Table of Contents

I. Schedule

II. Art of the Day

III. Wisdom of the Day

IV. Book Recommendation

V. News of the Week

VI. Curated Articles from Weekly Library

VII. Cases of the Week for Sunday Show

VIII. Closing Argument

I. Schedule

a. Past

Live w/ Duran 

b. Future

LIVE AMA Friday at 6: Betting w/ Barnes

Saturday at 9 eastern: Movie Night

Sunday at 6 pm eastern: Law for the People w/ Viva

Monday at 2pm eastern: What Are the Odds w/ Baris

II. Art of the Day

Trains -- my favorite means of travel. Their melodic rythym, their comfort for work, rest, dining, conversation, eavesdropping, people watching, and touring the countryside, with echoes of history enveloping you. The glamorous stations of yesteryear reflecting the scene for the great old cinema of our past, recently reminded of my train wonderment in a brief trip from Penn Station NYC to 30th street station, where the film Witness commenced about the Amish under attack, as I traveled to defend the Amish from another attack. They beckon my wanderlust for travel, my curiositiy for people and places unmet and unseen before, and promise purpose along the way with its many ways to truly live on a train. The train sets of youth invite innocence as we explore the outer world in our inner mind. Honestly, I could live on a train, it so well reflects the nature of my spirit.  

III. Wisdom of the Day

"If, in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for tho’ this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free Governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." George Washington, Farewell Address. 

IV. Book Recommendation

Elephant in the Brain, a recurrent recommendation here for its revelatory role in reminding us of the power of motivation in mastering reason, and the means to improve our reasoning, to shift our motivation. 

V. News of the Week

a. Consumer Sentiment Strengthens

b. Epstein Files Debate Rages

c. Europe Balks at Paying for Ukraine War as Nutty US General Proposes War with Russia

d. Israel Upsets Huckabee & Pope while attacks Syria & American Israel advocates claim Epstein Files not important

e. Baris Polls Flash Warning

*Bonus: Unfunny Colbert canned

VI. Curated Articles from Weekly Library

1. Democratic Divide Deepens as Left Populism Resurfaces
2. Crypto Wins
3. Bye Bye Pravda
4. The Bibi Files & Ilan Hulkower Response
5. Massie Proposes Prep Vax Immunity Repeal

*Bonus: RFK Says NO to WHO

VII. Cases of the Week for Sunday Show

1. SCOTUS: Trump
2. SCOTUS: Trump 2
3. SCOTUS: Trump Tariffs
4. Crypto Laws
5. Grand Jury Secrecy
6. RFK Sued
7. Airbnb Price Hikes during Emergencies
8. Embarassing Bondi Cases: Brook Jackson, Roger Ver & More
9. NDA & Anti-Slapp
10. ICE Arrests

VIII. Closing Argument: Brook Jackson vs. Pfizer

Our reply brief filed in the Fifth Circuit summarized: 

• Brook Jackson’s lawsuit exposed Pfizer’s unprecedented fraud on the United States and the American people. Sparked by her whistleblowing and fueled by collective work from an army of both renowned and citizen scientists, Relator has amassed a body of evidence showing Pfizer committed multi-layered fraud in its clinical trials to induce the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its Covid-19 vaccines. With or without the government’s knowledge or assistance, Pfizer’s fraud has cost the taxpayers multiple billions of dollars for a product which, absent the fraud, could not have been authorized for use during the Covid-19 emergency.
• In her second amended complaint, Jackson alleged Pfizer fraudulently designed, conducted and reported its clinical trials to avoid showing negative efficacy in preventing Covid-19 disease. Pfizer knew that injection of its modified genetic product would not stop transmission or infection, and would lead to immune dysfunction and more disease. To obtain the EUA, Pfizer designed its trial protocol to avoid measurement of immunological responses of the human subjects. Then, when conducting the study, Pfizer misclassified and excluded treatment group subjects who became symptomatic soon after their injections. Only through fraud was Pfizer able to assert a claim of 95% efficacy. An adequate well-controlled clinical trial of the biologic would have exposed those facts and precluded issuance of the EUAs.
• Repeated studies now show “negative efficacy” – the more shots a person receives, the more likely that person will get sick or hospitalized for Covid-19. Had Pfizer not engaged in the clinical trial fraud exposed in this lawsuit, it would have obtained neither EUA nor federal funds on its contracts with the Government. Similarly, Jackson alleges that Pfizer fraudulently designed, conducted and reported its clinical trials to hide significant harm caused by its vaccine. Pfizer knew the modified genetic biologic would cause some recipients to make highly-pathogenic Spike protein throughout their major organs and that, over time, devastating Spike protein diseases would take root.
• To suppress exposure of the serious adverse events and deaths its vaccines would cause, Pfizer lied about the distribution and persistence of the genetic material, it falsely omitted reports of serious harm to treatment subjects, it cut the observation period short prematurely before many serious adverse events could occur, and it unblinded and destroyed the control group to obfuscate data on long-term vaccine injuries. Today, a confluence of scientific studies, medical reports, public health data (including from the CDC), federal disability statistics, and insurance actuarial calculations document alarming elevations in excess all-cause morbidity and mortality attributable to the vaccines. These include aggressive and recurring cancers, miscarriages and fetal deaths, blood clots and cardiac arrests, neurological disorders including prion disease, auto-immune disorders, and other life-threatening or disabling conditions. Again, had Pfizer not engaged in clinical trial fraud, the truth about these harms would have been exposed as part of the scientific record, precluding authorization under the EUA statute.
• Despite the critical importance of Jackson’s qui tam claims – or perhaps because of it – the Government filed a motion for a “later date” intervention solely to “voluntarily” dismiss her case. In its threadbare 11-page motion, the Government departed from its own reasoned guidance regarding when circumstances might warrant the rare motion to intervene to dismiss under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(c)(2)(a) and (c)(3). The entirety of the “record” supporting its request for permissive intervention was reduced to one sentence: the Government’s desire to have Jackson’s case dismissed alone was good cause for the later date intervention. The principal questions raised by this appeal ask whether, on the record of the Government’s motion, the district court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion when it granted leave to intervene to dismiss Jackson with prejudice. Working with its limited record below, the Government’s answering brief fails to take issue with statutory and constitutional infirmities in its good cause arguments.
• First, the Government’s motion was based on a theory rejected by the Supreme Court in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023) – i.e., that the Government has an unfettered right to dismiss any qui tam case under the False Claims Act whenever it wishes to do so. Polansky held that once the Government declines intervention during the seal period, it is the relator, not the Government, who controls the action. Before the Government can seek dismissal under § 3730(c)(2)(a), it must first become a party by showing good cause for a late intervention. The Government’s stated position that its desire to dismiss alone shows good cause contravenes Polansky.
• Second, the Government’s argument for good cause reconstructed on appeal is unsupported on this record. Its contentions – that Jackson’s claims are “not viable,” that the case imposes undue discovery or litigation burdens on the executive branch, and that continued prosecution of the fraud committed by Pfizer would be inconsistent with the nation’s health policies – are unsupported. Moreover, they are foreclosed by undisputed facts on the record, and by Relator's offer of proof to test the adequacy of the Government’s good cause showing. Jackson’s qui tam claims against Pfizer are overwhelmingly supported, there has been no demonstration of undue burden on the government, and this action is entirely consistent with national public health policies.
• Third, the district court erred as a matter of law when it held that the Government need not satisfy the requirements of Rule 24, including balancing the extreme prejudice to Relator by permitting the intervention. Although the Government forfeited the right to raise the issue on appeal by failing to raise it below, the Government now asks the Court to hold that the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure does not apply to False Claims Act cases – a contention rejected by Polansky. When the proper legal standard is applied, the record demonstrates that the prejudice to Jackson – and the potential harm to the future operation of the qui tam statute – should have weighed heavily against granting the motion.
• Fourth, the Government’s motion to intervene to terminate this action does not survive strict scrutiny of viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. Based on her own interests as a whistleblower, and acting on the partial assignment of rights by an act of Congress, Jackson had a constitutionally protected right to remedy grievances against Pfizer for defrauding the United States, free of unjustified interference by the Government. The Government’s motion was squarely predicated on the content of Jackson’s allegations, as it conceded when it labelled Jackson’s allegations “misinformation.” The Government singled out Relator for dismissal because it did not want her to expose Pfizer’s clinical trial fraud, information it tried to suppress in the general marketplace of ideas, writ large. The Government forfeited its opposition to this issue by neglecting it below, and the Court should reject the views it expresses now on limited scope and extent of protection afforded by the First Amendment.
• Fifth, the Government’s motion disordered the separation of powers between government branches. Avoiding offense to the separation of powers doctrine must weigh heavily against the finding of good cause here. Executives are empowered to intervene in qui tam actions for legitimate purposes of prosecuting False Claims Act cases – including the purpose of dismissing actions that are truly meritless, parasitic, interfering or contrary to legitimate government interests. Such executive power is not vested to shield corporate partners from exposure for fraud. Nor is it vested to insulate government officials implicated in, or acquiescent of, fraud. Exercise of executive power to move to intervene is particularly pernicious in this case, given the material falsities by Pfizer and the objective criteria used by Congress in the EUA statute.
• Sixth, the motion to intervene to dismiss violates the Equal Protection Clause because it fails the rational basis test, and exceeds the constitutional limits attending any exercise of executive authority. Termination of this important case – already shown to the public to be meritorious and likely to recover billions of dollars for Pfizer’s fraud – is arbitrary and capricious in the constitutional sense. It shocks the conscience, represents an abuse of executive power, and perpetrates a fraud upon the Court and the American people.
• Finally, it was error as a matter of law to voluntarily dismiss Jackson’s case with prejudice. Relator had not previously filed an action against defendants based on the facts or theories presented here, and under the terms of Rule 41, any voluntary dismissal should be without prejudice. On appeal, the Government’s insistence that dismissal be with prejudice as to Relator but not the United States merely shows its discriminatory animus against Jackson for exposing Pfizer’s fraud. Thus, while the Government has the authority to seek to make a “later date” intervention to dismiss qui tam actions based on good cause and legitimate government purposes, the district court’s granting of the motion in this case on the present record was inconsistent with the False Claims Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Constitution. The lower court’s order should be reversed and remanded. 

I.  Schedule

• Benny Johnson Interview
• Alex Jones Show w/ Owen Shroyer
• Friday at 9ish: Betting w/ Barnes AMA
• Saturday at 9: Movie Night
• Sunday at 6 or 7: Law for the People

II.  Art of the Day: The hidden alleyways in ancient communities share secrets of generations past, wlecomed by the decorative arts on display in the magnificent murals, decorous streets, illuminated arches, old gas lights, as enveloped by nature. I love art that expresses itself in the everyday, shares its genius with all who come to it, making nature into an indoor-outdoor mirror of nature and the soul. Windows to the world, windows to our own world. 

III. Book of the Week: Robert Maxwell's Mossad ties, the founder of the Epstein Connection. 

IV.  Wisdom of the Day: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." Sir Walter Scott. 

Become a Supporter

I.  Schedule

• Saturday 9 pm eastern: Movie July 4th Theme
• Sunday 6 pm eastern: Viva & Barnes Law for the People

II.  Art of the Day

A pickup truck. By the beach. Our flag flowing in the wind. The center of summer. The celebration of American independence. The spirit of the 4th.The simplest joys partake, in backyard barbecues & flowing fireworks into the night sky. All for the liberty, freedom, and individuality unleashed by the American spirit that sentinel 4th of July, birthing a revolution of spirit around the world. America's Independence Day. 

III. Wisdom of the Day

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Declaration of Independence, 1776. 

IV. Book Recommendation

Declaration: The Nine Tumultous Weeks details the inside story of how the American revolution was anything but inevitable, birthed by the struggles of men and women willing to risk it all for a new cry for freedom and self-governance that will replace the royalists forever more. 

V.  News of the Week

1. Big Beautiful Bill Passes
2. Medicaid Cut Debate
3. Socialist Rises
4. Jobs Jump
5. Democratic Disarray

*Bonus: Proud to be an American

VI.  Topic of the Week: American Independence

1. Patrick Henry
2. Adams
3. Reagan
4. MLK
5. Fredrick Douglass

*Bonus: Webster

VII. Cases of the Week

1. Judicial Coup Continues
2. Diddy Verdict
3. Big Beautiful Bill
4. SCOTUS: Trans & Speech
5. Wisconsin: Politics & Judges

*Bonus: Coercion defense

VIII. Closing Argument: Our Eternal Oath

• The American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence. July 4th, 1776.
• A new doctrine of legitimacy for the exercise of state power. Henceforth, legitimate government depended upon the consent of the governed. This was because each individual held “the separate and equal station” by the logic of natural law — “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” This thus further entitled them “to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth” whenever made necessary by the conditions of their government. 
• The eternal truths of the ends of government remained the same truths as God ordained, reason entitled, and nature spoke: the “self-evident truths” included that “all men are created equal” and as such endowed by their Creator “with certain unalienable Rights” of the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the pursuit of happiness. This, and this alone, is the reason for government — “to secure these rights.” Security wasn't for physical safety but rather for liberty -- security measured by respect for the right to liberty, the right to life, and the right to the pursuit of happiness. Thereby, wherever and whenever government “becomes destructive” toward the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the pursuit of happiness, then the self-evident right endowed by the Creator, and his creations in nature and reason, entitles “the people” to alter such government, abolish such government, and to, in their place, “institute new Government.”
• The conservative counter to the radicalism inherent in the right of revolution was to temper such revolutionary spirit that “long established” forms of government only be changed for causes neither “light” nor “transient.” It is only upon a “long train of abuses and usurpations” that would reduce them to despotism that it becomes their “duty” to “throw off such Government” and provide better “Guards for their future security.”
• The founders then laid out the evidentiary pleadings for their right to revolt, noting the dilution of the people’s right to pass laws on its behalf, the corruption of the judiciary from enforcing the laws impartially, and the rogue executive ignoring the invasion from within and without. This breach of forms bred results undesired and insecure to the people, including standing armies invading homes without cause, bureaucratic expansion that “sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance”, subject Americans to “a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws”, with “mock Trials” held by partial jurors away from the community of the judged, taxes without consent, unwarranted drafts into forced military service against their own people, and leaving borders unprotected from merciless dangers, while all petitions for redress of these grievances went unanswered and unaddressed. This left no choice but to declare our independence, rooting our government in both conservative claims and radical revolutionary aims, restoring power to the people our Creator endowed with inalienable rights which appeal to nature and reason — the archives of nature and the rights of man as God’s forensic fingerprint on the nature of man and earth alike. 
• It is thus we must again renew the oath — “for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”