And all the time it was Wiggles who made that black knight come to life.
And there was no legend.
Positively not.
Wiggles just used the story to cover up my mysterious disappearance.
Somehow he managed to get into the armour down at the train station.
And like on the way to the museum he made you disappear.
Oh Cheers!
Scoobyoooo
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, this is GIGO and Biological High Resistance Low
Noise Information Brief brought to you by a biologist.
It's the 17th of September, 2023.
I have been with you fighting this limited debate spectrum that we've been trapped in,
this Scooby-Doo mystery we've been tricked into solving.
Today I wanted to take the chance to introduce you indirectly to someone who has been
a friend behind the scenes, someone who's been helping me think about this a lot over the last
couple years. And so it's about time that I guess just introduced this friend to you.
At least that was my plan today and so as I switch over, welcome to the show.
This is GIGO and Biological. My name is Jonathan Cooey. I'm the biologist bringing you this
high resistance low noise information brief. On September 23rd, I have invited a friend
to join us who I'm just calling a regular guy and I'm going to let him introduce himself
to you. But the gist of this is that you can't possibly believe that it's just me and a pile
of books and that's the fight. There are lots of people behind the scenes that I'm talking to
every day and exchanging thoughts with and bouncing my ideas off of. This is not some kind of
broadcast from the back of a garage with drawings on the back of napkins and stuff like that.
I have a network of people that has through the last couple years kind of kept me in check
and made sure that I'm not going completely off the deep end either with my ego or with
any of the elaborate possibilities of the future that have been put in front of us.
So let me see if what else did I have to put in here yet. I guess I just want to say
we're trying very hard not to take the bait on social media, not to take the bait on television.
Yesterday I covered another bunch of video and discussion about what's going on and trying to
figure out what's going on with regard to this whole clone and swarm and infectious cycle thing.
And I continue to add to this picture of who has changed our minds about things and who has kept
us in these paths of narrative that have not allowed us to escape, not allowed us to realize
that by changing our minds about these things these huge changes in our societal behavior
resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being hurt or killed and that's the biology that we're
trying to you know roll backwards a little bit. And so it is this controlled debate that we
find ourselves in and it's this idea that there are people out there who are really trying to
to break us free. And I think that's also part of this illusion that we don't need to solve the
mystery because people like Robert Malone are on it and they are pushing the right buttons,
they are calling the right people to account and so we can relax and just watch the Scooby-Doo
episode unfold in front of us as the people who are responsible for the lab leak pandemic
are brought to justice. So one of the things hey look at that there's an extra guy here
not only do I see regular guy but I see a guy by the name of Mark Koolak who's actually also a
regular guy well this is this is just really special. So let me switch over. Do you guys want
to do an audio check for me? Check one two? Sure this is regular guy check one. Hey regular
guys checking in. How are you there Mr. Koolak? Checking in checking in one two three four. How
are you guys? I'm really good regular guy please meet my friend Mark Koolak for the first time live
on TV. Thank you very much for joining me. Do you want to just take it away and give a little
introduction as to how we met and what you're doing here so Mark also knows? Sure so this goes
back a few years as JC said and to give you some background I'm in addition to being a regular
guy I'm a parent and around the summer 2021 I started to become concerned about some of the
information that was being put forth to the FDA. There's a website called regulations.gov that
anyone can go to and sign up create an account and you're supposed to be able to put comments
on regulations.gov where you comment on pending policy changes rule rule changes that that
different agencies are making. And I went to look and see what kind of information
what kind of comments had been submitted with respect to COVID vaccines because I was skeptical
at that point. I found one comment I found one submission by CHD that I thought was I thought
I could do better. And so I went and dug around for information that I could use being a regular
guy you know not being a specialist in this area and I found some material that looked good
including some material by an individual named Jonathan Cooey. I didn't know anything about
this person but I liked what I was reading and so what I wanted to do was submit some information
to the FDA saying hey I'm a concerned citizen I have these concerns here are my concerns.
You know please consider this before you go ahead and make the determination whether it
prove this vaccine for children. And that is so of course in order to do that you know
ethically and fairly I decided it was appropriate to reach out to the author of this paper and so
I did that and I struck up a conversation with Mr. Cooey and when I told him what I wanted to do
he was intrigued and that touched off a long conversation.
So I'm going to jump right into things as I said I'm a regular guy now I did go to some schools
and I do have a few degrees here and there but and I do have a job I'm not you know out here
I'm not homeless. So anyway I'm going to jump right into things and kind of just take us
right off the diving board here because I don't know a better way to introduce what I don't
know what it is I want to talk about today. So just a moment here let me get this going.
All right so what you see here is an excerpt from a Duke Law Journal article that was published
in 1989. It's kind of an odd article because it isn't really an article it's just a transcript
of someone's closing remarks at a conference. In fact it's not his closing remarks it's his
rebuttal to all the attacks that he'd taken from his initial speech which was not published in
Duke Law Journal. Duke Law Journal decided only to publish his rebuttal. So this is 1989.
Now the person who's speaking here was a lawyer who worked for the Reagan administration
and he is a leading expert in an area of law called administrative law. So again this is 1989.
Now I've highlighted what I think are the relevant sections here. This is the most important things
not whether the remand comes up the same way next time. Now a remand is a technical word
or remand is one of I'll and then a decision is made and then it gets appealed. The appellate
court can overturn the decision but it can also kick the case back to the lower court and it can
say you go decide it. Again you know we're going to change the rules you know we're going to tweak
this and that maybe don't allow that information and allow this other information in and just do
a new trial. That's called a remand and in this case he's not talking about trials that happen
at court. He's talking about hearings that happen before these administrative agencies like OSHA and
EPA okay. So he's saying that you know sometimes a court decision will come along and I'll slap
one of these agencies some random agency and the other agencies he's saying are going to take
note of this. Now most people think that everybody lives in fear of going to court and he's saying
that's not what's important. It's not whether whether it goes to court and what instruction
you get from the court. It's the ripple effect on what the agency does every day afterwards.
Now the next sentence again he's an oral remark says the decision will be political. The decision
he's referring to is not a legal decision. The decision he's referring here to here is a decision
by the agency OSHA EPA. Most of these cases will never go to court but their political character
will be affected very dramatically by the existence of the previous case. A lot of federal regulatory
policy is affected by this case and it has nothing to do with ex post litigation at all. Now they
emphasize at all which means he must have emphasized it when he was speaking. Ex post is a lad in
terms that just means after the fact. So he's saying a lot of federal regulatory policy
is based on these ripple effects that follow from one big decision and what it is is it's a
bunch of people that work at these agencies who suddenly face uncertainty and they have to make
decisions in the face of that uncertainty and it's not that they're worried about going to court.
Everybody thinks that this is all about suing, taking people to court but sometimes it's about
little pinpricks that have ripple effects. That's what this person was saying in 1989.
Now in 1989 this person was not famous. Within a decade this person was fairly famous
and within 20 years I got to know this person fairly well and I learned a lot of things from
the person who gave this speech but I'm not going to talk about that. I'm going to skip to
something else. Give me a moment here. Okay. A lot of people are aware, actually not a lot of
people are aware. A lot of people are unaware that there were a series of cases
that were decided by the Supreme Court 2022. You may recall that around October 2021
President Biden gave an announcement. He said we're going to have a big vaccine mandate.
Every employer, more than 100 employees are going to have to test all their employees.
And there are going to be penalties if you don't comply, bigger penalties if it's willful
non-compliance. Okay. Now this was all premised on an emergency declaration that was made by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services. In other words the President said Secretary of Health and
Human Services took stock of the situation and said oh my god there's a pandemic and oh my god
we need to do something about it. And oh my god we've got these fantastic vaccines right here.
So you know emergency emergency emergency. And so then the President writes a
deckler and an executive order. And now an executive order is something to support and
understand by executive orders. They can't give orders to you and me. They give orders only to
executive branch agencies. Okay. Otherwise it would be unconstitutional if an executive
order told you that you had to go out and mow your lawn that doesn't work. But you can give an
order to OSHA. And that's what the President did. He gave it to OSHA, this Occupational Safety and
Health Agency. Now this case was issued in January 2022. So you can count the days. It probably wasn't
90 days from the date that executive order was issued until the date this opinion was issued.
That's pretty fast. Another interesting thing about this case is that it's fairly short.
I've got a couple of documents combined here but there's a couple opinions but the combined page
total is 30. The average Supreme Court opinion is probably over 50 upwards of 70 pages. Okay.
So this is short. Now there's some other odd things here. And I've highlighted things that
I think are noteworthy. It's issued per curium. That's a Latin term. I forget what it means.
But it basically means that you don't know who wrote it. It's anonymous, which is abnormal. Usually
when the Supreme Court issues an opinion, it's, you know, Alito telling you that, you know,
rose overturned. Here they don't tell you who wrote it. And they don't tell you who voted for it.
Can I ask you a question here, a regular guy? Yeah, sure. Go ahead.
Whose decision is that to make? Is it their decision or one justices decision to make that decision?
Well, that's, that depends. So there's a chief justice and a lot of people get confused about
what he does. They think he gives you other justices orders. No. What he does is he assigns
the majority opinion when he's in the majority. Okay. So if he voted with the minority here,
he would have no control over what the majority opinion says because he didn't vote with the majority.
But if he votes with the majority, then he gets to decide who writes the opinion.
And he gets to decide things like whether it's going to be issued per curium.
Now you can reverse engineer this decision by looking at the dissents. And if you count up the
dissents in this one, I don't know if I included the dissents here. Yeah, you can see the dissents
here, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan. Okay. So that tells you who was in the majority and the majority
tells you that Roberts is in the majority. So Roberts would have had discretion to issue
it per curium. He could have written the opinion himself. We don't know. There were, there are
five other justices who could have written it. He didn't want you to know. Okay. All right. Now,
a couple of things he points out here. I'm going to say he. I don't know. Maybe it was a
she, maybe it was Barrett who wrote it, but I'm assuming it's a guy. Don't ask me why.
OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate, nor is Congress. Indeed, although Congress is
enacted significant legislation addressing COVID-19 pandemic, it has declined any measure to pass
any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here. Now, this is pretty plain reasoning.
We've never seen anything like this. This is pretty crazy. Congress has taken a run at this
kind of stuff. They've never done anything like what this little agency OSHA is doing.
Now, then they, they, I'll skip ahead. As its name suggests, OSHA has tasked with ensuring
occupational safety. There's the O, right? It seems like a big no-da. Then they talk about
the standards that OSHA can prescribe. The standards must be reasonably necessary or appropriate
to provide safe or healthful employment. Okay. They emphasize employment there, sorry.
So the act contains an exception for ordinary notice and comment procedures for emergency
temporary standards. That's why I was not allowed to comment on these vaccine
regulations that I originally wanted to comment on. My original reason for reaching out to
JC was to see if I could steal some language to comment on a regulation
only to find out that I wasn't able to. And it was because of this emergency declaration that
allows an agency to pass, pass regulations without the opportunity for public input.
All right. So there's a couple things the secretary has to do before he can
do this. He has to show that employees are exposed to grave danger from substances or
agents determined to be toxic or new hazards and that the emergency standard is necessary to
protect employees from such danger. All right. Now there's a couple things that I think are
worth noting in here. The first sentence of this paragraph, after a two month delay, the secretary
of labor issued the promised emergency standard. Why would they take the time to point out that
there was a two month delay? Well, because it tends to suggest that it wasn't really an emergency.
Okay. Couple things they know, it draws no distinctions based on industry or risk of exposure
to COVID-19. Unvaccinated employees who do not comply with the rule must be removed from the
workplace. And employers who commit violations face hefty fines up to 13,000, 136,000 for a
willful fine. So if you say, hell no, I'm not doing it. And I know I'm not doing it
up to $136,000. And I don't know if that's per day or per employee or what, but that's pretty serious.
All right. Now the court here, as you might imagine, says this mandate's no good. He says these people
are likely to succeed on the he's talking about, you know, the likelihood that he's
ruling on an injunction here, but that the fact is this opinion has the effect of killing the
executive order. So the administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess
only authority that Congress has provided. Okay. Congress created OSHA through law. There's an
occupational safety and health act. And it tells OSHA what it can do. The executive branch has
some authority, but it's constrained by law. We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing
an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.
The question is whether the act plainly authorizes the secretary's mandate. And it does not,
the act empowers the secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures.
And then they point out that although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces,
it's not an occupational hazard in most cases. It spreads at home schools during sporting events
and everywhere. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day to day dangers we all face.
Okay. It says that allowing OSHA to regulate all these hazards would significantly expand
its regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization. Now, I think this portion that
I've highlighted in red gives away some of the emotions that were going on behind the scenes here
because they carve out an exception. They say that's not to say OSHA lacks authority to regulate
occupation specific related, occupation specific related risks related to COVID-19.
Where the virus poses a special danger because of particular features of an employee's job or
workplace targeted regulations are permissible. For example, OSHA could regulate researchers
who work with the COVID-19 virus. Okay. So they're saying go ahead, vaccinate Fauci.
All right. It's so ordered. There we go. All right. Now that's what? Nine pages. All right.
Go out and find another nine page Supreme Court opinion. Well, actually I'll help you out because
there's one more that I'm going to show you right now. And it was issued the same day.
This one is also about a vaccine mandate. Well, it's about, yeah. Vaccine mandate by Joe Biden.
You can see January 13, 2022. Now this is a little different. You can see who's being sued here is
the Health Human Services Secretary. And this vaccine mandate applies to health care professionals.
Now this one isn't a direct command. Okay. OSHA was giving an order and just saying
everybody get vaccinated or you got to pay a big fine. This one is a little different.
In this one, the secretary announced that in order to receive Medicare and Medicaid funding,
participating fund, the facilities must ensure that their staff are vaccinated against COVID-19.
Okay. So it's not required that you vaccinate your staff. It's only required if you want to get
some of that money. Okay. That Medicare and Medicaid. All right. If you don't want Medicare and
Medicaid, do your own thing. Now, in the court, this is this is procuring him again. Okay,
okay. Where are you? Congress authorized the secretary to promulgate as a condition of a
facility's participation in Medicare such requirements as he finds necessary in the
interest of the health and safety of individuals for furnished services in the institution.
That's pretty broad discretion for a secretary. Any requirements he finds necessary.
The secretary has established long lists of detailed conditions with which facilities must
comply. Certain providers maintain and enforce an infection prevention and control program
designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections.
On November 5th, the secretary issued a final rule or interim final rule saying that,
facilities have to vaccinate all their staff and a facility's failure to comply on terrible
lists. May lead to monetary penalties, denial payment for new admissions and ultimately
termination of participation in Medicare and Medicaid. Okay. Again, the secretary didn't use
the typical notice and comment procedures. The good cause was that any further delay would endanger
patient health and safety given the spread of the delta variant in the upcoming winter season.
So apparently that was the basis for skipping this notice and comment which again is normal
normal part of the procedure but was skipped here. All right. Now here they say first we agree
with the government that the secretary's rule falls within the authorities. The Congress
has conferred upon them. That's the exact opposite of what we read in the last opinion.
Congress has authorized the secretary to impose conditions that the secretary finds necessary
then they say COVID-19 is highly contagious, dangerous, especially for Medicare and Medicare
patients, deadly disease. Notice we didn't see any of this other language in the other opinion.
There was nothing in there about COVID being dangerous. They just said that the risk is the same
in the workplace, right, versus the home or the bus. They didn't have any of this language in here.
Secretaries determined that the COVID vaccine mandate will substantially reduce the likelihood
that health care workers, so this looks like a bunch of BS that they didn't bother to recite
in the other opinion, but they're reciting it here. Ensuring that providers take steps to avoid
transmitting a dangerous virus to their patients is consistent with fundamental principal medical
profession. First do no harm. Are you like that? All right. As noted above, these health care
facilities want that Medicare money. They've always been obligated to satisfy a host of
conditions that address the safe and effective provision of health care. So this is an old
old rule. Moreover, the secretary routinely imposes conditions on participation that relate to
qualifications and duties of health care workers, and the secretary's always justified these requirements
by citing his authorities to protect patient health and safety. So that's always been the
justification. When asked at oral argument whether the secretary could use the same statutory authority
to require hospital employees to wear gloves, sterilize instruments, wash their hands in a
certain way at certain intervals, Missouri answered yes. The secretary certainly has the authority
and implement all kinds of infection control measures. Then they go on to say, of course,
the vaccine mandate goes further than what the secretary has done in the past.
Bodies never had to address an infection problem of this scale and scope before.
In any case, there can be no doubt that addressing infection problems is what he does.
Okay. Health care workers around the country are ordinarily required to be vaccinated for
diseases such as hepatitis B and fluenza measles you can count them up. All this perhaps is why
health care workers and public health organizations overwhelmingly support the secretary's rule.
Now look at what they cite. The American Medical Association submitted an amicus
purity brief, a friend of the court brief and sort of the American Public Health Association.
Okay. And as they as they point out here, health care workers and public health organizations,
these are the same class of people that are supposed to be complaining about this law.
Okay. These people are these, you know, Louisiana and Missouri is saying these health care workers
object and the court is saying, well, wait a minute, when we look at what the American Medical
Association says and the American Public Health Association, boy, they sure seem to think that
this is this vaccine mandate is necessary. So you can guess where this is going.
That vaccine mandate got upheld. Okay. Now, if you look at the dissent, look at who dissented,
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch Barrett. Okay. So there's your four conservatives. So that tells you who is
in the in the majority was all the liberals, plus John Roberts. So it looks kind of like maybe
John Roberts assigned the opinion to himself and made it per curium. I don't know. But anyway,
that's one way of looking at where things are. Now, the reason that I go into this,
the reason that I'm taking you through all this is not because I'm trying to get people
spun up on, you know, ancient history here. It's because there's a perception, I think, that
the law is stacked in such a way that nobody can make heads or tails of any, nobody can make any
progress. Okay. You'll hear lots of muttering in the news about various people claiming that
they've got, you know, litigation pending that's going to do this and it's going to prove this and
this and that. And, you know, it's been two, three years now. None of that's gone anywhere.
Here are two lawsuits that went to Supreme Court in three months and got a vaccine mandate overturned.
Okay. So there's something a little odd going on here. I'm going to call it the Avenatti effect.
You remember this guy, Michael Avenatti, he was on the news a few years ago. Everybody took him
seriously. Everybody thought this guy was legit. Some people spotted him within three minutes and
realized he was a phony and realized where it was all headed, but but he had a really shiny
bald head. So it was hard to discount him. He did and Bill Maher loved him. MSNBC loved him.
Everybody loved him. Yeah, they were thinking he was going to run for president. That's right.
And, and, and when he brought Julie Sweatnik out to make accusations against Brett Kavanaugh,
they were members of the Senate who actually took them seriously and asked questions related to
that of Kavanaugh's hearing. So this guy was taken seriously in the media and in the Senate
by at least one Senator. And yeah, now he's doing 16 years. Okay. So you got to wonder, I think,
I shouldn't say that. I should say you should be skeptical of anyone who's holding themselves
out as a legal authority on any of this stuff. Now there's one other thing I want to point out
here. This is something a little more recent. This is the last thing I'm going to share before I
kind of end my lecture here. This is an article I pulled up just by random. Now I had
come to this recognition on my own separately. Okay, I had no idea this article was written.
I was looking into, you know, people who sue for vaccines,
of vaccine injuries, because that does happen. They're lawyers who take these cases. And I was
trying to look at how that all that structured. What bothers me about the system we have right
now is that the Seventh Amendment says I can sue anyone for any injury worth more than $20. Okay,
it's pretty unambiguous. Okay, then the framers of constitution didn't put any exceptions in there.
And generally speaking, there are no exceptions to that rule. They're well, there are. I mean,
you can't sue the federal government unless they've waived sovereign immunity. But there's a few
other things. So the Seventh Amendment says this. So I'm thinking again about my daughter.
I'm thinking about going forward. What kind of remedies are available to me? And I see there's
this vaccine injury compensation program. Okay, it's not a real court. It's an administrative
hearing essentially where you go ask the government for money. Okay, normally when you get injured
by a medical product. Okay, you get your medical records and you show it to show the
injury and you go through the medical, you know, the device manufacturer, the product manufacturer,
the drug manufacturer. In this case, for vaccines, you have, first of all, law that says you can't
do that, which seems unconstitutional. How can a law just say I can't sue? And then separately,
they've set up this channel that sucks and vacuums up all the vaccine injury claims.
And it takes them to a court called the Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims
is a court that only pays out money. It's just sits in front of a pot of money
from the taxpayers. And so you take your injury complaint to the Court of Federal Claims, they
look it over. And if they think you were injured by the vaccine, they pay you out. Some money
comes out of the taxpayer funds. It does not come from the vaccine manufacturers.
So what this means is that vaccine manufacturers can put risky, even harmful vaccines on the market.
And if something goes wrong, and people are injured, people get compensated, but they get
compensated by the government. Okay. Now, the other thing is that I stumble across somebody
who was bringing a claim through this process. And I learned that while their claim was pending,
their lawyer had filed for what they call interim attorney's fees. Now, I'd never heard of this
before. Normally, when somebody sues on a contingency basis, a contingency basis means the lawyer gets
paid after that. If you lose, the lawyer doesn't get anything. But if you win a million dollars,
you know, the lawyer gets a third of that or whatever. That's contingency. Okay. So most of
these cases are going to be contingency because nobody's got, you know, $500,000 to pay a lawyer
hourly to sue somebody. So in this case, these lawyers can take junk claims to the Vaccine
Injury Compensation Court and get paid before the court renders a judgment,
meaning the lawyers get paid the same as if the case was good for bringing a bad case.
All right. Now, this creates what economists call a moral hazard. All right. A moral hazard
is where, let's say you rent a car from Hertz. Normally, you park in a neighborhood where there's
a high risk of vandalism because you figure, hey, it's not my car. You know, if something happens,
Hertz will pay for it. If it was your own car, you wouldn't do that. You might park it in a safer
location because it's not your car and somebody else is paying for it. You park it in a dangerous
location. It's typically used in the context of insurance because it comes up in an insurance
cases. So what they're saying here is that a lawyer has no incentive to actually bring a valid
claim before this Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. And what that means is that any lawyer
right now who is bringing cases against the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is not in a good
position to challenge the constitutionality of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
All right. Because let's say that lawyers got 50 clients who are all seeking payment through
the VICP. Those clients are might be expecting a few hundred thousand dollars, right? Each, maybe
more. And if the lawyer on the side is working to push a Seventh Amendment argument that knocks
down the VICP and says, you know, if this VICP is part of an unconstitutional regime to deprive
Americans of their Seventh Amendment rights, if the Supreme Court were to say that,
well, all 50 clients now are out of luck, right? Where are they going to get the money? Now they
have to go to, now they may have to go to state courts, 50 different state courts. They got to
hire another lawyer. Maybe there's no lawyers know how to do it. You know, there's all kinds,
it can effectively prevent them from some of them from getting paid.
I'll leave it to others to decide whether that constitutes a conflict of interest. But I know
that if I were looking for a lawyer to challenge this regime, the constitutionality of this regime,
I would look for a lawyer who is not making money off the regime. And I'm going to leave it there and
just end my lecture and my introduction. Well, I think that's pretty freaking awesome.
So you brought a couple things up that I have written down, but maybe I just want to let Mark
say hello and warm up his mic a little bit because he hasn't been able to warm up his mic. And I
think we were both kind of wondering what we would get from you first. So it's nice to go back to
the beginning of this where we met and we came together. And I remember you telling me stories
about and assuring another friend of ours that there's no way this mandate would stand and
and you were obviously right. Mark, go ahead. Just come whatever come to your mind this afternoon.
Well, regular guy, you never fail to deliver. I can see where the ship is being navigated to it
for as this conversation goes on. It this 30 minutes highlights how naive most of us are
or perhaps just unaware of the most people have not actually gone through these particular cases,
these rulings, these Supreme Court opinions. And even if we did, it would be we would be
unable to actually extract that level of information. And it just it highlights. I mean, we are all
being compelled whether regardless of where we are in the political spectrum, but the right,
whatever the heck that's supposed to mean anymore, just to be really angry and fearful and combative.
And they're it this just highlights have just been some very well thought out arguments.
It's that it's actually kind of uplifting, right? I mean, even if the assessment
was a little bit different, right, it goes goes to show that there was a look, this is the law,
this is precedence, and this is where things are. And it's like, okay, well, whatever that
leads us, we can, of course, reassess it, right, or perhaps ask for, you know, changes to the law,
whatever, but I actually find it just an enormous relief to know, okay, there actually has been
a well thought out assessment that I was unable to review. I couldn't have understood it.
And I mean, I don't know how you feel, Jay, but to me, this is it's it's kind of a relief
aside from the details, okay, it's not that we're happy about the resolution. But just to know
that there has been this level of assessment, in particular, the first opinion piece,
was just so well thought out. I mean, just the highlighting the OSHA back then. I mean, it
again, this this we have this perception of the executive orders. Oh, the president could just
have an executive order for everyone to wear blue jeans on Tuesdays in the country.
No, it's an executive branch order. And although there's a director of OSHA reporting in the
executive branch, OSHA is not the White House, it's an agency, right? So we've just been created,
as you well said, by Congress, by an act of Congress. So it's much more complicated
and nuanced than we're being led to believe. And again, I don't want to give a spoiler of
where I think this is going, but I think that you have definitely set the shift in the right
direction for the rest of the conversation regular guy. Thank you. I, you know, I I I use an analogy
of a I think a spider waiting to be fed a cricket. That's how I view the Supreme Court
on these issues right now. I think the difficulty is getting up there.
And the difficulty in getting to the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the lower courts.
It really has to do, I think, with the supply of potential litigants and the supply of lawyers
who are willing to take these cases. The lawyers who are willing to take these cases are not looking
to push the kinds of arguments that you're seeing here. There's an interesting case that's
come up in the in the Fifth Circuit out of Texas. Now, this again relates to the original vaccine
executive order. And this litigation now, there's a petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court,
meaning that the litigants are asking the Supreme Court to pick it up. And I think the Supreme Court
will. If you look at who filed that litigation, it was a man named Boyden Gray,
B-O-Y-D-E-N-G-R-A-Y. And if you look at who Boyden Gray was, he was the guy who
told three or four different presidents who would nominate to the Supreme Court. He was that powerful.
He died last year. He's an old guy. But not before he got that litigation kicked off in Texas.
And that litigation kicked off in 2021. And other lawyers have picked it up and it's at the Supreme
Court right now. But that is what it took in that case. It took somebody like Boyden Gray,
somebody who had personally nominated. He had actually been the lawyer who advised George W. Bush
to nominate Clarence Thomas. I mean, George H. W. Bush and he advised George W. Bush to nominate
John Roberts. So the guy who put two Supreme Court justices on the court brought that lawsuit
before he died. So that's what it took in that case. I get very frustrated with the level of
discourse that I see online because I see a lot of boning us. I see a lot of people who have an
incentive to disemble on certain topics. And frankly, I see a lot of people that are taking
case to the vaccine injury compensation program. And by the way, I noticed in the comments people
mentioned that the COVID vaccine is a countermeasure. That's true. There's a countermeasure
injury compensation program that's roughly the same as the VICP. It's not as well funded
right now. And the major difference there is that attorneys can't get interim fees there.
So attorneys don't have an incentive to bring crappy claims to the CICP like they do with the VICP.
Now that said, it may not be much of it. It may not mean much of anything because there is a push
to get full authorization for these vaccines. And once the vaccines get full authorization,
they'll be in the VICP. They won't be in the CICP. Second of all, both the CICP and the VICP
exist for the same fundamental purpose. And it's to vacuum up lawsuits that might otherwise go
to a federal court where someone could actually challenge the constitutionality of the prep act,
let's say. So they both serve the same purpose. So if you strike at the prep act and you strike at
the vaccine, the law is a grand immunity to vaccine manufacturers, I think it will have
the effect of killing off the CICP and the VICP. So I think, you know, for purposes of
identifying some real unfairness in the system, I think the VICP seems to be the most glaring
because of those interim attorneys fees. If you can think of any other area of life where a lawyer
can bring a totally junk claim and get paid by the government, please tell it to Jay so he can
let me know. Because maybe I'll want to go to law school then and become a lawyer. Who knows?
It's that absurd. There's no other analogy. And it wasn't until I found that law review article,
honestly. Actually, I'm not sure it's a law review article, but that article that I posted at the
end that I realized somebody else had actually looked into this. And it's from 2014, it was issued
by Liberty University. It didn't come from Harvard, but it was sort of a hallelujah moment for me
that I realized I wasn't alone. Someone else had noticed this and that, yeah, this is the only
place where lawyers get paid for bringing junk claims. And the only reason that they can possibly
be doing that is to prevent any lawyer from ever challenging the constitutionality of it.
Because as soon as you challenge the constitutionality of it, you risk not getting paid.
You risk your client not getting paid. And they can drag that on for years, right? In theory.
That's right. Yeah, a client would have to agree to that. The client would have to sign up
for all that because most people would not. Most people would say, wait a minute. You
could have gotten me the easy money at the VICP. Why? What are we doing in Missouri State Court?
Mark, you have a question. Well, I mean, this is a
let's stay on subject here. But while this may sound to some like a, you know, we're getting into
the weeds a little bit here, regular guy just mentions the constitutionality topic. And many
would say in spite of the many, many challenges and weaknesses are still relatively infant country
has. And I think the great future it will have is we always, many people refer back to, and I
will as well, we have a constitution, we have justice, we have the rule of law. Fantastic.
That's true. Which means if we were to somehow bypass that, well, then it's all open.
And what you're highlighting here is the the very tip that I hate to can't stand this in
this phrase, but of a massive iceberg that for some reason is unusually low in the water. And
you can all it's almost completely under the surface. But you can see a tip of there has been
a lot of thought into having ways, whether it be compensation programs or
other methods of approaching the law or having things resolved through arbitration and dialogue
and separate government programs to avoid the constitution to avoid the rule of law. If there
were to be a major redirection of the country, what do you do? Well, you find ways to not use
these great things. So this is not just a tiny little corner case that we are just starting to talk
about here. This is gigantic. This is galactic right now. And that's just that's the start. So
just for the audience to tie and sit, I'm trying to tell them why you want to keep listening here
and why and where this goes. I mean, you know, I know that there's a discussion to be had there
with respect to patents in particular, because patents in patent law arbitration and mediation
are used to keep disputes private and to avoid setting precedent. But I'm also sharing here
an article that came out quite a while ago. I think this is from 2011. No, no, actually maybe
more recent. I first became aware of issues at the FDA through a lecture that I saw
by a law professor named Richard Epstein from 2011. You can still find it on YouTube. It still
probably only has about 30 views. And he spends about two hours just tearing into the FDA.
Not for any reasons that really are relevant to what we're talking about here. But this is an
interesting article because it points out that that the FDA violates the first amendment left
and right, which is true. And the way that it does that is that there's no reason why I shouldn't
be able to cook up a batch of something on my stove and call it a COVID vaccine or say that it treats
COVID. I could go out on the street corner, set up a lemonade stand, my lemonade cures COVID
first amendment. Now, if there's fraud there, somebody can sue me. It's not like there's no legal
remedies where I can just poison people. I could fight poison in there. I can go to jail.
All right. What the FDA says is that you can't use those words effective
COVID, okay, unless you have our permission. Now, this is something that's challenged routinely
by supplement manufacturers. And that's really what this article is about. Supplement manufacturers
want to say effective at lowering blood pressure in Yada Yada. And so they sue the FDA and they
say, hey, you guys are infringing our first amendment rights. And what this says
that the FDA's response has been to strategically avoid appealing these decisions,
to construe these decisions as narrowly as possible, and attempt to continue on business as usual.
So what they mean is that an individual supplement manufacturer might win, and then they go, okay,
that supplement manufacturer fine. They can put it on their label. But everybody else
who's making vitamin D, you know, you got to bring your own separate suit, okay. So every
individual supplement manufacturer that wants to put that on their label has to go and sue the FDA
and win. All right. Just the fact that one vitamin D manufacturer did it doesn't open the door to
the rest of them. All right. And so this was a strategy that the FDA was using for a long time.
Now this is commercial speech, which is still protected under the first amendment, but it has
has lower protections. But what's interesting about this is that there is a movement in the
I'll call it the scovid COVID skeptic community right now
to reform the FDA. I heard Vivek talk about this. I don't know if Vivek is still in the in the
race, but but the last last I saw he was he was he was talking about this. He was saying, you know,
the FDA is really unscientific and the FDA does blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Now what these people
are really pushing for is they're pushing for the FDA to have no standard so that anybody can
sell anything. Okay. What Vivek is complaining about is not that the FDA isn't being rigorous
enough when it evaluates these drugs for safety and efficacy. What he's saying is, hey, it's so
sloppy with these vaccines that the drugs my pharma company makes. You know, the FDA has to be
equally sloppy when it reviews our drugs too. It allowed them to say it's safe and effective.
It should allow us to say it's safe and effective. Right. And so there's that push that's coming
from the industry. And so the reason I point this out is to highlight that to the extent that
people are really spun up and are aware of the constitutional issues here and and to the extent
there are people who are reading Supreme Court cases who aren't really invested in this,
they're not on your side. And that includes, I think, some of the ones that are holding themselves
out there is COVID skeptics. I think they have legal interests that they are protecting by
saying the problem's over here. It's not over there. You know, these people who are telling you,
for example, that this key to suing Pfizer is to find that they committed some kind of willful
fraud. They lied. They committed some crime. They knew it was bad. They knew it was taint,
this kind of stuff. If you look at the prep act, yeah, there's a little section in the prep act
that says that the immunity doesn't apply for willful misconduct. The thing is all these lawyers
who are doing this, they're trying to work within the parameters of the prep act. In other words,
they accept the constitutionality of the prep act as a given. And they're saying since the prep act
says we can sue for willful misconduct, we'll go look for willful misconduct. None of them are
saying, hey, wait a minute, I should be able to sue for any negligence. I should be able to sue
for any injury again. I shouldn't have to prove that they intended to do it. I don't have to prove
that the landlord intended to make the stairs slippery. All I have to prove is that he didn't
come out and shovel him. Interesting, interesting, interesting. Yes, I see, I see.
It's tricky. We can have more conversations about it later too. I mean, this is all broad
brush overstrokes. And, you know, I'm talking here about things that I've observed over the course
of two years. Again, all I've been this entire time is a father concerned about,
you know, there was a proposed vaccine law at one point that almost went into effect that would
have required my daughter to get vaccinated to go to school. And I had a problem with that.
And, you know, I, and so from day one, I've been solely focused on that one. That's been my primary
focus, I would say. But along the way, I've fallen down X number of rabbit holes.
And, you know, the reason I'm on this show, by the way, is because
JC is the only person that I've talked to over the course of two years who's consistently,
I think, thought about this stuff logically. And honestly, everybody else that I've talked to,
I run into a brick wall with them at some point. JC's been the only one that seems to follow it.
So, you know, I've kept talking. And it just got to the point where, you know,
I felt maybe I should introduce myself because I want people to get the full picture and help
chase, help them understand. You know, like JC said, the depth of the conversations that are
happening behind the scenes. Do you think that others are intentionally?
Falling in or take going into those areas? Or do you think that they're, they are subject to
fallacies that even they are unaware of? I even know what question I think I just want you to
expand upon. Well, okay, so first of all, yeah, first of all, most of the people who are
holding themselves out as that I see online. Okay, so I've got many friends who are
anti-vaxxers and I'll stop by their homes. And they want to show me a YouTube video,
some lawyer saying, oh, this is amazing. You got to hear this. You got to hear this.
And inevitably, it's junk. I can't make it through the first 30 seconds because I can tell it's
just gibberish. Now, most of these people are not as far as I can tell real practicing lawyers.
Okay, one of them, probably the most famous one. I went and looked at the guy's website
to see like, you know, how it stacks up against other lawyers' websites. And I see that he
advertises himself, he advertises paralegal services. The guy's actually offering to do
work as a paralegal, even though he's got a law degree. That's weird. Okay, that suggests to me
that this guy has never actually practiced law. He's out there, you know, he's really desperate
enough that he's going to hold himself on his own website as a paralegal. But he's out here,
you know, getting all kinds of comments on social media and stuff, you know. And I see that kind
of stuff a lot. I just see jokers. I don't see, you know, the where I see the legit players,
when I look at the names that are on the filings, like I mentioned Boyd and Gray,
the only reason I noticed Boyd and Gray was because I read a writ for Sir Shirari,
he came up at Supreme Court and I looked at the law firm that was at the bottom and I had his name
on it. And I said, the hell, could that be the same guy? And sure enough, it was. But there was no
news about him doing this. Nobody made a big stink about it. He didn't seek fame for it.
I think that there are organizations out there that are probably
supportive of this kind of thing on some level. But it's hard to say because, you know,
the big ones that I know of are affiliated with law schools and the law school faculty
who run them may have conflicting interests. So I'm not sure that those organizations are the
best. I will say that George Mason University has did some early litigation related to this stuff.
I don't know quite where they are right now, but they've got a pretty activist law school there.
But other organizations, it's hard to say because, you know, the way that the legal profession
operates is that people come out of law school, if they come out of a top law school,
they're recruited while they're in school. And they're typically recruited by big firms.
People are usually trying to work for these big firms. And so they get this kind of exposure
to the corporate side of things right out of law school. And then if they want to transition
to something else, they've got the golden handcuffs at that point that, you know, they don't want
to take too much of a pay cut. So they're looking to go in-house somewhere. You know,
they're looking for somebody that's going to pay. There aren't too many people out there that
don't, that have the credentials that haven't gone through that sort of career trajectory.
Okay. You look at Boyd and Gray, he was at the end of his career when he filed that lawsuit.
So can I push back on that for a little bit just to see how this affects your opinion? So
Boyd and Gray put forth Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas was a Monsanto lawyer.
My odd,
my spidey sense is wondering if you could imagine a scenario where these lawsuits that you covered
that we discussed, they were percureum. And even these things would to go with the FDA are all kind of
a probing, a probing exercise from both sides of the aisle, from the left and from the right
to try and see how these, where the holes are in the, in the legislative, you know, wall so that
they can change these things or institute mandates. So maybe the OSHA thing was just a test and that
didn't work, but they got an answer from the Supreme Court that will allow them to test it again next
time. And so to what extent could Boyd and Gray's lawsuit be just another test of where the holes
are in the system, given that Boyd and Gray is some kind of dude who at least seems to have promoted
Clarence Thomas, who in the past, I used to think was kind of a bad guy. I know that he's a
conservative judge, but I also knew that he worked for some pretty shady corporation. So does that
go well? Well, I, you know, my take on Thomas is that I think is, I think is his career before
coming to federal service was fairly innocuous. He worked, he was chairman of the EEOC,
which is normally an extremely, I would say, let's call it liberal or agency. Okay. And to put a guy
like that in charge of the EEOC was pretty significant. And I don't know what kind of
reputation you earned at the EEOC, but Bush had to fill Thurgood Marshall's seat. And of course,
he had pressure to fill with an African American. And now what I'll say about Thomas as a justice
is that he doesn't really care about precedent. And I think he has a point. Why should Clarence
Thomas care what some other Supreme Court justice had to say in 1911? Clarence Thomas,
Supreme Court justice too. So he's not, he doesn't care about precedent. He's happy to overturn it.
And, you know, he's got, he's got some other other quirks. But in general, he's been, I would say,
intellectually consistent, much more so than Scalia. He used to get accused of copying Scalia,
but it's really not like, really never liked that at all. People say they never ask questions
at oral argument. But if you go to the YouTube, if you go on YouTube, you check me on this,
you can listen to the oral arguments on these vaccine mandate lawsuits that I read over.
And the first question to the solicitor generals from Thomas, and he says, what was the emergency?
Which is a good question. This is an emergency declaration. What was the emergency in October 2021?
So the vaccines have been out for nine months at that point. What was the emergency? COVID had been
around for, you know, almost two years, right? Which is a very good question because it gets to the
issue of whether this was an abuse of an emergency authority. Now, what I think, where I think this
is headed, is for the Supreme Court to strike down some of these emergency authority provisions.
Okay. Now, I've got, I'm sharing here the actual law that confers this liability.
Now, right here, subject to other provisions of this section, a covered person, she'll be immune
from suit and liability under federal state law with her. Okay. That's just saying Seventh
Amendment doesn't work here. Okay. So no Seventh Amendment. And if you go down to where, yeah,
declaration of the secretary. So this kicks in as soon as the secretary makes a determination.
And the secretary doesn't have to do any science here. The secretary simply has to consider
certain things. If you look at the verbs, factors to be considered,
consider these things. Okay. And then look at this. No court of the United States,
right here, Number seven, or any state shall have subject manager restriction to review whether
by mandamus or otherwise any action by the secretary under the subsection. Meaning you can't challenge
what the secretary's decision here, even though there isn't a requirement that the secretary be
particularly scientific here. Okay. So this is a very weak standard for supporting suspension
of people's Seventh Amendment rights. Okay. I think Thomas is sympathetic to that.
I think he's more than happy to get rid of that stuff. What's occurred recently that I haven't
talked about is really a bigger change. If you Google Chevron Doctrine, there's a case from 1984,
very famous Supreme Court case that establishes a rule that basically says that whenever an
agency makes a determination that requires any kind of scientific expertise, any kind of scientific
judgment, courts are supposed to defer to the agency experts because judges are English majors
and polyside majors. They don't know anything about, you know, nuclear physics or any of that
crap that the EPA does. So just trust the experts. Trust the expert to the agency. And it's a rule.
Okay. It's a, it's an instruction from the Supreme Court that basically says, you know, if when in
doubt, go with the, with, with the agency, what the government says. Okay. Now this is called
Chevron Decorance and it's, and it's a form of, you're deferring to the executive branch. It's the
judicial branch deferring to the executive branch. So it's a separation of powers issue.
What's happened is that the court in recent years has just disregarded it. Okay. So for example,
Thomas's question, an oral argument, what was the emergency? The law says you can't ask that
question. Okay. The law says no, no one can review the secretary's declaration here. Well, Thomas
is saying, I don't care about that law. I'm asking you what the emergency was. And the
solicitor general didn't say, oh, um, uh, Justice Thomas, uh, you can't ask that question. It's illegal.
You know, I'm, I mean, they'd be inviting destruction at that point, right?
And so I think the task is, and I think there are many people on the court who are sympathetic to
this. Brett Kavanaugh, before he was on the Supreme Court, was on the D.C. Circuit.
He's on the D.C. Circuit for, I think, 12 years. He wrote something like 300 opinions.
If you read any of his opinions at random, he would go into these agency decision-making processes.
A lot of detail. This is something that the D.C. Circuit does a lot. He's very much a fan of
getting rid of this junk about agency deference. Um, I think Gorsuch is fine with it.
Well, you know, he's got no problem with it. And then it's just a question of, you know,
is Robert's going to write the opinion or is he going to let someone else do it? Okay.
But that's assuming a case actually gets up there. To get a case up there, you've got to get
what's called standing. You have to convince a court that you have the right to sue. And to have
the right to sue, you have to show an injury. An injury can't be speculative. It's got to be a
real, you know, injury that you're going to experience as a result of this law. And a lot of people
have trouble at that stage. A lot of people have trouble showing that they have standing.
And so Boyden Gray's genius was getting standing in Texas before he died. And it was really odd
how he did that. I can go into in detail, but I might bore people. But it was a really interesting,
really interesting case. The starters really had to align there. And you had to have the right lawyer
looking for it. I think maybe the best analogy is Peter Thiel. When Hulk Hogan sued Gawker,
he sued Gawker in a bankruptcy, put them out of business. Now the way that began was that Gawker
had revealed that Peter Thiel was gay and Peter Thiel didn't like this. He wanted to put Gawker
out of business. He hired a team of lawyers to read every Gawker article about every celebrity
and find some celebrities who could bring like a defamation or invasion of privacy claim or something
against Gawker. And then see if they could sign them up to bring this lawsuit. And so this team of
lawyers went through all these Gawker articles and they found this stuff on Hulk Hogan. And they
called Hulk Hogan and they said, Hey, would you like us to rep you for free to sue Gawker for 25
million? And Hulk Hogan said, Sure. And then they went and sued Gawker and they put Gawker out of
business. Right? So it took a team of lawyers going and looking for a sympathetic litigant.
The other analogy that I sometimes use is Rosa Parks because a lot of people think that Rosa
Parks just, you know, got off work one day, got on the bus, feet were tired, didn't want to move.
But actually, no, Rosa Parks was on the board of the local NAACP. What had happened was that
another woman had been kicked off the bus for refusing to move. But that woman was a pregnant
teenager and they didn't want to hurt her to be the face of the movement. Rosa Parks knew this
particular bus driver, knew that he was a stickler for the rules, knew that, you know,
if she didn't move on that bus, that particular bus driver would make a big stink about it
and got on that bus and, you know, and brought impact litigation. Okay. So it took that kind
of an effort. Okay. And a lot of these cases took organization planning and money resources to do
it. And that's something that you don't see anyone trying to put together right now. I don't think.
Oh, man, that was a great summary. I'm so excited that you said that and said it in that way,
because I think that's, that's really what we're talking about with the Seventh Amendment, right?
We, we have to have the right litigant willing with the right lawyer willing and with the right
strategy worked out. And nobody's playing that game right now. Well, what a shame that every lawyer
who might, you know, who's already in the vaccine injury game is taking claims to the vaccine
injury compensation program and has, I think, a conflict of interest against taking any other
vaccine injury case that would go through another venue. Yeah, it's crazy. I mean, they must have,
there must be litigants who don't need the money. I mean, I can imagine an old commercial
airline pilot who doesn't really care about the $800,000 he might get, but really wants to
to change something because he's a patriot. Well, don't talk too much about it right now, but,
but, but, you know, don't don't give too much away. Oh, yeah. It's happened. If that's the case,
but, but I would say that, you know, it, it, it certainly, yeah, it, it, it takes the right
confluence of, of, of personalities and, and, and, and people with some determination and
that, that, that, and I want to get back to, you know, that, that VICP program with the interim fees
where lawyers get paid fees for non-meritorious claims. That has the effect of drawing every
good claim in addition to all the junk claims through the vaccine injury compensation program.
It has the effect of ensuring that 100% of vaccine injury lawyers are going to take
cases through the vaccine injury compensation program, right? Because it's free money,
it's guaranteed money, win or lose, the lawyer gets paid. And that, it is, that, it was created
with the express purpose of draining the swamp of any lawyer who might take a vaccine injury case
through another venue. It means the entire legal profession is barren of a lawyer who with any
experience doing that sort of thing or any desire to do that sort of thing or the ability
due to the conflict of interest issue. I have two questions. One is before we lose it,
when you said Roberts, a Gorsuch had no problem with the Chevron deference,
deference, excuse me. There's no problem killing it. No problem killing it. Okay,
I just wanted to be clear with that because, again, this is another, how do you take away
powers from the Supreme Court? Well, you, you continuously have, you know, steer people towards
very technically complicated cases where only, you know, the science, if you will,
in another agency or an executive branch can determine which way it goes, right? Right. But
the other one was, let's see, you just mentioned the, oh, yeah, the vaccine injury. Do you see,
in the, in the, what we refer to as the truth or dissident movement,
reaffirmation of these programs of like the vaccine injury court, as they saying, oh, yeah,
please, and not getting people to realize that they're effectively doubling down and pursuing
something that should be outside of our constitution of our, yes, yes, because every lawyer that's
doing vaccine injury litigation, if you go to their law firm website, you will see that they
take their clients through the vaccine injury compensation program. So they may want to get
discovery and prove certain facts about, you know, what this scientist was doing in Africa or this
and this and that. Okay. But the question is, what are you going to do with it? Where's it all going?
If it's just getting released to the public, then it can inform the political process.
But you're not taking it to court, and you're not talking about
simple things like the Seventh Amendment and the fact that there's a legislative regime
designed to deprive, very neatly designed, very carefully designed to deprive people of their
Seventh Amendment rights. The people who wrote this law knew what they were doing. They knew that
that provision that says a judge can't review it. That's called jurisdiction stripping. And
most lawyers, they've learned about jurisdiction stripping as a theoretical thing that Congress
could do sometime, you know, in the future. But it's bad. If you do a Google search on jurisdiction
stripping, you'll see all these op-eds that say, you know, it might be a good eye. It might be
possible. It might be constitutional, but it's a bad idea. It would poison inter-branch relations.
Nobody seems to recognize that it's been done, that it was done in 2005 in the PrEP Act.
Okay. Nobody, I don't, if nobody's going and reading these things, I don't know.
But, you know, start there. The fact that you've got a law that says a judge can't review this law,
that's not normal for Congress to pass a law and say, oh, by the way, no judge can review this law
and decide whether it's constitutional. But that, you know, to see that jurisdiction stripping is
done, and then to look at the mechanisms that were put in place to ensure that the constitutionality
would never be challenged, right? That's where the VICP and the CICP comment, right? You're doing
something unconstitutional. You're stripping people. They're Seventh Amendment rights sue.
But you're denying them standing because they can't show an injury because they're getting paid
out by the VICP, by the taxpayers. So if they try to sue and say, this is unconstitutional,
the court's going to, the district court, the trial court's going to say, well, how are you
injured? You know, you could go to the VICP and you could get a free lawyer because the government
paid for it, and you could get, you know, your $500,000 paid out. They recognize your vaccine
injury claim. So where's the injury? You got your money, right? And if you want to say, well,
I wanted to sue Pfizer. I didn't want taxpayer dollars. I wanted to get the money for Pfizer.
The courts can say, hey, money's money, you know? And so you're not going to have standing. You're
not going to be able to bring that lawsuit, right? In order to really bring that lawsuit,
you got to have some, you got to be able to say that this VICP program is denying you some,
some, it's causing you some injury. And that, you know, I'm not quite sure how you'd frame that,
but, you know, I've thought on that, but it's really, we're not there yet. It's more about,
you know, this was structured this way. And I should add too that that passage I opened
with that law professor giving those oral remarks about these ripple effects.
That person is one of the chief architects, a lot of the stuff that we're going on that we're
seeing right now. His name is Cass Sunstein teaches at Harvard now. He's, you know, he works for
Department of Homeland Security. Wikipedia doesn't say that. If you go to Cass Sunstein's Wikipedia
page, it does not mention that he currently works for Department of Homeland Security,
but he does. And he's married to Samantha Power. And he worked for Obama as well.
Yes, he's a married to Samantha Power. Yes, he is. Oh, my goodness. That's right. Oh, my goodness.
That's right. He gave he, yes, he gave that quote that I read at the beginning from 1989.
Sunstein. Nice. Yeah. How was that spelled again? If I may.
S-U-N-S-T-E-I-N. He also wrote a book called Nudge. Yes.
Cognitive infiltration. Think about, you know, what, I think the way to think about these
executive orders, Mark, you brought this up. An executive order comes out and it's not apparent
to people that, hey, that only applies to government agencies. That's by design. Okay, that's nudging.
This is, you know, the governor comes out and says, it's illegal for people to have gatherings
of more than 10 people. Now, the reality is that it's probably not constitutional to enforce that.
But everybody obeys it anyway. Okay. Enough people obey it. And that's all it counts, right?
So with these vaccine mandates, the legalities to some extent were secondary. The fact that it
might get knocked down in courts in 90 days, I think, I think that was understood because it was a
really poorly written executive order. And Biden said when he issued it, he said, I'll go ahead
and challenge it. I don't care. And I think the point was to get everybody into this mindset of,
well, I got to run out and get back, so I'm going to lose my job, right? And that's all took. It
was a nudge, right? The legalities of it were sort of insignificant. And you're right,
JC, yeah, I did. I did look at it and go, this isn't going to last 90 days. And it didn't last
90 days. But, you know, it didn't, but there are people who still think it's an effect.
And for that matter, states can, you know, experiment and do their own thing, right? This
was just a federal thing. I don't know what various states are doing.
So is there any way, not just, I don't want to take too much of your time today. And I know Mark
is also busy. Is there any way we can convince you to join us again for a patent law discussion
about, about the antibody paradox, maybe a couple of times? Because I know it's a lot of,
yeah, I mean, it's not, it's not, that's not something that. So, so patent law is, is a very
deep, complicated, rich area of the law, with a lot of doctrine attached to it. And there's
special qualifications that are required to even sit for the patent bar. You have to have a certain
number of STEM credits and all that. And, and, and I'm in no position to really
dive in deep on, on that sort of stuff. However, I do see in broad brushstrokes
things that may be happening. And I think that they are connected to, I think some of the things
that we're seeing in the, the vaccine skeptic movement, let's, let's call it, may be linked
somewhat to the, the, the, the change in the, the legal landscape for some of these patents. I do
think that areas of the law that, it's the patents that used to be more lucrative may have suddenly
become less lucrative. Now, I don't know really what to make of that. I, because it's all recent,
and I'm only sort of looking at it from the outside. So, well, if you could just, you know,
be a light guard in a shadow, I offer a regular guys opinion. Yeah, exactly. I mean, you know,
okay. Yeah, that would be wonderful. I think that would be really fun. Mark, did you have any
kind of closing remarks? I think it's going to take Mark and I a while to, to imagine the
possibilities with you now that you're occasionally offering your time because I do think that,
you know, as a, as a regular guy who has a lot of the same concerns that we do about our kid's
future and how the, how the government is going to impose its will on our kid's future.
I think it would be really handy to have you as, as a more regular guest and more importantly,
um, again, like a shallow end lifeguard, you know, just, just keep your hands off of everybody or
where's your buddy or whatever. And don't say that because that's dumb. I think would be really
helpful. And again, we're not looking for, I know you went to school and stuff, but I want to advance
the discussion exactly I can. And, and, and, and you and Mark are, are people that I see that think
logically and seem to be in search in a good faith search for the truth. Um, even if you get things
wrong once in a while, I think your methods are sound and that's, that's what matters to me. So,
yeah, sure. Uh, it's fantastic. Mark, do you have any closing remarks? I think it's a sharp spot to
to, uh, I thought this was rewarding, fantastic, enlightening. Um, yeah, I'm a, I'm a big fan of yours,
by the way, Mark, I meant to say that earlier. I haven't watched enough of your stuff yet to, to,
uh, to, to, to even, I've watched maybe 2% of it and it's been great. So, yeah.
Well, I heard it'll help improve your night's sleep as well.
All right. So it's dual, it's multi, uh, it has value on multiple fronts, but I'm looking forward
to more, more discussions and, um, uh, I mean, you provided wealth of knowledge before regular
guy. Um, but, uh, this is still, uh, the early days, I believe. So thank you. And I'm sure the audience
has enjoyed this as well. Sure. All right. Looking forward to the next time, sir. All right. Thank
you very much. Okay. Take care. Mark, thank you very much for joining me. I'm sorry that I blew
the three o'clock star time. That was a little bit, uh, family ball dropping there. I apologize for
that. That's okay. That's okay. That's, uh, will you be doing a show this evening?
You're eight o'clock Sunday night. Uh, yes, I'd like to. Okay. Um, otherwise I won't be able to fall
asleep. Um, you can watch the replay and I hope you get every, each night of the week. Um,
boy, I'd say what I used to have hours to dedicate each day, but it's very difficult.
I wanted to ask you one more thing. I realized I haven't done this yet. I had it on my schedule
already. Is there any way that I can book you for Tuesday night? Um, of course, after eight,
preferably after eight. Okay. Perfect. We'll call it after eight. That's great. I'm glad I got
to ask you that. Anything in particular to prepare for? Um, I'll send you an email about it. I've
got a little tiny plan. Um, okay. Yeah. Okay. Sounds excellent. Thank you very much for joining
me, Mark. I appreciate it. I'm so happy I finally got to introduce you to regular guy. I know you
know his real name, but it's really nice to finally make it official. Um, and, uh, I look forward to
talking to you on Tuesday. Please stay in touch. We'll do keep up the great work. I appreciate it.
Bye. Bye, Mark. All right, guys. Um, thanks very much for adding me to your afternoon.
Um, this has been Giga Home Biological, a high resistance low noise information stream brought
to you by a biologist. My guess was the regular guy and Mark Koolack of Usatonic Live. Um, you can
find Mark Koolack on YouTube and you can also find him, um, at usatonicits.com.
Uh, I can't stress enough how his archive is probably the best archive out there when it comes
to what's going on and how things are happening. Um, this has been another Scooby-Doo presentation,
like Giga Home Biological, but actually not because we're now looking at finally getting the guts
to talk about the legal aspects of this. And now I think we have an additional sort of
wood on the fire now with regard to the antibody patent paradox. I think Mark and I are both
really interested in opening the lid on that thing and looking inside. Um, and I think, uh, now
we're kind of ready to do it. So look forward to the coming weeks. Mark and I are going to continue
to challenge each other to stream more often and with better content. And I'm going to keep challenging
myself to, uh, show up every day as well. So keep the pressure on, steady pressure is what's working.
Thank you very much for joining me. Make sure you share the stream more than anything else.
Please share it, tweet it, Facebook and whatever. Um, that's how this works. And please support Mark
if you can. Thanks very much for joining me.