
Do you have people who can interview these people preserve their yes.
OK, take a statement. Yeah. Yeah. In fact, we have a whole sign up platform.
See HBMP dot org. Anybody who's a victim or next of kin can can sign up there.
Doesn't matter where they're from. In fact, I think that's actually this is a huge deliverable.
I mean, we've established definitively that everybody faced the same set of 25 commonalities, regardless of facility, regardless of what state you are in.
But if we can document that people in the UK and people in Germany were being treated identically or substantially similar way, the people in the US, then there has to be communication between our governments.
Right. And it's and and it goes down to the billing and the perverse incentives like we have this extremely like Byzantine payment structure between Medicare, Medicaid, CMS, and the U.S.
Medicaid, CMS, the the difficulty by which you would have to array all of those Byzantine, you know, millions of different procedures, billing codes, all this stuff, forms of payment, you know, alter multiple sources of payer.
And so, like, all the work to organize that structure to yield the same results as whatever the UK structure was, whatever the Germany structure was, it requires massive, inserted collaboration, coordination, planning agreements.
Between people from the international community.
So, like, and, you know, I don't know who I don't know who the designers are or what, like, ultimately, we're gonna have to figure out who the designers were of this scourge.
So, Brad, I think the value of listening to you, it gives it makes us think about things that we wouldn't normally think about.
So and then we have ideas of our own and we need to remember what we think of when we're listening to you.
So Boris Johnson said, because I forgot to say what he said, he said, we need to know where this came from.
And then he went on to say there needs to be an investigation into where this came from.
Well, that's interesting, isn't it?
And she writes and she said, well, you gave me the remit for this inquiry and something on the lines.
And that wasn't included.
And everybody thought that was incredibly funny and the point was lost.
And I just thought, wow, that's amazing.
It's amazing.
Boris Johnson, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, asking for an investigation into the what led to the covid nonsense, you know, he well, he didn't say the covid nonsense, obviously.
But what they were doing the inquiry about and she he said, I know you can't look into this because of the remit, you know, and she reminded him that he'd provided the remit.
And everybody thought that was incredibly funny and nobody wanted to develop it further.
It was just pathetic.
It was like listening to a school class.
Following the class bully.
Anyway, one of the problems we have here is that we have these nonprofit agencies, which form up right alongside the governmental agency.
And they as budget constraints increased, they find this other pot of money and those who are regulated by the agency start to tithe to the sister nonprofit.
And this is this has become standard in the United States, and it's a massive problem. So, like, among everything, among all the other things we have to do, we have to pass legislation to ban these nonprofits and get rid of them.
These nonprofits are, I mean, like the American kidney associate these these kidney associations that basically push, you know, they actively block transplants in favor of, you know, the.
For for for Xenia's and the Vita, you know, to support that that duopoly.
I mean, there's there's all kinds of different things like that that are embedded in the system.
And it's just it's just gotten to the point where it resulted in mass death.
All these this confluence of conflicts and corruption resulted in mass death.
And like, if we ever have an opportunity to change it and fix it, I think it's now.
So you mentioned this is the last now, Charles, I'll be one minute.
You mentioned the importance of whistleblowers.
I'm not sure you said, but I think you understood that that was important.
And I understand that as well, because what's important about whistleblowers is that they they often lead you to lead a criminal lawyer like yourself to to stuff that you would never think of yourself.
So they they know the whole system that they worked in and they can point you to areas which are weak in their view in their own organization.
And even the best criminal lawyer in the world can't can't work out what comes out of the mouth of a whistleblower.
So how do we get how do we get the whistleblowers and how do we protect them?
You mentioned that I think you're talking about amnesty and, you know, limited amnesty, because if it's too harsh for everyone, then no one speaks.
So we need some people to give testimony to to to act as whistleblowers from within in all these organizations.
And so how do we strike the balance between holding people accountable, but at the same time, giving them some hope of amnesty if they blow the whistle?
I think that when you when you are our amnesty program is is aspirational. I mean, we're we're in the private sector and we don't have any official authority to make charging decisions on behalf of the U.S. government or state government.
So we're not a governmental entity, but it's it's really a an effort to build a private, build up a private sector task force, which I hope will increase the level of unhappiness by career civil servants inside of government who share our views, who are not authorized to do investigations in these areas.
So first and foremost, it it shames governmental agencies in making them more likely to do the work that they're they're currently not doing.
It also for it's also the first real attempt at forcing this these these different languages and these different concepts, these different ideas together right now.
As I said, we're Balkanized in the in the public health science space and a lot of the cross-pollination and mergers, merging of language and ideas that goes on when you get the enforcement community and agents and former agents and investigators and auditors and countenance into that mix.
That's not happening. And a lot of the way that they the way that they did that in and of itself is a scion.
I mean, like, as somebody who's who's literally beaten the bushes in the United States to find medical malpractice firm who will take a hospital homicide case, they have it so beat into them.
This is their business and they believe that it's impossible to get a recovery.
So it's important to remember that we're all like edits at its root.
We're all victims of some kind of a sign up.
I'm not really sure all the people I know some of the people are involved in.
I don't know all the people that are involved in it, but it's really adversely impacted us all.
Even people on this call. I mean, I feel like at times I'm trying to break out of it still.
Absolutely. So I think that's true of a lot of us.
Who are on these calls and others, you know, in other groups, some that they thought they were immune.
I certainly thought I was immune. And then it's suddenly the realization came to me that I wasn't as I was before 2020.
Outrageous. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
Let's let's let's move on. So excellent questions.
Excellent food for thought, everybody.
Excellent food for thought, everybody. You know, and that self-awareness you have to keep working on.
You can't just assume you're the same and double care required of your own health.
So there are wonderful experts here. I'm thinking of Karen from Scotland.
You all each one of us, if you've been affected, you have to take super steps past your normal steps for looking after your health.
And many people here, particularly doctors, are not experts in health.
They're experts in particular aspects of the medical system.
So there are some holistic doctors here, but not many.
And there are not many holistic doctors generally. And as we've seen, they've been attacked.
So the reminder, you come to these meetings, look after your own health.
You're no point being a foot soldier in this World War Three.
And if you're if you're in hospital yourself, thank you, Brad.
On we go to now. Series of questions. I'm sure there's a lot of questions coming up.
I've got a string of them. But Rose, first you then Jeremy.
Hi, Brad. I have three things for you.
One, as you were speaking, I go back to there was a huge GAO report that showed the billions in fraud from the 2009 High Tech Act
with direct conflict of interest, having Faulkner, who's the CEO of Epic, as the interoperability head.
That was never addressed and never put on anyone's radar.
So as you were speaking, it was directly parallel to that issue.
The second thing is, I sent you information and I never got a response.
And your email kept bouncing back at me. So I don't know that you ever got my information.
And I have been feeding Brian Ward and Patricia.
So there's things missing that the attorneys aren't addressing.
So I really want to talk to you offline after this.
Yeah, please. My. I try.
I try emailing you, but it just keeps bouncing back.
So I don't know if you ever got any of my contact information and what I originally sent you.
I'm pretty sure that I didn't. And I just had this issue.
It's happened twice. I filed a case against key time against one of the largest health care providers in in Texas.
And they had to call me on the court to call me on the phone and said it kept bouncing back.
I don't know what's going on. But this is my I'm going to put my that's my Gmail account in the chat.
Oh, yeah. Yeah, I'm going to put my phone number in the chat so you can call me.
And Charles has it. So perfect. Thank you so much.
Nobody's going after individuals.
People love to go after the corporations.
And so as an example, you know, ballgreens is a big entity.
Nobody is focused on because they were so heavy in soliciting the covid, especially the children, which is defined as the non-autonomous, which is illegal.
And they know their own guilt because their ads were every 30 minutes.
And as soon as the Pfizer documents came out, they pulled their ads immediately and they disappeared.
So nobody's doing that. And then going after celebrities who were pushing it, which again is soliciting for research, bypassing or illegally acting as IRB safety boards.
And the and the addendum to that is if attorneys would align with some of these parents who I'm going to focus on the wives, clans, the families, the families of the children,
I'm going to focus on the wives because that's usually the problem that they're transitioning their children against the father's wishes and the fathers are being stripped of their rights.
Why isn't that being classified as emotional, behavioral and biological research?
So that would be my question to you is, are there any attorneys that want to jump on that?
Because I'm watching fathers, you know, across the country.
They're like, yeah, my kid was just taken away from me and transitioned against my wishes.
I love I love big challenging cases. I'll take a look at anything.
I'm sitting I'm sitting on a lot of information to help you guys.
But it's like they didn't call me. But I've been feeding Patricia stuff.
If you if you put your email and your phone into the phone number, I will I'll definitely call you.
And I put my just my Gmail account. I don't know what's we've been under quite a lot of attention, particularly since since I filed this Himalaya case.
So I don't know if it's something I have to do with that. But no, I'm all ears.
And I appreciate you mentioning that the individual piece will come last.
So, you know, the idea that we're going to be running around charging doctors or running around and charging CEOs of big health care concerns, I think ultimately that is in our future.
But it's going to be it's it's going to not necessarily a rare case, but an uncommon case.
I think these numbers are direction directionally accurate. So like in Nuremberg, which is everybody holds this up as the great, you know, paragon of the high point of civilization in terms of like accountability.
I think I think this is this is true, but don't hold me the numbers, but I think there are about 100,000 Germans that you could have charged criminally.
I think a thousand maybe were investigated and maybe I think it was 130 who were criminally prosecuted for essentially the war machine.
So many are going to get away. And that's that's being realistic.
Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, I think that we I think it's reasonable to think that we could get into the hundreds here.
It's just that you have to go like on a ladder approach and go for the low hanging fruit, establish your base and then and you know, and then try to go to the next to the next plateau, establish your base, go to the next plateau.
And at the end of that is high level CEOs and doctors.
Well, I'm also thinking about these celebrities that were pushing it. They're getting paid to push it. And it's like it's more so set a precedent.
So it doesn't happen again because we know that some people are never going to come to, you know, trial or anything.
So you're saying Sue, on behalf of a vaccine injured against a celebrity on the basis that they're giving medical advice.
And you could make the argument they're illegally acting as an IRB safety board because they're pushing and soliciting for research.
And those people are supposed to be monitored and supervised by a safety board as far as what is going on.
And it's soliciting.
I think we should take a close look at that.
I gave you my phone number so we can talk about it after this. Definitely give me a call.
Yes, I will. Thank you, Rose. By the way, that that last one too really has my, my mind going right.
Imagine, imagine that stuff but you guys can't get to me.
I'll try to fix that.
Okay, good.
Rose, you guys talk. Jeremy.
Yeah, okay. Just give me a second to come out of hiding here. Change my video.
I thought it was dark.
Well, sometimes it is very dark.
Let me say thank you very much, Brad for agreeing to present to us.
Very inspiring. It's very hopeful.
Interesting to see all the things that are going on.
I have a lot of friends who are like minded and they often ask me, what are those folks on the zoom calls doing anyway.
And of course, the devil's in the details. They need to listen to lawyers and doctors and researchers and what they're doing because I certainly can't repeat it to them what what is being done.
And certainly a lot is being done.
Here's my question. It's a simple question perhaps comes from a certain level of naivety earlier in your talk you mentioned about I think about companies conspiring with governments or various governments, perhaps just the US government.
To refuse cash in the future.
So I'm wondering about the concept of legal tender help. How does that fit into the concept of legal tender in that how could you have some companies refuse cash and not the general retail establishment or what have you.
How can it be divided up that way.
You're raising a great point.
Are companies required to take legal tender and the answer is yes they probably are.
But in terms of getting a court to give you grant you relief.
That's another hurdle.
And there and forgive me because I haven't looked at this aspect of it since 2015 when I filed those original.
The stuff that was really kind of formational in terms of like how the Department of Treasury is structured and you know they reference the US mint in the in the Constitution which is very unusual right.
So it seems very strange to me that they were essentially.
I was looking at all this evidence that they were.
They were relegating the mint to just be like a producer of like commemorative coins and it seemed like everything they were doing.
Seem to be that they were sort of working to get out of coinage which is not how government agencies act like they don't act in ways that are.
Inconsistent with their long term survival rights and others made sense.
And then when I looked at the applications in Germany and the UK and some of the unhinged searches and seizures they were doing.
It was clear to me that they were they have some sort of interagency task forces international in nature.
That's driving a lot of the enforcement.
I think where the rub also will come in and you're going to need to lay a deep foundation on this for courts.
Is like what is what is legal tender what is currency you know.
It used to be when these these.
Terms were used that it was like coin that was made out of a metal that was worth the amount of that was in the coin.
Now now we're to fiat currency but it's physical fiat currency of the bank notes and you have the coinage.
Now it looks like we're going to go to a fiat crypto system which are just a bunch of numbers and digits.
And I hate to skirt your question but that's really we're going to have to take.
Like to fashion the concern you're raising.
Into a claim.
And and just not to tip my hand but I may get re-involved in the coin thing because I was horrified after I thought that we we we we cleaned it up.
And disabused everybody at the mint from believing that the coins could be counterfeit because it's preposterous the coins aren't counterfeit.
Take that to the bank.
There's a there's an there's an expert out there saying that they are but I believe that that can be easily destroyed but.
They.
It's going to take a lot of work to.
The government's going going around arresting people.
Throwing them in prison.
For engaging in the mutilated coin trade.
And I think it's a big mistake.
I think it's immoral.
I think that these people that are that are getting caught up in this are having their lives destroyed over nothing.
It's very similar to January 6 quite frankly.
And if I can find some bandwidth.
I'll take a look at filing maybe in Pennsylvania in that regard.
Or maybe out in California we'll see.
I'm sorry I didn't answer your question.
It's it's it's literally we're going to need a bunch of it.
And by the way if you have an expertise in this area.
We we accept free help.
Trust me because a lot of this stuff is like outside the box thinking.
And researching you know this is not like.
You know like you're slipping foot your typical slip and fall case.
Well it makes me think what would happen if I went into a retail outlet of some kind.
And purchased an item that I it was relatively expensive.
But small enough that I could walk out the door with it.
And put the catch on the table and walked out.
Now I would want to have established legal representation before I did that.
But it would be interesting to see what would happen if a sufficient number of people actually did that.
I mean they're allowing people like in California to walk out with nine hundred and fifty dollars US of goods without so much as a buyer leave.
It would seem to me that it wouldn't be hard to put together a case.
And challenge this notion of having some enterprises not accept cash.
That just I can't see how that would fly if you put pressure on it.
Are you in the US or Canada?
I'm in Canada.
So and you have you know a lot of these mint mints function the same way and they have the same they all kind of evolved.
Their legend there's charging legislation follows each other.
I mean yeah we can we can look at that.
What you're also talking about is just a good civil a new civil disobedience trick.
I think what you're saying today about people going into a store and loading up a grocery cart with groceries and then walking out and doing it independently to express their displeasure.
This is actually a notch less aggressive I would say.
I think it's not the form of payment that the establishment is unreasonably insisting upon.
But here to force legal tender.
So yes exactly.
It would be very challenging to challenge that.
Well Jeremy if you want to argue about legal tender you should go to Sweden where you can't even get on a bus unless you haven't got cash.
If you've got cash and nothing else on a bus in Sweden you can be thrown off the bus because they don't want cash.
How about that?
It's the same here in Canada Steve.
It's the same throughout all the provinces I believe they just insist on cash and you know we allowed that to happen.
They don't insist on cash.
They won't take cash.
No you get on a bus here in London Ontario or any place in Ontario and I think I'm speaking for the rest of the provinces.
They all operate the same way.
You must purchase the pass.
So Jeremy why isn't anyone challenging that in Canada?
Well I guess it's because it's small potatoes and people just go along to get along.
Especially at the student level.
They seem to be the only ones using the buses.
So alright.
Incredible.
So there are lots of things we can do.
Just say no.
That's our rule.
Just say no.
Do not comply.
Get on the bus.
If they throw you off the bus get on the next bus.
They haven't got...
Well yes you could argue.
Look it's the same in Australia.
Listen people put in complaints to ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investigative.
Australian Securities, ASIC, da da da da da.
Whatever it is.
The government authority regulating the equivalent of New York Stock Exchange and the other.
What's the corporations regulator in US Brad?
SEC.
SEC okay.
The SEC.
Steven out of 100 complaints, formal complaints lodged and this is the case all around the
world.
Only 2% get investigated.
And so what we focus on is the two that are investigated.
We ignore the 98 to get away with it.
And there is not and the same in Australia.
There are people who check that you've got a pass.
Blah blah blah.
There's no cash payment.
But people are traveling for free and 1% might get prosecuted.
Big deal.
Just say no.
And we've heard it said before in this group.
That's why you come to this group.
Be willing to suffer for your principles.
Stop trying to change the system without suffering.
Thank you.
No but Charles I wasn't saying that.
No no I know you're not.
I'm not attacking you.
I think that we should attack these entities who say that they won't accept cash.
Yeah yeah I agree and I agree and I love the idea Brad.
In fact it's a coordinated exercise where 10 people go to the supermarket, load up 10
trolleys and turn up at the counter and say we're paying cash.
No we don't accept cash and leave the 10 trolleys there.
Or go to a restaurant, eat a meal, eat a food and then offer the cash.
If they don't take it just leave it on the table and walk out.
So there are lots of ways for us to wake people up.
Now in Australia last night I heard on the interview that there are many businesses finding
more and more people are using cash.
And we've just got to keep promoting the use of cash.
So let's keep doing it.
Thanks Jeremy.
John.
Hi.
Brad are you aware of the activities of Todd Callender?
He was our guest in the last call.
You realize he's taken a pretty substantial case before the Supreme Court that challenges
this whole corona thing.
Are you keeping up on his activities?
Yeah, no I know Todd very well.
He's a great guy and doing great work.
It's sort of weird.
It's like everybody's so overwhelmed that you know every now and then you find you know
you ride your horse into town and your buddies at the watering hole and you try to have a
phone call on occasion but it's kind of tough.
Yeah I understand that.
But you know it sounds like you know from a lot of your anecdotal stories here you're
butting up against a lot of corruption right.
So the things that he's been doing kind of as a side project is with some others is trying
to establish whether or not the various people that are in the way have filed oath of office.
Yes.
Yeah familiar with that.
Yeah so he's great idea.
He's finding none of them do like none of them do so.
Has he filed that yet?
What the Supreme Court?
He's still looking for somebody to file it.
He's been docketed.
I know there's a process there so the next step is early January.
Oh so he was able to file it.
Yeah yeah no it's it's not good.
Oh that's that's a relief.
So it's docketed.
You know we had a lot of you know conversation about what the meaning of that acceptance was
because they don't have to hear everything right.
You know there might be some fish but you know that's kind of par for the course.
But I think and I said this to him privately because we talk all the time is that just the publicity
of them accepting this case is going to create a lot of ripples whether or not they do anything
with it that you know is favorable to our side or not.
It's the acknowledgement that this situation exists right.
There's something exactly.
So you know even if they come up with some kind of you know bullshit opinions about it sweep it under the rug
or use it to establish precedent so they can toss out other similar things whatever that is.
They're not going to be able to suppress the publicity surrounding the fact that they took the case based on
the premise that it has standing to sue.
So I think that's a big deal.
But I would definitely investigate you know some of these people's official filing of their oath and question it
because that's a common loss not.
But it has some teeth.
If they don't have you know if they can't produce that oath of office technically that you can throw them out of their office.
They're not there lawfully.
That was a great outside the box thinking and Todd is great for that.
He can I remember as I read it early on and I'm like man I mean he thought about that very early on and then had the wisdom to
you know serve FOIA requests and he got responses back and it seems to look exactly like like what he suspects that they're not swearing in anymore.
The entire administration is there under false pretenses right.
So that's how they're shamelessly getting away with this because they don't really have any responsibility.
So what is that reason I guess anyway they also have liability John.
That's the other point of time don't they if they haven't sworn the oath then they're not properly in that position and they're not covered with the
liability shields that come with that position which you know the other side of this is you can go to this website called bonds for the win right.
I found this one early on and it's kind of like piling on the heat where you know these public officials they have to have a bond you know by
PricewaterhouseCoopers or something like that that ensures them against malfeasance in office.
And apparently the the tact has been very successful with this group is to go after elected officials bond rather than going after them directly.
There's some kind of rule about a complaint like a properly filed complaint that must be followed up upon and if there's more than three of them they'll lose their bond.
If they lose their bond they can't serve whether they have an oath of office on file or not.
So that is an incredibly strong thing because it literally takes three housewives, you know, filing the correct paperwork with all the T's crossed and I's dotted and they can throw out Gavin Newsom.
But
John, is that a website bonds for the win.com
Bonds for the win. Yeah, look it up.
Hey, John, just to let you know I was doing this in Florida to over two years ago. It's not as simple as you think it's a huge quagmire with the underwriters, and they've been getting themselves into trouble.
Oh, I haven't really kept up on it for, you know, half a year or something but my understanding was that, you know, they will hold your hand through the entire.
So, you know, if they've been doing it incorrectly that's news to me.
You know, it's another topic that's bigger than it seems. Yeah.
Okay, because I was involved with that two years ago, but it's a good premise.
Yeah, yeah, I might have to refresh what I know about that it's just, I want to throw it out there.
Sometimes, see what we're dealing with is a situation where the lawyers are kind of getting hamstrung and, and, you know, they're castrated because the legal system has legalized crime.
So, if you know Congress passes a law that murders legal that's it murders legal go murder, and they've done this in a roundabout way with, you know, the, the coven scam and the back season everything but they're doing it everywhere.
And, you know, the biggest, most egregious example was David Webb that came on here wrote the book The Great Taking, where, you know, they, they went codified.
Basically taking everything you own.
I don't know their name because they're the, they're the holders of that thing not you even if it's an investment or retirement fund pension, whatever it is, you know, they were very sneakily created all these, these rules that, you know, took a guy like him to really dig into and figure out.
So, there's no end to this man we're fighting a corrupt system, and to play by their rules when they're writing the rules is kind of a fool's errand. I don't discourage anybody.
Not at all because you don't know what's going to happen in 10 years time john, the actions that Brad is taking now, even if they lose the prep act. The next regime can say that was unconstitutional and it does not give you immunity.
The steps we take today are creating the evidence and the work you're doing is creating the evidence and we just keep have to doing this.
That's why I that's why I don't discourage it I just, I just point out.
You know you're fighting, you're fighting a behemoth here. So expect it, you know, have a couple of aces up your sleeve if you can, you know, find some end runs like the ones I mentioned, or some bits of smoking guns including this.
I got a string of other questions but all of us keep looking as john you are as rose is as Stephen is a piece of evidence and particularly Gil.
Gil mentioned it, you know, where's the piece of evidence that says putting.
Why did these administrators put people on to ventilators.
Or, and that line we keep hammering that simple question, you know, what was that, and we attack the individual administrators for debt for requiring a doctor to put these patients on to ventilators.
You know, you know, and each state will have an age, it doesn't matter if one separate one court in a state loses as in Australia. Another state will have another decision that when there's one when we might have 20 losses, and then that one win because bread finds a piece of, you know, a smoking gun that wasn't presented in the previous 19 cases but they're the same case.
There's another example like a whole different subject but everybody was up in arms in Canada about these smart meters right and they were stymied at every turn they couldn't take them off they couldn't refuse them they couldn't stop people from putting them on their houses and no matter what happened if they burn the house down they always lose right so
There was a group called the in power movement that has been very successful in you know fairly lengthy procedure be frank with you but what they do is they figured out how to transfer the liability away from the you know the company like the power company.
To the personal responsibility of the executives of that company and this frightens the hell out of them. And they've managed to get rid of a lot of these smart meters with this with this tactic.
You know I mean you have to, you know, go to the empower movement and read about how they do it but there might be something similar that could be done here. I don't know, I'm just looking at that as an example where it something happened that you wouldn't think would be effective but boy sure was.
You know nobody wants to be out of pocket in their personal capacity and that's what this did. You know there is a lot of writing and whatever establishing a certain thing going by that that standard common law thing of you know I got to write this you got to respond to 30 days if you don't it's a default that sort of procedure.
But they're winning with that man.
Yep, great point great point John, and you know, again, I reiterate that's why we come to these meetings because what one of us says it triggers another thought.
And then we have to take action and we give an insight to Brad and goes Oh gosh, and we're all grappling with this. As we say a fire hose of information, and we're trying to get a teaspoon of water.
It is challenging. Right on we go everybody and by the way, you've heard me say each one of you is a weirdo. Stephen Frost is a weirdo Brad's a weirdo John Luke archers a weirdo. I'm a weirdo.
Now what that means. Stop thinking that you're unique but you are weirdos Jerome here is a weirdo, you know, and, and we think differently. And for whatever reason.
I believe in God God made this so we learn. If we all thought the same way we would have no progress. And what we have to do that's why we come from love not fear we get frustrated with each other but john can say something Rose can say Steve can say something.
And I, and I might get pissed off with it and I go, Gosh, that's an interesting angle.
And it's this, because we're united by what this group is about truth, justice, freedom, health, ethics.
We then go hey we're all trying to get the same outcome. Sometimes we get pissed off with each other but gosh, there's an interesting insight and that might send us down a rabbit hole that might lead to an extraordinary success and we're looking for that.
We're looking for that smoking gun, and it will arrive, and we all have to keep looking. And we have to be willing to suffer while we're looking so john well done with that.
Okay, let's get one thing. Great. Very quickly, which is, and the idea may not be important until years from now, but it was important to be said today.
Yeah, nice. And secondly, secondly I want to arms that I'm meeting with a publisher on Friday to see if we can get his book published.
Is this for hands been for Benjamin, Benjamin. Yes. Uh huh. Woohoo. I was going to use we may we. I just had to interject that I apologize. This discussion is good.
Very important and very fascinating and I think it's a case of doing all the above because we don't know what will work but it is a matter of pursuing these alternatives.
And I'm very appreciative to have this discussion going on today I think it's very important. Thank you. Yeah, thanks to Romans and Rose put a nice quote in there moving pebbles to let boulders roll.
So, and and john in terms of your work on 5g and Brad, Mark steel was on the call on Monday and he's been saying that if we take down a 5g tower.
That is self defense, because these 5g towers are actually weapons, bio weapons.
Interesting point so he's in the UK, and that's really stuck with me that that is a defense so so I'm certainly noted that no it's you to notice that when we're doing stuff like this.
We are entitled at common law to defend ourselves from harm.
And that enables us to do a lot of things everybody including being jabbed by anybody. So, all right, you've been using your peace shooter in in Melbourne.
Isn't that the argument of all the blade runs UK right they weren't protecting ourselves as dangerous.
Oh golly gosh. Yeah. All right. Yeah, I am.
All right, Benjamin, we call him Benjamin Brad but that's great news Benjamin with from Jerome that your book may well be like it might get published so over to you, Benjamin.
Yeah, yeah, I just wanted to throw in very briefly this, I didn't want to hijack the topic of the conversation but I got alerted when you said when you were referring to the interconnectedness of governments and how would it come about.
And so of course one aspect is the whole funding systems of science as you referred to correctly, which I completely agree, I mean being a scientist myself and being having been in the system I know what you're talking about.
But secondly is also open military threat, right, of, of, which actually, if it happens in a covert way as it seems to have been and they don't know where you actually.
Yeah, follow this I've been analyzing what happened in relation to the Nord Stream sabotage and I came to this really very some conclusion it was a nuclear attack and it wasn't that unprecedented one, it actually you know there is like a precursor of 10 years of events, which happened before which were all under the same, you know, covert attacks and is independent of us administration so it just went through, which also tells you something.
So, and now this is this combination which I think one should be aware of that the whole governments are actually under threat. I mean they are hijacked right essentially you're doing this or, you know, you're doing this and this.
And so that could actually also explain why there is this synchronous, you know, action across the globe, because that threat is actually global so for that reason you can get everybody on this planet you know to actually do the thing that you want.
And because this is kind of enforcing monopoly by your brute force, we are a far cry away from any type of free market as Adam Smith has envisioned it, you know, so, and I think, wherever the angle is how to actually interrupt this we you know we are actually in big trouble if you are not able to to to somehow cut.
So, at one of the angles of this which in my opinion it's all interconnected.
So, so I just that was more like a comment than a question but maybe you have something to say to that.
You muted Brad.
You should be honored that you have Jerome Corsi if I understand that the context here, advocating for your book I'm well aware of Mr Corsi's work.
I've followed him for a long time.
And I appreciate him being here.
He was one of the first guys. I mean he was out there very early.
And he was just hitting hard against the conventional wisdom and just uncovering the facts and letting you know following the facts wherever they went.
And it's instructed for all of us.
Regarding the Nord Stream.
I don't have any inside knowledge about that it.
If you've ever followed monkey works on.
I think it's on, he may still be on YouTube.
But he's a flight controller for a DOD I think he was in a with a wax and all that.
He, he can track all these all this these air actions with tail numbers.
And I found him to be very reliable in the past.
And he concluded that it was a probably a US operation.
I don't know whether that's true or not but I don't really believe that it was a Ukrainian operation.
And regardless of who it is, whether it's us or another government.
It's completely improper to be taking out a pipeline.
You know all this stuff is allegedly being done to protect the environment from point zero four of atmosphere.
Point zero four percent of atmospheric gases.
Which is CO2.
And to think that they'd be you know sabotaging this pipeline for whatever illicit purpose.
It's it's it's just I'm reviled by it.
It's just it's just horrendous.
I can't believe my government would have any involvement with that whatsoever.
And I have to believe that there's people inside the CIA, the intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense, DOJ, all these places that are also shocked and horrified by it.
It's just that they don't currently have the reins of power within those agencies.
And that's why I feel like I have the higher purpose that I try to pursue is I put pressure on these institutions.
I don't personalize it.
I have good relationships with all the career civil servants on the other side of the table from me.
But I do put pressure on the on these agencies.
On the theory.
And Jerome probably knows the most about this than anybody.
But my theory is that some of these people inside of government are looking for leverage points that they can implement internal reforms, much of which we won't see in action, but we'll see it in terms of effect in maybe three, five years.
Our institutions will be closer to a true north.
And once again, engaging in conduct that that trims the sails and keeps them flying true and straight.
Now, I understand there's this emerging thought pattern in my mind about, you know, going back to the JFK assassination and some of these things.
I mean, this thread has been going on for a period of decades.
It seems like you have these good forces inside of government, bad forces inside of government that are somehow coexisting.
I'm not really sure how it works.
But all I know is that for us to have a shot at prosperity and protecting American hegemony and American excellence and, you know, primacy, we've all got to work together to get this thing fixed.
And if we don't, we're screwed.
I don't think that answered your question, but that was my thought.
And Jerome, also, I think Hans Benjamin was trying to paint the background to the crime that you are looking into.
So we were talking about the cooperation of governments.
I think Hans Benjamin's evidence points to not only cooperation between the United States government and the German government, but actually the German government is prepared to hide the fact from the British, from the from the German public that their energy supply has been severely tampered with by the US in a nuclear explosion in the middle of Europe in the Baltic Sea.
And so that's that's incredible background to the criminality of which you will speak in the future.
And if I can comment quickly, I think the there's an alternative way of looking at this.
And that is that the these internal, you know, I'll have a book next next month out on the JFK assassination, which will prove forensically that it was shot twice from the front.
It's been covered up for 60 years and indisputable proof.
But the point is that the alternative way of looking at this is that we're living in a constructed reality that these agencies create.
And there's an enormous amount of money in it for the government going along with it.
And countries like Ukraine are kept open because they're money laundering companies, countries, and the Bidens are certainly not suffering from that.
And the alternative is that these agencies are messed up beyond repair and they should just be all closed down as much as possible.
But we don't need an unelected bureaucracy.
And, you know, since the time of Max Weber, who thought the bureaucracy was going to do only the right thing, we found out the bureaucrats do things that are in their interest or their ideological bent.
And they have nothing to do with the laws that's currently written.
So we've got probably now the most corrupt set of institutions, including the CIA, the Department of Justice, the Pentagon, and it goes on.
And I don't think they're repairable at this point.
I think they need to be broken and not reestablished very quickly.
Well, can I ask you a concern that I have when I'm inclined to be persuaded by that very case?
By that very capably stated argument, isn't it the stated goal of organized Marxism since, I guess, the turn of two centuries ago?
Isn't the stated goal to basically corrupt the operations of institutions to an extent where they no longer have the trust of the people so that, you know, the people are ready to throw them under the bus.
And then create a new one in pursuit of this utopia that, of course, will never happen.
Do you have any concerns about that?
Well, I do. And I think that the entire purpose of communism is to destroy.
I want to refer to a guy named Kolokowski, who is a Polish philosopher.
And he wrote about Marcuse.
When it came to imagining liberation, Kolokowski also concluded that Marcuse is woefully short.
What exactly does a liberated utopia, according to Marcuse, look like?
Quote, there is and can be no answer to these questions.
We're at the mercy of arbitrary decisions by Marcuse and his followers, quote Kolokowski wrote.
The same way we do not know what the liberated world is going to look like, and Marcuse expressively says that it cannot be described in advance.
All we are told, he pointed out, is that we must completely transcend existing society and civilization, carry out a global revolution, create qualitatively new social conditions and so on.
He understood the percent, to the extent Kolokowski understood the percent, to which Marcuse is motivated primarily, if not exclusively, by the principle of negating the culture, which in German is Aufheben der Kultur.
And just put that in my new book.
It is inherently destructive and it will destroy the, it gets the institutions to be malfunctioning and to doing exactly the opposite of what they are doing.
You cannot run a drug cartel without a bank.
You can't drive around semi-trailers full of $100 bills.
I called HSBC money laundering.
They got a $1.9 billion fund.
The Department of Treasury, which monitors all wire transfers, the NSA, the CIA, they've been in the drug business since the before World War II.
And they, we are the drug cartel.
And so therefore, that's what we're fighting.
Now, the effort you're making, though, at the same time, even if you lose, exposes what's going on.
And for that very reason is imperative that it be done and continued.
I applaud you.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't succeed immediately.
And we will get Hans's book published because it needs to be published and that narrative needs to be out there.
And so therefore, we'll get it done.
And I intend to make a major step towards achieving that on Friday.
But it doesn't matter whether we win the fight today or not.
What matters is that we fight.
Beautifully said.
It doesn't matter whether we win the fight today or not.
It matters whether we fight.
Thank you, Jerome.
Beautifully said.
And I just miss Benjamin.
Just also, you know, this possibility of your work being published, Benjamin, has come about because of this group, Stephen Frost.
So people say nothing happens.
Yes, one conversation can change the planet.
You know, Rose and John, one idea here can change the world.
One idea here can change the course of history.
So your book, Benjamin, might change the course of history.
So, Benjamin, you think we all we all try our best, right?
And whatever actually succeeds, that's I would say that's I mean, this is all we can take.
One thing is important.
But what I wanted to add is about this mention, you know, CO2.
You know, in my opinion, this and I'm actually environmentally very conscious.
You know, that's also why I've been pursuing the line of research, you know, which I'm doing.
But my opinion was has happened that this movement has been hijacked.
I mean, for example, German Hobbes in 2016, he said there won't be an old stream 2016.
And as I said, there was a whole 10 years of precursor events which have been leading up to what actually happened.
So which actually leads me to believe that this energy war, as you may call it, is the primary agenda.
And that actually Ukraine is kind of a side effect because the whole thing in 2014, it was already being said that actually in 2018,
I think the Danish approved the routing of Nord Stream 2 under the condition that the Russians make concessions with respect to Ukraine.
And that's four years after Hunter Biden was sitting on the board of Burisma.
And when actually Shokin, Victor Shokin wanted to investigate these issues, Biden was there,
meant to Ukraine and actually then to Poroshenko said, you know, either you fire this guy or you don't get the two billion.
Right. And he bragged about it in the Atlantic Council and said, son of a bitch was fired or consulate of foreign relations.
I don't know which one of the two. And he bragged about it.
And this is he said, and the son of a bitch got fired.
So Biden himself obstructed the legal prosecution of his son, who was sitting on the board of Burisma four months after the Euro-Maidan, you know, in April of 2014.
Hunter Biden was sitting on the board of Burisma. So I think that is the bigger picture.
I want to comment on that too. You're right.
Because in 2013, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she was taking bribes into the Clinton Foundation from what's his name, Pinochek, who is an oligarch in Iran.
And by the way, Mumford verified this for me when he was there, the adviser to Donald Trump who went to prison in the Russian collusion nonsense.
And Hillary ran her private email server so that she could conduct Hillary Clinton could connect as secretary of state business for the Clinton Foundation, which Bill Clinton then ran.
And they collected money from oligarchs all over the world to influence U.S. State Department policy.
And the State Department has been determined since the fall of the Berlin Wall when Russia renounced communism.
The American left had loved communism up until that point from 1917 on.
Suddenly they decided Russia needed to be destroyed and Putin had to be gone.
And the State Department is pushed to be in Finland and into Ukraine, which will deny Russia open access to the Baltic Sea to the Atlantic, the Black Sea to the Atlantic.
And Russia is not going to put up with that. Hitler and Stalin had a pact and Stalin moved into Finland and he moved with bad consequences and he moved into Ukraine.
So this has been going on for centuries.
And it's just another set of the corruption we're dealing with today, which is massive.
And the idea that, you know, Biden with all this massive corruption in Ukraine as probably the biggest money laundering country in the world, you finally realize that the State Department and the Department of Justice are doing nothing about Biden because this is they want that channel open in order to continue using it.
And that is the group that are really trying to the new oligarchy that's trying to form out of the World Economic Forum and these other elite groups that think they don't need human beings.
Fundamentally also a depopulation movement, which I've been writing books about, the truth about energy, global warming and climate change, this new one, because all this starts with depopulationism,
neo-Marxist, and we're going through a Maoist cultural revolution in the United States right now.
And these are extremely dangerous ideas and they're designed to destroy.
And so far they've been very effective.
But by exposing them, which is what this and the previous of our meetings have been exploring in depth, which I think are both laudable efforts,
these are part of reversing this because until people see it, it can't be reversed.
And when they see it, they won't believe it.
Initially, it's taken 60 years on JFK.
But when I show them the forensic evidence next month, there's no doubting it.
It's in the x-rays.
You can see frontal shots.
And it took David Mantek to prove that.
And he's been trying to write it for 30 years.
And he's not easy to work with, but we will have a book out on that next month.
And Hans, I want to see your book published, so we're going to make sure it gets into print.
And you'll have full ability to write it how you want to write it.
Wonderful. Wonderful.
What a wonderful overview of the Russian situation, Jerome.
Thank you so much.
We've got to keep moving.
Benjamin, great news.
And Jerome, thank you.
So we've got Diana next and then me.
Brad, thank you.
I don't usually talk up, but I'm very tempted to challenge Charles'
tolerance of being people upsetting others by asking a question about individuals,
what individuals can do.
And I think we started out or part of the meeting, at least, was about that and documenting on the individual level what people have gone through.
So I did want to mention that the Children's Health Defense is documenting vaccine harm to their bus that's going around the U.S.
And I don't know if Stephen is aware of that, but they're doing a phenomenal job.
So about the, you know, fortunately, I haven't been vaccine injured.
I know there are people on this call who are.
And I just want to pay homage to them for speaking out because I, you know, I spent the last three years trying to inform as many people as possible about the vaccine.
And I've been able to inform as many people as I could who are taking these shots and then taking the boosters, you know, sending information and so on.
And, you know, I've wrestled the whole time as I'm sure everyone else here has about how it is that people remain immune to the information that is out there.
So now I'm at the point where I'm actually angry at the vaccine injury.
We don't speak out.
And I wanted to know if anyone else shares this feeling that, you know, I really, I really feel like I want to move into a place where I say to them, you know, if you don't speak out.
You know, you will be complicit in the injury and death of others.
And, you know, it really starts, you don't have to be public, you know, write an editorial to your newspaper or, you know, make a declaration, you know, in your Rotary Club meeting or something like that, but start with, with every single conversation that you have with a friend or something.
Who notices that, you know, you had you got congestive heart failure and you had two heart ablations that didn't work and now you're in states by renal failure.
And, you know, who people who've been watching this, you know, misery, you know, tell them what you went through, even if like my tax preparers wife is on the board of the hospital.
So, you know, he now, you know, when he first was injured and I noticed it.
He said, Oh yeah, you should meet the terminal list by Jack Carr.
And now he's turned against me and he's extremely hostile.
And he hasn't said a word to anyone else about his injury.
And, you know, everyone in town is watching him slip away.
And so, so that's, that's my question is basically, you know, am I crazy to be angry at, at these people, because at this point now I think that they really do have a responsibility.
And how do you think if you agree that they should speak out if they're not, is there any way to get them to do it or is it like, you know, someone told me when my mother was dying, you know, don't raise the question with her, let her raise it.
You know, but I guess it's the same situation these people are dying.
You know, and in a small town like ours, it makes a difference if one person or two speak out, they aren't doing so. So thank you.
We have, we have 1300 recorded accounts and thousands of members and if there's any social scientists out there or pollsters or psychologists who want to.
One thing that I know we have internally is the deprogramming process. So a lot of a lot of the reasons why I was interested in this project from the outset was that I thought it was it was all a big deprogramming experiment I was running on Facebook and with the whole, I kind of had like a First Amendment laboratory going on Facebook.
Somebody who's really smart, smarter than me, can figure out a way to to document and similar to like the stages of terminal illness like the stages of grief and there's a similar one of the deprogramming process.
And I know we have this is like, platinum information that's in organization. I'm not smart enough to figure it out, but somebody is who could figure out how to how to mine that and educate everybody like us on what the stages they're in.
Because if it's one thing that to have somebody who is vaccine injured, who's bottling it all up and suffering and refusing to step out and tell everybody what happened. But if that's like, based on testimony of thousands of people, well, he's just stuck in the third stage.
And here's how you can help get them out of it. That that takes a more proactive. It gives us tools like a tool bag to go and actually do something about it in terms of the anger.
So the other thing that we have a lot of is this isolation that goes on. A lot of our members, you know, they go through the death of the loved one and it's tragic and they're devastated.
And then all of a sudden they wake up and they realize that it what it isn't as it was presented. It wasn't a tragic COVID death. They had maybe often they had COVID they were in the hospital and they were killed by the application of 50 drugs with an extensive program.
We've laid this all out in commonalities.
They're basically just on a production line of death. Then they have to address the anger, the betrayal, the lack of just everything changes. They go from being generally trustful of our institutions to trusting no one.
Then they're super isolated. Then they then they interact with different members. You're probably people here are probably experiencing that with this group. It's like every time there's a call.
It's like you feel like you're getting separated from objective reality again. Let me go talk to the other people that share their reality with me. You hear them talking. Okay, I'm good. I'm anchored again.
We have a similar thing in our organization of victims. So I think it's normal to be angry. I think it's normal to be betrayed. I think it's normal to expect more. But the better question is, and it's really implicit in your comment, is how can we turn this guy's state's evidence basically in my former career?
How do we get this guy to help us on the persuasion front to save lives? Because that's really the business we're in is saving lives. And where we have the heartbreak and we have the PTSD in some cases is where we're not able to get that life saving advice out.
And we're around people who are in a position to, but for whatever reason they don't do it.
Beautiful. Charles, while Brad was talking and while Diana was talking, I thought of Simon DeWolf and then Meredith Miller and David Sharlambas. I think those people would be key in doing what Brad was asking for, i.e. articulating a message which would encourage these people to speak out.
Very good. That's right. What do you think? You know all the people who presented. Meredith Miller, she isn't a psychologist, but she could have been. She's absolutely brilliant on understanding Stockholm syndrome.
David Sharlambas, he was an expert in messaging and then Simon DeWolf is just a genius. And I think he's very creative. I think those three together maybe would.
Oh my gosh. Do we have data for you guys? I mean we have like willing participants who are either. And by the way, we also have a class of survivors. The survivor, I mean really fast in our calls, these survivors get into the implications, the permutations, their experience, how it's affected them, how it's affected their outlook.
I mean it's fascinating and it's related, but it's different than the next of kin of somebody that died in the hospital. I mean we have a wealth of information and we will open it up to your members.
Thank you.
Thank you. Yeah, so I'll try and get. I don't know what you think Charles. Do you agree that maybe there are others when we think about it, but Simon DeWolf, Meredith Miller, David Sharlambas, we should introduce at least those three to Brad?
Yes. Yep.
Anybody else you can think of? No, that's a good start. That's plenty.
All right, so we're finishing in 10 minutes. We are finishing at 25 minutes past and I want to share something just in terms of messaging.
I'm going to share my screen, just arrived in my inbox.
And I think it's salutary when we're talking messaging Brad and for all of us. So what's the message?
Well, I want you to contemplate these I know you've seen some of these before, but it's good. So there's Reagan freedoms never more than one generation away from extinction.
You go imagine if you will, living in a country where illegal invaders have superior rights over the native inhabitants.
You do realize that exposing the illegal things your government has been doing is illegal relevant to whistleblowers excellent Australian cartoon.
Why do they want everybody's gun because they're planning to kill us and I don't want to get shot and that's the Port Arthur massacre which was not done by Martin Ryan's.
There you are Ron what's his name?
Ron, the character.
Then we got this is I love this one.
All I want to do is move to your country rape your women bomb your buses right in your streets and demand that you accept my religion. Why can't you be more tolerant.
They don't fear us because we're anti vex they fear us because we're free thinkers that's us on this call.
Dr Spock if gun owners were as violent as anti gun advocates claim they are there'd be no anti gun advocates.
And, and Trump sucking up the swamp.
And here we are. So great stuff.
You know you're on the ground collapse when common sense and traditional family values are considered right wing extremism that's certainly the case in Australia.
Never forget the words that they put million dollar limousines on billion dollar just to fly around the world to tell you to reduce your carbon footprint so there you are this nice picture.
And I'll share I'll share some of these.
Hi we got that that Gary Webb.
His, I understand his brother is George Webb.
And in my Oath Keepers case the first Oath Keeper Ken harrelson.
George Webb is in front of the East Capitol stairs in the morning, and he interviews, a guy by the name of Lawrence League is Lawrence League is says in the interview that he works in an area of Chicago.
That's known for it's like a democratic political operation as part of Chicago.
He then puts on a disguise.
And he's one of the guys who pre texted the Oath Keepers into the Capitol.
And I documented this in a extensive two filings involving 110 suspicious actors.
Where I tried to storyboard it to help others.
Learn how how it worked in the east it was easier to see was easier to see the operation because Trump went late.
And it wasn't as crowded these these color revolution.
Exercises I think require people where people don't have as much opportunity to respond using sound executive management skills.
So that's strange that he just popped up but I never talked to George Webb about it.
But it's just a bizarre circumstance.
And he was famous in this country because he's the one that was actually I wonder if Jerome Jerome did you know him.
I met him once and I know I knew George I knew that George Webb as well you I got to know them both.
Gary Webb's reporting was brilliant on the Nicaraguan government and the cocaine crisis in Los Angeles.
I think I've got a cop signed copy of his book I believe here.
He has inspiration to us.
I mean really you guys been out there out in front just killing it with you know on your own I guess you could say.
And he Aaron Aaron Elizabeth has reported on over documented over 100 holistic integrative doctors who have been murdered in the same circumstances as Gary Webb.
That's correct. They've spoken out against Big Pharma.
And you know that's that's what many of us on this call have decided as Jerome has decided Brad you've decided you go hey we're going to get the truth out even though what's happened to Gary Webb is what can happen.
Well they tried to imprison me if they killed me they just make me more famous so I don't think they're going to do that right now.
And we have thousands of widows Jerome who will rally in your in your defense.
Well I'm not interested in going to make a more than sir.
Well I'll pass but I'll pass won't you.
Yeah but if it's what God wants done it's what will happen.
So there we are.
All right now I'm on a very tight time frame and Stephen we've got six minutes for final questions from you to to Brad on where we are going to finish before the two and a half hour mark and then you can go to the Tom Rodman group for those of you with time,
because I've got to stop this or I can stop this recording now and go.
Because I'm going to stop the recording before I go Stephen. So, go for the next five minutes.
No it's better that.
Well, I thought you had questions to ask Charles.
I've basically done the one thing I did ask the question of self defense. The one question I was interested in, Brad was the January six cases I'm very heartened that you're involved in these cases.
I'm appalled that there are still people like you here we're talking about Ryan and full make right at the top of the start of this meeting. There are still people locked up in the US in DC, who, whose cases have not yet been heard on January six, can you give us a quick update on that.
Yes, so my client can harrelson he was sentenced to four years which the next latest sentence was eight years for the initial group that was a two and a half month trial in in September of 2021.
There's I think probably over 50 that are in that that gulag facility in DC it's it's horrendous.
Among the things we're considering is suing somewhere we haven't identified the venue on behalf of those who were forced into the vaccine while it was experimental would be one class the other class would be those who were punished for not taking the vaccine.
And we filed the detention motion in October of 2021, where all my co-count and then nobody would none of my co council would talk to me because they're in the nor would they be anywhere near me because I think they fear to drone strike.
But I don't thankfully I think there's there's plenty of people inside of government who are who are helping us that the big change in January six is that the videos coming out.
And of course the reason they didn't want the video video to come out is because there's a much more reasonable story about what happened and it involves like I said designed failure.
Primarily I think you're going to see culpability on the part of the investigative agencies that's why I think they're they're scrubbing their files the US Capitol police though is are among the worst.
The number two, you'll get on to Pittman completely incompetent and that stuff is coming out now including information about two key witnesses in the first Oath Keepers trial that I cross examined, both of whom looked like they concocted their stories and may have perjured themselves in the first trial.
Excellent. Thank you. Well, you know that this this this torture they're being tortured. It's just it's just simply outrageous. So well done on the work you're doing.
Thank you. Over to you, Stephen, for the last couple of minutes and then.
But talking of torture, Charles, we've got a prisoner in the United Kingdom during the song shoe has been psychologically tortured for the past 10 years by four governments, the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Australia, Australia being his home country.
And
so I just wanted to. So you've got two minutes of you, Charles.
Yeah. So I just want to ask a question of Hans Benjamin. Thank you, Brad. It wasn't it was just only got two minutes. So I just wanted to. So Hans Benjamin, when you're famous, when you're a famous author, will you remember us?
Will all be famous.
I'll tell you what, look, I'll tell you what, Stephen, let's stay here. I will stop the recording. So we've got a discrete and then rather than go to the Tom Rodman group, we can keep going here, Stephen, without it being recorded. And those who can stay will stay. How about that?
Yeah, well, personally, I've got to go in about 15 minutes. So that'll give you 15 minutes. So it's a pity. It's a pity, Charles, to let the recording go because we don't know what we're going to do.
Look, we've got two and a half hours. There's nothing to be spots of. No, I mean, it's a pity to stop the recording because we don't know what's going to be said. And someone might make a fantastic speech. So actually, someone makes a fantastic speech. I will tell you if there's anything dodgy.
Well, no fantastic speeches. Yeah.
Sorry.
No fantastic speeches.
You never know with Jerome. Jerome sometimes makes a great speech or Hans Benjamin or Brad.
Yeah, they might. Save it for the next time. Everybody, big round of applause for Brad and for what you're doing. Thank you for sharing your genius with us and Benjamin and Jerome and everyone else has made a contribution of great value to insights and anyone watching this recording.
If you want to get in touch with Brad, please send an email, put it into the rumble chat and then we can we can share that information. I am going to stop this recording and you guys keep talking. And if someone who says something genius, good or sorry, save genius for next time.