The next thing that I want to say is our lack of biological knowledge and the general poor health of the of America of the American people Is being used to create the crisis they need to divide and conquer us to ruin Maybe America.
I don't know crash the dollar I don't know steal the rest of our our what limited Treasury value we have left.
I don't know But I know for sure
that they are combining our lack of biological knowledge and our general society's lack of good health and access to health care to create a crisis to usher in all kinds of changes that would otherwise never be necessary and more importantly never be possible.
If you think about it, you know, if we're defining vaccine really liberally, and these COVID vaccines are vaccines, the flu vaccine is vaccine, okay.
But actually, they're kind of cheating when they're calling these things vaccines.
And, you know, anything with really rapidly fading efficacy, such that you need shots within a year, you know, Canada's saying nine months, is as actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
Mark has been away from home for a week.
I believe he arrives home on Saturday.
That's where he's been.
Normally I would try to do a little bit of a regular
NBA introduction here and maybe I will let it play through but I've got a guest on that we're going to discuss a few things.
I gave it away in the title.
The fifth versus the seventh is kind of a way of summarizing it best maybe or easiest.
There are some ideas out there that we need to get clear and I don't necessarily think I can do it on my own and so I got
buddy here who is going to help me do it or at least give it take a shot at here we go helping me do it oh we better get that right
We are gonna just have a little conversation about some legal terms and we're gonna have a pretty general conversation about them because I've been yelling about them for a very long time, you know, like talking about strict liability or the 7th amendment or some kind of 7th amendment violation and a lot of people
I have expressed some frustration with me not really going very much farther.
That all being said, I'm not a jurist doctor, I'm not a lawyer, so it's probably best that I don't try to give legal advice.
I don't want to be a charlatan like the ones we're trying to fight.
But I do think that as a citizen of the United States and as an educated individual, it's okay for me to say that an intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans is always criminally negligent and RNA cannot pandemic because viruses are not pattern integrities.
so these mystery virus this wasn't the excess deaths we've been talking about this a lot that they would murder use murder and lies to cover up all of these legal issues that are kind of on a on a precipice right now um you know murder and lies is needed to cover up the vaccine schedule in america murder and lies is needed in my humble opinion
to hide the fact that transfection was always criminally negligent, and murder in lives is necessary.
You gotta have it if you're gonna have any illusion of a pandemic being possible.
You're gonna need to murder some people, and you're gonna need to lie about some stuff.
Otherwise, there's no way that you can get anybody to believe that RNA can pandemic.
It is that illusion of consensus created by these people on social media.
An extraordinary number of liars forms this wall of humans that is the new kind of totalitarianism with this intervening, highly trained set of acolytes performing a theater while the ruling oligarchy quietly does what they want to do when we think we're fighting them.
But in reality, this cruise ship hasn't really deviated from its course
We are still on the way because it's these weaponized piles of money that have convinced us to argue with them about these stories instead of freeing ourselves from them.
That's really the gist of it.
If you want to know who you're talking to, my name is Jonathan Couey.
You can find my previous work on PubMed and
It is from this kind of work that this name GigaOM is derived from.
That's where the symbol comes from.
It's actually was a joke originally.
And here we are five years later.
I've got a stream.gigaom.bio slash home website where you can find all the work I've done.
And then I've also got gigaombiological.com.
Welcome to an evening show on a Friday night.
I'm very excited.
I like evening shows.
They're kind of funny.
They're a different kind of
They're a different kind of vibe because I'm in the morning.
My eyes are pretty strong and the light's really bright in here.
And then when at the night, I, I more, I more often need my glasses and I can't even see the screen.
Sometimes if I turn the lights off behind him, I got my lights on in front now so that you can see me.
Um, it is the 11th of October.
It is seven 37.
Um, I'm going to see what I got there.
No, I'm going to get rid of this.
We don't need that one.
Um, I'm going to just slap up one real thing here.
Uh,
I don't have anything for the background, so maybe I'll just put this one up like that.
And that'll be ready to go.
And then I'm going to slide what I hope is an active Zoom meeting over to this side.
And make it like this.
And ask my friend to unmute.
Are you there, sir?
Come in, please.
I am here.
Can you hear me?
I can hear you.
Welcome to the show, regular guy.
Good to see you again.
Um, if you people will recall the first time regular guy was on the show, he was Sam the Eagle from the Muppet show.
Now he's just the text regular guy.
Um, I might need to switch over to this, I guess, to put me down here and maybe I'm out of the way better.
That's better.
Yes.
I if you can, I'm trying to share my screen here.
And if I thought maybe just maybe my view, maybe it's my view that I have set up wrong.
Let me check my view here.
Regular guys screen.
Why can't I make it bigger?
Oh, yeah, here down here, maybe.
Oh, no, here.
I can't see because of my silly, all this scrap there.
That's what I wanted.
View, standard.
That's better.
How's that?
There we go.
Sorry about that.
Much better.
All right.
Anyway, so honored to be back.
And so I feel a little intimidated by the introduction I was given here.
I really wanted this to be more of a vocabulary lesson.
Oh, OK.
Two words, really, that I think are going to be
important.
So the first thing is I'm really frustrated with the state of knowledge online.
Let's say when I go to Google certain concepts, try to understand certain concepts that I feel like I don't like the back of my hand.
Uh, sometimes I, all I find is mush and it seems that, um, biologists may run into the same problem from time to time.
Um, so I wanted to start by, uh, speaking to my graphics card.
That's what I'm doing here.
I'm running a local LLM on my graphics card and I, this LLM is supposed to be one of the more advanced, but it's still not doing a very good job.
I asked it what I thought was an easy question.
What's the world's oldest profession?
And it gave me five wrong answers.
And then it went on to give me a sixth wrong answer.
Prostitution, that's the one they always give you.
It's actually lawyers.
So what happened was that way back when there were kings and they were ruling over, you know, people on their sheep or whatever.
Somebody would have an argument, a sheep would get stolen or something, and they'd want to take it up with the king, but they wouldn't know how to speak the king's language.
And so they would find someone in town.
knew how to speak the king's language, they would have that person translate for them.
All right.
Now, this led to a rather sort of.
Absurd can't talk type at the same time, but led to two words popping up in our Constitution, the two words that on their own, everybody should be able to understand.
On the other hand,
Let's see how well it did this time.
Uh, it better first time.
Okay.
So let's start with the word do.
Uh, most people know what the word do is without having a lawyer explain it to them.
Um, and it means the same thing here that it means in any other context.
Um, something's owed someone it's owed to you.
It's owed to you by the government.
It's owed to you by the King.
All right.
Uh, process.
What's process?
It's exactly what you might think it is.
Maybe, um, a recipe for making something, engineering design, anything set of instructions, a ritual.
Okay.
It's a procedure that's due to you.
Something that the king has to do a ritual.
You could think of that the king has to perform in order for you to what?
To feel like the result you got was fair.
Now, the way I had this explained to me first day of class was.
Why do we do this?
It's a question, why do we do this?
I don't know.
We didn't know what the this was.
Why do we do all this?
And the answer that the professor gave after, you know, 30 seconds of silence was so we don't fight in the street so that we accept the outcome.
We just live with that.
Even if we think it's unfair, we live with it.
It's a way of instilling peace, okay?
So this due process, the set of things the king's supposed to do in order to make you feel like the outcome was fair, all right?
Now, most people will tell you the notice is a big part of it, right?
You get something in the mail from the court, jury summons.
It's always gonna include the date, the time, the address, right?
Same thing.
If you get arrested, you're going to get put on notice of what the charges are, and you're going to be able to look up what those charges are on a public database free.
Okay.
Furthermore, those charges, you know, they're good at that.
Well, whatever you find in that database, that law, there was a process for passing that law.
Two legislatures maybe had to meet and agree on it, and then an executive had to sign off on it.
All right.
might've been challenged in court, but whatever, it's there.
There was a process.
It was due.
All right.
Due process is something that the phrase that lawyers have been able to monopolize and use to, I guess, mystify audiences.
But when you break it down, it's really simple.
It's a procedure, the set of procedures that are due to you in order to make things fair, right?
Imagine if they had a trial, but they didn't tell you when or where.
You didn't show up and you were found, you know, it's that simple.
Now, I'm gonna do a test.
I'm gonna see if my graphics card can handle this.
What is procedural due process?
Now, the first thing is my graphics card doesn't notice the absurdity of the phrase procedural due process.
Isn't that redundant?
If it's procedural, right, isn't it already a process?
All right, I'm not even gonna read that.
What I really wanna know is what it's gonna say is, what it's gonna tell me when I ask it this question.
Substantive due process.
Yeah, substantive, substantive due process.
Okay, substantive.
This is where the Internet really starts to snow.
Boy, my graphics card sure choked up on this one.
Well, I'll tell you, Wikipedia doesn't do any better.
I don't even know what this says.
It's not even worth reading.
OK.
All right.
This is where things get really murky.
And opinions start to harden and you start to find a lot of weird commentary on the Internet.
let's say.
Okay.
But I'll start off by saying substantive due process is the reason that these other people had to put that word procedural in front of it.
Okay.
If there was no substantive due process, there would be no reason for anyone to call procedural due process procedural.
They would just call it due process.
So anybody who thinks substantive due process doesn't exist or anyone who tells you that there's a debate over whether substantive due process exists
That's not true.
Everyone knows substantive due process exists.
Now, most people, when they talk about procedural due process, are thinking that this has to happen in a court.
But it doesn't.
These procedures can happen anywhere.
They can happen in another branch of government.
So for example, the vaccine injury compensation program, that's not a court.
It's basically a wing of a government agency.
And it, I believe it's a part of health and human services, but it follows these procedures.
Okay.
It gives procedural due process in that sense.
Okay.
Supreme court sat down many times, looked over the fifth amendment, said, you know,
It says here that you have a right to due process, but it doesn't say anything about courts.
It mentions courts in these other amendments, Sixth and Seventh Amendment, but in the Fifth Amendment, it just says due process.
So, you know, due process could be anything, right?
Or anybody could be handing out due process, right?
It's the process that matters.
The process is due.
But the Fifth Amendment doesn't say a court has to be doing it.
Now, you know, you could call something a court, even though it's not.
right?
Just by naming it, there's a process for doing that.
But substantive due process is something a little different.
Now, substantive due process really boils down to an argument about who owns the burden of proof.
Now, this again is where the world's oldest profession has mystified things.
It has set up a sort of
how to describe it, a binary dialectic, let's call it, between two opposing forces.
One of them is called rational basis test.
I forgot to put the question mark on there, but the video card understood that was a question.
OK, rational basis test.
Let's see, this would be interesting.
When is rational basis test used?
Uh, no, this is wrong.
Oh, no, this is right.
Uh, the rational bait, well, it's sort of wrong.
Okay.
The law affects fundamental rights.
It says if a law infringes upon fundamental rights, such as those protected by the Bill of Rights, it will be subject to stricter scrutiny.
Okay.
And that's not rational basis test.
We'll get to that.
All right.
Now I don't know what this other stuff says.
Apparently the AI is already having trouble.
Okay.
Now I said, there's, there's kind of a,
There's a light side and a dark side here.
There's this rational basis test, and there's strict scrutiny.
Boy, again, the NVIDIA company really needs to, or somebody, I don't know, they really need to retrain this thing.
Okay, yeah, so it's a mystery.
My graphics card can't do it, and the internet can't do it.
I guess, um, the best way to think of it is about, um, think about burden of proof.
Okay.
And science, um, there's this concept of the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis being that there's no effect between two variables.
So you're always trying to disprove the null hypothesis.
And if you can't disprove it, if you can't show a statistically significant difference between, you know, the X and the Y, then,
The null hypothesis stands.
There's no relationship between the two variables.
It's all random.
Now, here, the null hypothesis might be stated as the government's always right.
Government knows what it's doing.
So, for example, when the government declares a state of emergency, some people might say, hey, government's always right.
Just defer to the government on that.
On the other hand, there are other people who might say, wait a minute, maybe we should start with the presumption that the government is always wrong and force the government to justify its actions.
The former is rational basis test.
Rational basis test, the AI gets it right.
Rational basis test might be applied to zoning regulations,
maybe some taxation policies, okay?
Now, if you started to tax people differently based on their race, that would be subject to strict scrutiny, okay?
Not for reasons that are obvious here, but it would be, all right?
The courts would say, hey, wait a minute, why are you taxing these people differently based on their race?
You need to justify that.
We're not gonna just let that pass, all right?
Now, strict scrutiny,
is generally applied anytime a fundamental right is at stake.
Okay, fundamental right.
Now, what's a fundamental right now?
I think an easy way to think about it is not what's a fundamental right, but what's not a fundamental right?
Um, marriage apparently is a fundamental right.
It's not in the Bill of Rights.
What's fundamental right?
So it turns out there are a lot of things that are fundamental rights that aren't even in the Bill of Rights.
But one thing that is... Can I pause you there?
Can you explain in a couple words why marriage falls there then if it's not in the Bill of Rights just because of previous court rulings and stuff or what?
No, well, I think it's understood that
People were always doing this.
This was a pre-existing institution that I think courts felt they were obligated to respect or that the government was obligated to respect.
It was a pre-existing custom that existed.
There was no, let's say, opposing argument.
There was no one on the other side of the fence saying, wait a minute, no, marriage isn't a fundamental right.
Because until relatively recently, no one was really trying to tell anybody who they couldn't marry.
So it wasn't until the 1960s that this question even came up.
So you had marriage existing in its various forms for almost 200 years before the Supreme Court even took a look at it.
So they weren't about to tell people that this wasn't a fundamental right.
But the thing is, you can say the same thing about everything that's in the Bill of Rights.
Every single amendment, all 10 of them, even if they don't make sense anymore.
or 11, or 12, or 27.
I don't know how many amendments we have, but to the extent they create rights, those are all considered fundamental, right?
Now, how do they say down here, right to a fair trial, okay?
What the Constitution actually says is a right to a jury trial for any amount in controversy over $20, that's a fundamental right.
So any deprivation of a fundamental right should be subject generally to strict scrutiny.
the government's gonna have to justify itself.
Okay, why'd you take away that fundamental right?
Um, the government is not given the same latitude it would get with rational basis test with the zoning law.
Um, to illustrate the absurdity of rational basis test, rational bait.
In order to pass rational basis test, the government can give hypothetical justifications for a law doesn't have to point to anything that happened
in the real world.
So for example, if you have a law like the prep act that says that the secretary of health and human services can issue an emergency declaration and that emergency declaration has the effect of, um, uh, making it unlawful for courts to hear a lawsuit, right?
Uh, challenging these, these countermeasures.
Okay.
Uh, these approved countermeasures.
Um,
That seems like a law that infringes on a fundamental right, doesn't it?
Seems like infringes on a right that's right there in the Bill of Rights.
Seems like it should be subject to strict scrutiny.
Seems like the government should have to justify it.
They should have the burden of proof.
On the other hand, there seems to be a consensus out there that
Uh, it's fine to just apply rational basis test to these kinds of decisions, meaning that the secretary of health and human services, when granting legal immunity, uh, to, uh, providers of these countermeasures, uh, it can, he or she can do so based on hypothetical reasons.
They have nothing to do with what's happening in the real world.
Okay.
Now, again, we're talking about a process.
We're talking about a process by which the Health and Human Services issues a declaration.
There's a process, it's spelled out in the PrEP Act, you can read it, gives you the recipe for how to issue an emergency declaration.
Nowhere does it say that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has to do any thinking, draw any firm conclusions, you know, review any particular piece of information or, you know, take any
take any input from the public, for that matter.
It doesn't put any restraints, really, on what the Secretary can do, and that it allows the Secretary to go ahead and issue these emergency declarations, which have this effect.
And it seems to me that that kind of thing ought to be subject to strict scrutiny, and yet it isn't.
It's being subject to rational basis test, or at least there aren't too many people calling for it to be subject to strict scrutiny.
And so I want people, first of all, to forget whatever they thought the due process meant.
It just means what it says.
It's just two words.
Process that's due to you.
But then there's this substantive due process, but it's really just a fight between rational basis tests and strict scrutiny.
Let's go back to strict scrutiny.
Rational basis test strict scrutiny and it's just like Star Wars.
Okay, Luke Skywalker strict scrutiny Darth Vader's rational basis test Okay, you're always trying to fight back rational basis test You're always trying to convince the judge that no, this is a subject of strict scrutiny because it affects a fundamental, right?
like Seventh Amendment
And so on and so forth.
And so that's the end of my lecture.
I'll leave it to JC or anyone for questions.
Wow.
I like it.
I got a lot of good notes here, I think.
I wasn't copying anything down from that AI.
I was just copying down stuff that you were saying.
The AI really let me down, I have to say.
I ran a test demo before this call, and I was getting better answers from the AI than I am now, and I don't know why, but I don't care.
Maybe Zoom is sucking away a little bit, because you were telling me earlier there's something special.
Do you mind talking about that, or do you want to keep it secret?
Oh, I'm not sure.
I don't know if there's anything, any deep secrets here.
I think that if I recall correctly, the main discussion we've been having is whether it makes sense to interact with some of these online AIs.
The reason I'm running this locally is because I went to log in to chat GPT and it asked me for my name and my birth date.
And I thought about lying to it.
Why would I tell the chat GPT my real name and my birthday?
Then I thought, you know, chat GPT is going to find out my name and my birthday one way or the other.
And then the first thing it's going to do is it's going to peg me as a liar and it's going to flag me and it's going to report me, you know, and when it's building its model of me that it will include that as a variable in its model, you know, he's the type of person that
tries to lie to the AI and all that kind of stuff.
And I just thought, you know what, I'd rather not give all my personal information, private information to chat GPT.
If I'm going to talk to an AI, if I'm going to interact with something that's going to monitor me and track my behavior, I'd rather just buy a video card on Amazon and talk to my video card.
So that's what I'm doing here.
But yeah, I guess I was more, I was more curious about this, this, um,
I understood something about the fact that, that, uh, like my Mac, my, my, my little laptop here would be useless really for L and L, right?
Oh, yes.
Yes.
We did have a discussion about the fact that Nvidia, uh, from what I can tell is going to, is, is, uh, um, uh, trying to use what I would call it's monopoly power to, um,
squeeze maximum value out of the VRAM that it attaches to its GPU, so that if you buy a $20,000 NVIDIA H100, you get a fast GPU, but you only get 80 gigabytes of video RAM.
And I noticed quietly that Apple was pushing
M2 Ultra, M3 Max variants of its chips that allowed for up to 256 or 192 gigabytes of unified RAM, which allow people to run enormous LLMs locally at speeds that are comparable to what you might get with a
NVIDIA GPU and they're doing this quietly and they're buying up seems to me all of TSMC's what they say they're buying up all TSMC's three nanometer wafers and it looks like they're hoarding them and not really advertising this feature so if anyone's looking to run offline LLMs I would strongly recommend that they investigate some of these Apple chips and
the amount of unified RAM, unified RAM that they can accommodate, because I'm on the brink of selling all my gear and buying one of these MacBooks.
Whoa!
And I say that as someone who's never owned an Apple product.
Wow, that's a bold statement indeed.
That really makes me...
Well, it's better than talking to chat GPT if you really think you're gonna use AI to do anything do it locally What did you what do you feed it but you fed it things or you can feed it things Is that how it works?
I don't know.
Well, it doesn't it's it's not it's not quite what people imagine yes, you can you can you can tell the You know the LM to go
read your My Documents folder and tell you information like, you know, on what date did I say this or that.
But you cannot train the AI on your My Documents.
You cannot.
Yes, that's different.
I can't give it all of my virology textbooks or my four versions of the Bible or something like that.
Not the way that you might think.
You can't use that to sort of affect the way that the AI, you can't use that to change the underlying algorithm or influence any of the weights that the AI has.
Interesting.
I kind of assumed it was changing based on that.
Wow.
Right.
This is a major source of confusion.
People think that they're going to be able to do this, and you're not.
The actual training process still requires
supercomputers.
Oh wow I didn't know that so that's really part of the illusion because I swear I just assumed that whatever you fed into it was what it built its language model on like that's hardcore.
Yeah there's a lot of confusion over that and you know I'm not a fan of AI technology in general.
You may recall it was about six months ago I spent a
a lot of time installing local LLMs and I gave up.
I decided they were all junk and fortunately, well, unfortunately for him, but fortunately for me, a friend of mine was laid off by Google and he convinced me to get back into the game and check out Llama 3.2 and we had some conversations about it.
So it's, you know, I have to say it can be useful if you're trying to generate
creative ideas, novel ways of expressing an idea, but it's terrible at answering questions.
Well, if you want to do research using an AI, just give up.
Well, that for me is fine.
I don't mind doing it myself.
Well, to illustrate one of the absurdities of this, all of these AIs, when they were trained on these supercomputers, they were trained on publicly available data sets, databases.
The Enron Corporation, remember Enron?
Right, so the Enron Corporation, you know, dissolved, whatever, 20 years ago.
Their email database, all their internal emails, apparently that become public at some point.
So every LLM is trained on the internal email database of the Enron Corporation, right?
There are a lot of oddities and quirks just in the way these are all developed because they had to rely on publicly available information.
So what would you presume?
That they have their own version that's trained on a much wider or a much different set of, you know what I mean?
Like that seems a pretty randomly dumb set of text or whatever you want to call it.
That data doesn't seem like the best data set to train a large language model on.
Right.
Well, there aren't too many other large data sets that include that are free, that reflect how real people communicate with each other.
Oh, right.
And, yeah.
And so these, these LLMs are not just scraping the web in real time.
Okay.
They were constructed off publicly available databases because the people building them, you know, they weren't going to pay a fortune to access some private, you know, legal database.
Now, some of them did end up paying.
a lot of money to access private databases.
And some of the database owners later came to learn that their data has to be used this way.
Would that be one of the big hidden values of buying Twitter, would be to gather that data for AI?
Certainly.
I mean, years ago, Twitter announced that they would record your draft tweets.
So if you started to write a draft tweet and then you deleted it, never tweeted it, they would record the draft.
So certainly any AI these days is going to be looking for real input.
It doesn't want to be trained on another AI's output.
And the easiest way to get real input is to monitor you.
It's to just observe your habits, it's to see what
You know, so it's it's tempting to log into an AI, for example, that can generate funny images, right?
And you start telling it to draw you an image, you know, of all this crazy stuff.
Well, you're telling the AI a lot.
It's a lot about yourself, right?
Potentially, when you start telling it to draw those crazy images, aren't you?
When you, you know, if the first the first question you ask the AI first time you log in, you know, might tell the AI a lot about you.
or the second question or the third question, right?
And so this allows the people who own the AI to gather information on you, right?
So any sophisticated AI out there requires you to log in, provide your name and everything.
ChatGPT let me log in with my Apple account so I could disguise my Gmail, but it still wanted my name and birthdate.
And at that point, you know, I wasn't gonna give it the truth, but I just decided to bail on the whole thing and just go back to,
Installing a local LLM and working with that.
And so now the AI thinks you're one of those people that's afraid of it.
You know?
Or I'm just too poor to, you know, afford it.
Whatever.
They can think whatever they want.
One thing I'm not worried about right now is the AI getting anything right.
Yeah, I see.
Well, I'm worried about the alternative.
I'm worried about the opposite.
I'm worried about the AI getting everything wrong.
Yeah.
And that's what I think most people ought to be worried about.
That's what, you know, people complained about the Soviet Union doing.
They said, you know, they were listening on everybody's phones, but then the people who were doing the eavesdropping were idiots.
And they'd go and arrest people who weren't doing anything wrong.
Right.
Husband and wife would split up.
One of them would make accusations against the other to the police, and that person would get arrested and thrown in prison.
And they'd never done anything wrong.
Right.
And so, you know, that delegitimized the Soviet Union.
It caused people to lose faith in the government.
And an AI that's equally clumsy is, I think, going to have similar effects.
It's just going to cause people to lose faith.
I didn't come necessarily prepared with a lecture on AI and implications, but... It's a good topic to end on because I thought it was a nice way you did that to
to see what the AI would come up with.
I guess I, uh, I I'm really excited that I had this discussion.
I'm really excited that I got this down.
Um, I really, I don't know.
I think maybe you should think about, you know, maybe you could teach an LSAT class or something.
I don't know it.
You were really good with these kinds of things.
I like that.
Well, uh, you know, this one was really, really good.
This way you, way you explained government is always right versus the government is always wrong is really very similar to, I mean, there's a number of different way.
I mean, innocent until proven guilty or not.
Like, I mean, it's, it's, uh, exactly, exactly.
And you, and it's, it's, and it's not innocent until proven guilty.
It's actually presumed innocence.
until proven guilty.
Presumed innocent.
Nobody ever actually says you're innocent.
You're just entitled to the presumption.
It's due to you.
The presumption.
This is such a good class.
You know, these are just ordinary words.
Yeah, but in these combinations are very, very precise.
That's the point, is that when used correctly, they're very, very precise.
Yes.
That's why I really want to use them correctly.
So I'm really excited.
Presumed innocent.
Don't get snowed by people who use them imprecisely.
Right.
You can tell up front.
I love it.
Somebody knows what substantive due process is.
Uh, are there really people out there?
Are there really people out there that say there's no such thing as substantive substance to substantive stuff?
No, there is no, there's absolutely no such thing.
What, uh, you know, I'll, I'll tell an anecdote.
I, I, I was fortunate to go to a loss, a school that taught substantive that the talk about substantive talks about substantive due process and the kind of terms I'm explaining it here really on day one.
Um, I had a social meeting a few weeks later with somebody who is, you know, well established, let's say the profession very high up there.
And he asked, you know what, how are things going?
What do you learn about?
And I said, you know, Oh yeah, we learn about procedural versus substantive due process.
His jaw dropped.
He said, you know, most people don't learn what substantive due process is till they get out of law school.
That's why that's the way he explained it.
But they do learn what it is.
People who need to know, learn what it is.
There's no shortage of people who understand this stuff.
What there is a shortage of is people who are willing to explain it.
Yeah, I see people who are willing to give up on that, you know, that trick that, you know, the world talking to the king, right?
Using magic words that the public doesn't understand.
But the public does.
The public can understand this stuff.
It means what it says.
Yeah, it's fantastic.
I don't know what to say.
I know other than that, man, if all of law school is like this, then no wonder it's brutal.
I mean, because again, it's precision, you know, the precision of it, I enjoy, but the precision is also very, is also very rigorous.
And, and, and I mean, maybe if you do it all day, every day, it's not so tiring, but I find it very, very tiring.
It's a, it's a high level of processing all the time.
It's nice.
It can become routine after a while.
It can become like pattern recognition.
It's sort of like maybe the way people read Chinese characters.
After a certain point, they're not necessarily breaking down the stroke order in their head every time they read one of these characters.
They start to kind of just understand what some of them mean.
But it may be also similar in that people believe there are layers of meaning here and there, and sometimes there are layers of meaning.
There is all this doctrine, all you know, all this loose talk about this concept of due process.
But at its its core, you can.
I think it's easy for anyone to tell when up when up when when something is due to them.
Right.
If you take away my Seventh Amendment right.
there's some process you have, you ought to be able to follow or you ought to be required to follow.
Yes.
And it needs to be, you know, a process that I can see.
I can look it up in a public database for free and read about it.
They had to have been established by a legislature signed into law by the president.
There's a process all along the way.
And if that process infringes on your fundamental right, then
you know ordinarily yes you are do or so well that they got the government get strict scrutiny there's a that you know they have to justify that and so uh... now what is it i'll say one last thing maybe will walk and when it's challenged okay two ways of challenging a law uh... when challenging constitutionality of the law is this was called a facial challenge and as applied challenge facial challenge means
You're just looking at the words on paper.
You're saying this law, the way it's written, I can tell you right now, violates the constitution this way, that way, right?
Now, an as applied challenge could mean that this law as written doesn't seem to violate the constitution, but the way you're using it sure does.
Okay?
The way you're using the law here, you know, discriminates against people on the basis of race or something like that.
It's called an as applied challenge.
Now, I would argue that
When you've got a law that says, Here's the process for depriving people of their Seventh Amendment right?
Okay, basically, with the law says, Here's the process.
All right.
Um, that, uh, that that process needs to be held to strict scrutiny.
I mean, that process is, you know, that that process, if you go and read it, okay,
It ought to have in there some requirement that the secretary actually do some science for starters.
Okay?
Uh, that secretary actually, uh, draw, you know, draw on some particular database or some particular source of information and read, you know, weigh risks and benefits, let's say, and make a determination that the benefits of this therapy outweigh the risk.
Okay?
A simple thing like that.
might ask that that be part of the process, right?
But if you look at how this law is written, it's not part of the process.
And so you can bring a facial challenge just based on that.
And this law, this law as written, violates substantive due process because the secretary is given authority to issue emergency emergency declarations without doing anything.
Really, you know, they
It says the secretary, you know, can shall I think, you know, like consult or something like that or consider, you know, I think the verb they use is consider secretary shall consider, shall consider, shall consider.
You know, normally when you review these things, I think you look for words like, you know, make a finding that, you know, find that, you know, this this is better than that, right?
Find find that the
you know, that the benefits outweigh the risks generally, okay?
At a bare minimum, right?
When you've got a law that doesn't even require that, then I'm not sure that you need to do an as-applied challenge.
I'm not sure you need to look into all the different ways the law was applied.
I think you can look at the text of it and say, no, just on its face.
This law, right, violates principles of substantive due process.
But in order to do that, you first have to make the argument that this kind of activity should not be subject to rational basis test, right?
The struggle is between strict scrutiny and rational basis test.
And so right now you have 99% of the Internet saying or agreeing that rational basis test is appropriate here and not understanding
what strict scrutiny is, not understanding what substantive due process is, not understanding what due process is.
And if they try to Google any of this stuff and get educated, it won't happen.
There's less information on this today than there was two years ago.
If I Google it, these topics now, I get less informed than I did just a few years ago.
And it's not because
Judges aren't attentive to this.
And we are.
We are the opposite reason.
And maybe for the opposite reason, really, it's because courts are noticing this and are talking about this.
And and so the argument, the argument is, is that we are due substantive due process because a fundamental right is being suspended or something like that.
Right.
Yeah.
A fundamental right.
All right.
To sue these companies.
Is the secretary is being given authority to just put that on hold.
Right.
Right?
Okay.
Well, the secretary better have a damn good rationale.
The secretary better be somebody we can trust.
There better be some kind of checks and balances in there because again, due process goes back to fairness, notice, opportunity to, for, you know, for hearing that kind of stuff, right?
We're going to suspend, you know, fundamental rights without anything like that.
No opportunity for the public to even comment on it.
Right?
These are all processes that we take for granted and they're processes, they're procedures that are due to us.
Right?
But in this case, nobody thinks to ask for them.
The secretary says it's an emergency.
Not even the president, secretary, secretary of health and human services says it's an emergency.
And you know, boom, your rights are gone.
And you know, here we are three years later, four years later.
Sweet.
Oh my gosh, I got it.
I'm gonna rip this up.
All right.
Shall we call it?
Yeah?
You wanna have a- I think that's all I got to say.
You know, again, world's oldest profession, okay?
Yeah, you're a prostitute.
Don't forget it.
We're all prostitutes.
Yeah, right, exactly.
All right, well, thank you very much, regular guy.
Go back to your eagle's nest.
All right, I'm signing off.
Later.
So yeah, that is an interesting place to be now.
Where is that?
It's over here.
What is this thing doing?
Gosh darn it.
So that was, oh no, just quit already.
You know, you're such a stupid, stupid program, stop.
Quit.
Zoom.
Oh, gosh.
Look at this horror.
Sorry about that, guys.
OK, hold it, man.
What a nightmare that is.
So I think this is really going to be handy for us.
And the reason why I think it's going to be handy for us, I guess I can go over here.
I think it's going to be really handy for us because,
Of course, what we have been trying to do and what we're trying to discuss here is the way that the PrEP Act kind of prevents us, maybe even the national vaccine, I don't know what it is, NVCI or whatever, we'll look these up, maybe that's the 21st Century Cures Act, but these different legislative texts which allow these
different changes to be made upon declaration.
We need to be very careful to identify places where fundamental rights are being taken or suspended or ended or suspended is maybe a pretty decent word.
And then decide whether or not we're in a situation where the government, we should default that the government's always right.
and the rational basis test is sufficient.
And that was, I think I remember regular guys saying something like zoning laws.
So you could think of zoning laws as something that, you know, if the government decides that they're gonna zone this as a business district, it's not something that they have to, you know, have a,
a giant legal explanation for why they're doing it.
They can just say, you know, well, hypothetically speaking, hypothetical reasons can also be passed the rational basis test.
Hypothetically speaking, we think that because these, this area is by the river, it has a natural tendency to be a good business district.
So he decided to do that and that would be enough.
But if they're taking away fundamental rights,
then we have to start from the perspective that the government is always wrong, that the government's not allowed to do that.
And then the government should have to justify itself.
And that is called strict scrutiny.
And so I think this is really an important place to start, because again, how are we going to attack these laws?
How are the lawyers that are out there attacking these laws?
And
I'm very excited.
I think I am going to save this for tomorrow, but tomorrow I'm going to come on in the morning.
I have to check when the boys want to do basketball, but I think I'm going to come on in the morning pretty early and start this up.
And do... What have I done here?
An hour.
And I could do it tonight.
It'll be very late though if I do it tonight.
I'm going to see what I think here.
But the point is, is that we're going to talk about this and I think it's really important that we look at maybe something that Soothspider put in the chat a few days ago.
There is a complaint or a set of complaints that was filed by Aaron Seery and or a lawyer in conjunction with Aaron Seery and
It might be an instructive thing to try and read that set of complaints to see if any of these words or concepts are used and when they're used, how they're used.
What fundamental rights is he fighting for?
What fundamental rights is he identified or not?
And what things is he asking for or arguing about in that complaint?
Because if he's written a complaint against the PREP Act, it could be very interesting.
And I want to take a good look at it.
But I want to understand better these terms simply because my gut feeling told me a while ago that the Seventh Amendment was the right way out.
And I've heard this from a number of people.
And I really feel like it's important to sort that out, to be at least in a place where I can discuss it.
And so that was, I'm very happy that we got to talk about this, because I do think I understand that.
I think that's a very easy way to understand this.
And if you see it that way, when you're suspending a fundamental right, when you're infringing on a fundamental right, then the government should be assumed to be wrong to do that.
And if they are allowed to do it, that what they, the justifying,
to do it should pass what is called legally strict scrutiny, meet the standard of or the
meet strict scrutiny, meet the standard of strict scrutiny.
I don't know if exactly, I mean, obviously I'm not a lawyer, so you're not gonna hear perfect combinations of these words, but I do think that I understand these concepts.
It's about where the burden of proof lies and who is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Is it the, you know, us or them?
And I really liked his explanation of due process, and it is really just a process that you are due by the king, like a ritual or procedure, so that you feel fair, so that you will accept the outcome, even if it's not the outcome that you wanted.
And I think, again, you know, the oldest profession in the world is really, it's just a really fascinating place to be right now.
Essentially, the American system offers us a legal way out.
The American system offers us a way out.
It's there.
That's the beauty of the constitution, irrespective of all the laws that have ever been written and enforced.
If the constitution is used as the barricade that it should be, I think that we can still protect our republic.
I think we can still maintain our republic.
We just have to have people that are willing to fight.
and willing to use the tools that our forefathers gave us.
And I think this is gonna be the start of it.
This understanding is gonna be the start of it.
And I think inspecting or interrogating what people have done up until now and how they approach it, what ideas they use to approach it is gonna really reveal exactly how hard they're working.
Because if they're not trying to hold the government
in the context of the PrEP Act to strict scrutiny standards if they're not trying to enforce the fact that some fundamental right is being violated and therefore the government is by default wrong to do it and that this power is too much, it's unconstitutional.
That should be the default and then it should be evaluated very, very
Yeah, I mean, we really need to be evaluating this in a different way.
We need to be able to think about it in the right way, and we need to be able to say the right words so that when we talk to lawyers, that when we tweet at lawyers, and when we post questions in their sub stacks, that we're posting questions that they themselves have a hard time dealing with because of the precision that we use.
And so I really feel like we are sharpening our sword here.
And I'm really happy that we have somebody like regular guy to help us sharpen our sword.
It's too bad his large language model on this graphics card didn't help us very much, but it's okay.
He knew what he was talking about.
So substantive due process versus procedural due process.
And I liked the first,
part of that well procedural due process only exists because there is substantive due process anyway that I think is good this is this is a good place to pause I'll be on tomorrow morning I think it's 830 though I could really just keep going maybe I need to take a pause get a drink I don't know my throat feels pretty tired
I really wonder, have you seen, for example, have you seen that the Pandemic the musical actually got a Rolling Stone article?
Rolling Stone actually did an article.
And then actually if you click on the article, one of the links actually brings you to even more articles about Plandemic.
I thought these guys were censored.
I thought nobody could hear about them, but they're on IMDB.
They're on Rolling Stone.
What?
They won't talk about this stuff, guys.
They just won't talk about this stuff.
I don't know what to say.
It's really frustrating.
They won't talk about MDEMnicity because they don't want you to know it's just a background.
They just want you to believe that COVID shots are bad.
We need a new consensus.
I'm going to see you in the morning.
And in the morning, I think we're going to talk about Aaron Seery.
And we're going to talk about Aaron Seery's complaint in... Where is that complaint?
I don't know.
I'll figure it out.
Where is the complaint?
I gotta load it to my reader too.
Oh yeah.
The complaint is in United States Court Western District of Louisiana Monroe Division and it is a third amended verified complaint for declaratory relief
And it is, yeah, we're gonna read this.
It's for four or five people.
It's pretty weak.
And I think we're gonna be able to do a little work here tomorrow to show how it is pretty sketchy that CHD and ICANN are both just not saying, the lawyers at CHD, you know, like Mary Holland, like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,
These lawyers aren't really saying what they probably should be saying and I don't really know why anymore And it's very frustrating to me, but we're gonna figure it out and we're gonna keep pushing forward because I think at this stage right now We are we are so many dominoes ahead of them that There's so many responses that are because of us and because of our work If you just see it that way if you just realize you don't need to look at it as as us
trying to keep up with them.
You need to see that actually already several months ago the tables have turned and they're basically chasing us now and trying to make it seem like they were always thinking like we're thinking and they weren't because they weren't supposed to.
Now they're supposed to pretend like they were in an attempt to do an end around and pretend like this is where they always were and that's how you can see how dark this has become.
That's how you can see how close we are to winning.
They are still trying to play the cards they were trying to play, just in a different combination.
And I think we can really cash in on this.
Don't forget, there's a live stream, live event, November 3rd, here in Bethel Park, PA.
Unless 250 people show up, we're not gonna run out of spots.
You have to take care of your own hotel and travel, but I do think it's gonna be a very, very nice little gathering
And I do think it's going to be a very nice weekend because of Brownstone being here.
I think there's a lot of potential interesting evenings and a lot of potential connections to be made.
And so anyway, with that, I guess I'm going to sign off.
Thank you, Regular Guy, for coming on.
And that'll be it, I guess.
This is a spontaneous Regular Guy show.
We are in and out of contact.
And I had thrown him a question a while ago about this stuff.
And then in my chat the other day, and also on Soapbox, Soothspider posted this complaint that Aaron Seery had filed about the PREP Act.
And so I started reading it, and I noticed in the filing that
that the Fifth Amendment was mentioned a lot.
I didn't really understand what that was and why that would be mentioned.
And so in asking some pretty good questions and thinking about what's going on here, it just seemed like a good idea to ask a regular guy and now we got a little answer.
Thanks for joining me, and I will see you again tomorrow morning.
I think it's gonna probably be pretty early, like 9.30 or 10 o'clock.
It's scheduled for 10 o'clock, I think.
Or maybe I even erased Saturday morning.
Did I erase Saturday morning?
Oops, sorry.
I gotta put it over here again.
I think I erased Saturday mornings.
which is possible, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to do a show.
And yes, we are going to try and stick to the schedule next week.
As printed, there's an away game on Tuesday or Monday.
I think there's away game on Monday and away game on Tuesday.
Away games mean that I am having an interview.
And generally speaking, it also means it's a recorded interview that I'm not going to stream, but I will record it so that worst case scenario, I can post my end.
Um, and so that's how I'll annotate it on the schedule from now on away games or interviews on other people's platforms.
And if I can tell you where I'll definitely tell you where in the parentheses.
Thank you very much for joining me and I'll see you again tomorrow morning for a Aaron Siri.
Interesting, interesting show.
I think it's going to be a really interesting show.
I'm really excited because I think we can make some progress in explaining to people why I say seventh amendment and how we can argue for it.