Welcome.
Yes, thank you so much, Charles.
And thank you, Stephen, for having me.
I appreciate it.
Welcome.
Well, over to you.
We're having lots of use, we've been using our time well,
so we told everyone that you're a little bit delayed.
So we won't do a full intro.
We're all ears and we're listening to you.
And then hopefully we can do Q&A with you
after you finish your presentation,
or you can speak for 10 minutes
and questions on legal issues
or whatever you would have,
you would like to take this forward.
Okay, terrific, yes.
I apologize for being tardy.
I was at an event and it was a little further away
than I had anticipated.
So I am, my name is Labyann Cox.
I'm an attorney here in New York in the United States.
And I just successfully did a lawsuit
where I sued the governor of New York,
her name's Kathy Hogle,
and her New York State Department of Health.
And what they were doing was issuing a regulation,
which means that it went through the executive branch,
it came from the Department of Health.
This was not a law that was properly passed
by the legislature in New York.
So they made this regulation unilaterally,
gave themselves the power to issue isolation
and quarantine orders to any New Yorkers
that they deemed were a health threat.
So they just needed to think,
maybe you were exposed to a communicable disease.
They didn't have to prove
that you had a communicable disease,
and they didn't have to prove
that you were exposed to communicable disease.
They just needed to think, maybe you were exposed.
So no proof necessary, no evidence against you necessary.
They could just issue you an isolation or quarantine order.
They could lock you down in your home,
or they could remove you from your home,
and they could take you to a facility
that they would choose where you went.
There was no time restriction.
So they could tell you that you had to lock down
in your home, or they could remove you
and lock you up in a facility for days,
for weeks, for months.
I mean, there was just no restriction at all.
There was no age limit.
So there were no age restriction periods.
So they could come for your child.
They could come for your elderly parent or grandparent.
They also had written into this regulation
and provision that they could use the law enforcement
to help enforce their orders.
So that means that they could have had the sheriff
or the local police show up at your home
and remove you from your home.
Or they could just show up and start checking
to make sure that you were there.
Another provision that they put in this regulation
was that they, meaning the Department of Health,
could tell you what you could and couldn't do
while you were in isolation.
So that means they could have taken your cell phone,
they could have taken any sort of access to the internet
and the outside world.
They could have restricted your food intake.
They could have made you take certain medications
or treatments that the government thought was best.
I mean, it was completely unbridled power,
unrestricted power, and they gave it to themselves.
This power did not come from the New York State Legislature.
It came from the governor and the Department of Health.
They made the regulation and gave themselves the power.
So my lawsuit was based upon the premise
that the executive branch of government cannot make laws,
cannot issue regulations that conflict
with New York State law, which this one did.
This one conflicted with multiple New York State laws,
and they cannot make a regulation
that conflicts with the Constitution,
which this regulation conflicted with the Constitution
on multiple levels.
So I filed the lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court,
and that was in the beginning of April.
And the judge just ruled in our favor about two weeks ago.
He issued a decision saying that the regulation was,
in effect, the regulation was unconstitutional.
It violated separation of powers.
It violated New York State law.
We actually have a law in New York State.
It's the Public Health Law, Section 2120,
that talks about what you do
if you do wanna remove somebody from society
and put them into a quarantine
if they are a public health threat.
Now, we've had that law on the books
here in New York State for literally decades,
probably 60, 70 years we've had this law.
But the law has many due process protections built into it
so that the government can't abuse that power.
The number one thing that that law says
is that the government has to prove
that the person actually has the communicable disease
before they can even think about trying to lock the person up
or have the person in isolate in their home.
So step number one under that law
is you have to actually be sick.
They can't just think maybe, maybe you were exposed,
maybe you weren't, who knows?
And then there's a whole list of things in that law
that's been on the books for decades
that protect the citizen.
They have to do an investigation.
There has to be evidence showing that
not just that you have the communicable disease,
but that you're acting in a manner
that is detrimental to those around you.
So you're not being careful, you're being careless,
or you're intentionally exposing other people to a disease.
These are all due process protections
so that the government can't overstep and abuse their power.
So, oh, and then there has to be a hearing.
This is under the law, a hearing in front of a magistrate
that you get the chance to have an attorney,
you get a chance to see the evidence against you,
you get a chance to argue back and fight back against it.
So it's completely due process fulfillments
are in this law, which is on the books.
And this regulation completely violated
all of those due process protections,
completely conflicted with that existing New York state law.
And the executive branch, the governor,
the Department of Health, they do not have the power
to overrule or override a law that's in place
rightfully passed by the New York state legislature.
So that was a big part of why the judge
struck down this regulation and deemed it unconstitutional
because he recognized that if you allow,
if you think about it just from a logical standpoint,
not even just a legal standpoint, if you allow an agency,
now agencies here in the United States,
the people that work in agencies, the commissioner of health
who heads up the New York State Department of Health,
that's not an elected person.
That person is appointed by the governor of New York.
So if the governor is allowed to appoint the head
of the Department of Health and all the people working
in the Department of Health are all appointed,
they're just government employees,
if you give them the power to have unbridled authority
over the citizens and make a regulation that conflicts
with laws that were passed by the legislature
or conflicts with the constitution
and the protections laid out in the constitution,
now you're giving the executive branch
these unelected bureaucrats, you're giving them a power
that was first of all never intended for them to have
because the constitution is very clear
that the agencies are supposed to help enforce the laws
that are passed by the legislature.
The agencies are not supposed to make rules
that override laws that are made by the legislature.
So you would be giving, if you allowed this regulation
to stand, you would be signaling, not just
to the Department of Health, but to many departments
and maybe not just in New York, probably across the country
that, hey, you know what, you can do whatever you want,
even though you're not elected,
even though you're appointed bureaucrats
and government employees, you can do whatever you want.
You can make regulations that conflict
with the constitution, you can make regulations
that conflict with New York state law.
And all of a sudden you've now catapulted that agency
or that branch of government above our elected officials,
above our legislature.
So complete breakdown of separation of powers
if you allow that regulation to stand
and deem it as a proper and decided that in our favor,
decided in our favor, he ruled in our favor
and said, this is unconstitutional, it's illegal,
you cannot do this.
And he issued an injunction, which means that he's,
he prohibits them, Kathy Hochul and the Department of Health
from issuing any of these isolation or quarantine orders.
So as of right now, this regulation is dead.
It is no longer, it has been struck down.
Of course, now the governor and the attorney general
in New York state are saying that they're going
to appeal the decision and they're going to try
and get a higher court to actually overturn the decision
so that they can have this unbridled, unabashed power
that they are so keen on having.
So it's really, it's first of all, quite shocking
that they would even try to overrule this decision
because what does that say to the people of New York?
That tells the people of New York that your governor
and your assistant, or I'm sorry, your attorney general,
who's the top attorney in the state and works for the state,
those two people who are very powerful are saying,
we don't care about the constitution.
We don't care about New York state laws
that were properly passed by the legislature.
We don't care about the people, right?
Because the people are the ones who elect
those representatives who make the laws
and put in the due process protections
so that we are protected from an overbearing government.
And this says, oh, well, the governor, Governor Hulkl,
attorney general, Letitia James, they don't care.
They just want to have their power.
They want to have it whenever they want
because this regulation also said it did not need
to be an emergency for them to use this power.
So they could literally just write isolation
and quarantine orders whenever they want it.
It didn't even have to be a state of emergency.
So absolutely, positively, government overreach,
very clear, very clear that because they are appealing,
they do not respect the constitution
or the laws or the citizens.
And so now we have to fight against them,
against their appeal and try to defend our victory.
The fact that this happened in New York,
because for anyone that's not familiar
with New York politics,
New York is known to be a very progressive state,
a very democratic state, a very left-wing state
where we have people that are really pro-communist,
pro-communism, pro-authoritarianism
in leadership positions in this state,
which is completely horrific and getting out of control.
And the point is that if you can see a decision like this,
if you can see a lawsuit like this be successful
in New York state, it sends a signal all over the country
and it tells other states, wait a minute,
if New York couldn't get away with that
and New York has a very liberal lean to it,
a very progressive lean to it,
what does that tell the other states?
A lot of times it'll tell the states,
well, we better not even try that
because if New York couldn't get away with it,
how could we possibly get away with it here
where we do have more protections for our citizens
and we do have more regard for the constitution
and existing state laws?
So number one, it sends a very clear message
to the other states in the nation
about what's going to happen
if you try to pass a right or promulgate a regulation
like this one, which was so horribly illegal
and unconstitutional, but it also gives people hope
because it tells citizens around the country
and possibly citizens around the world
that you can stand up, you can fight back,
when they are wrong, they are wrong
and there's still justice in the courts
that will uphold a just decision like this,
even in such a liberal blue state like New York state.
So really, I think the results of this win
are going to be very far reaching and very positive overall.
One thing I wanna point out, which is pretty sad
is that the mainstream media here in the United States,
even just here in New York state,
are not paying attention to this lawsuit
and not paying attention to our win.
We've had maybe one, the New York Post did an article
about this, but other than that,
all the press that we've been getting about this regulation
and about this win has come from,
we call it alternative media sources.
So bloggers, podcasters, local radio shows
have picked up the story, but those are local.
Those are not statewide.
Those are not, certainly not nationwide,
but yes, the mainstream media
is keeping this as wide as possible.
The reason, one of the reasons I think
is because this is an election year here in New York state.
So governor Hogle is up for election in November
as is our attorney general, Latisha James.
She's running for office again.
She wants to be reelected for another four years.
So I think they're trying to keep it very quiet
because if the voters actually knew what was going on
and that they're sitting governor
and they're sitting attorney general
or trying to overturn a decision that shot down
for all intents and purposes,
really they were quarantine camps.
I mean, it gave them the power
to create quarantine camps in New York.
If the voters actually knew about this,
I think a lot of voters,
no matter which political party they were a member of,
would be so up in arms that they would 100%
vote these two people out of office,
which is what needs to happen.
The change needs to happen
and the people have to go to the polls in November
and the people have to vote in a new governor
and they have to vote in a new attorney general
who actually have regard for the constitution,
for the laws of New York.
And I think if we can do that,
we will be in a significantly better position
than we are today.
That is for sure.
Excuse me.
So I can give you, I can drop it in the chat,
but I can give you a couple of websites
that you could take a look at if you'd like more information,
more details about the lawsuit and such,
and I'm happy to take questions.
But that's basically the overview
that I just wanted to provide to everybody
to give you kind of a background
of what this lawsuit was all about
and these significance of our win.
Beautiful.
Bobby and congratulations on that win.
That is indeed a big, that is indeed a big win.
If you can put the links to the judgments
and indeed the pleadings that would be useful
in the chat for everybody
because people should be running this case
in every state in the US against such regulations.
And the principle everybody get really clear
is that regulations can't be made contrary to existing laws.
That's the simple principle.
And so when their existing laws are in place in New York,
protecting freedoms, protecting human rights,
then elected officials can't simply declare an emergency
and thereby claim that they can do whatever they like.
That's the importance of this decision.
Now, Bobby and can you, how difficult was the case?
Two questions in particular, one, how long was the hearing?
And two, did the state of New York pull any procedural stunts
to prevent you getting into court?
Yeah, I'm sorry, Charles.
It was breaking up a little bit.
Could you just repeat the question?
Number one, how long was the hearing itself?
And number two, did the state of New York
try to pull any procedural stunts
to prevent you from running your case?
Yes, so I filed this lawsuit in April,
first week of April this year.
And the first thing that the attorney general did,
because the attorney general in New York state
represents the governor and the Department of Health.
The first thing they did was they removed the case
from state court to federal court.
We have two different court systems in the United States.
Every state has its own state system.
And then you also have the federal court system,
which is nationwide.
So they tried to remove the case,
or they did remove the case from state court
up to federal court.
They tried to say it was a federal case with federal issues
and that I was making federal claims, which was not true.
So I had to bring in a colleague of mine
who, because they removed the case to a federal district
in New York state where I am not currently admitted
to practice.
The federal courts,
you have to be admitted individually to each one.
So the one where I am admitted is near my home
and my office in the southern part of New York state.
And they removed it to a court
in the Western district of New York state.
So I'm doing this case pro bono.
And so it's very difficult to ask other people to help
because you're basically asking them to help for free
and volunteer their time
and not many people want to do that.
So I did have to reach out to a colleague
who was already admitted in that specific federal courts.
And he absolutely jumped on board, volunteered his time
and was excellent helping me very expeditiously, thankfully,
get back into state court.
And that was attorney Tom Marcel.
And he is actually now running
for New York state Supreme court judge.
And so that was one of the first things that they did
to try to derail our lawsuit.
The next thing that they did was,
so in this lawsuit,
I am representing a group of New York state legislators.
So Senator George Borrello,
Assemblyman Mike Lawler and Assemblyman Chris Tague
together with a citizens group
called Uniting New York State.
And so I'm representing the actual lawmakers
in the state government, in the state legislature.
So I have three who are named on the lawsuit
and then I'm representing the others
because we incorporate them through likeness basically.
So then there was another group of legislators
in New York state assembly
who wanted to become a part of the lawsuit.
And how they did that was by writing an amicus brief
to support my case.
And that was Assemblyman Andy Goodell
who's also an attorney,
Assemblyman Will Barkley and Assemblyman Joe Giglio.
And basically they got together, they wrote this brief.
It was authored by Assemblyman Andy Goodell,
brilliant brief.
And they filed it with the courts.
And they basically,
the attorney general's office basically said,
well, we object, we don't want this to be admissible.
We don't want the judge to read it and consider it.
Opposing an amicus brief is very rare.
It's not standard practice.
And it really shows that the attorney general
and the governor, I think they knew they had a losing case
and they were just doing everything they could
to try to slow it down.
And also, as I said, I'm doing it pro bono.
So they know that my resources are very limited
because I don't have paying clients on this.
I'm doing it out of my own volition and my own pocket.
So the state has all of our tax dollars
that they can use to help defend this.
So the more that they can throw at me,
the more that they can eat up my resources
and wear me down.
But we ultimately won.
We did do motion practice on that issue
and the judge did ruin our favor.
And he said that the amicus brief was going to be allowed.
And so they've been fighting tooth and nail,
basically is my point here.
And on the appeal, I am sure that they are going to try
to throw in everything that they possibly can on the appeal.
They're going to try and do a procedural excuse
to try and overturn it.
They're going to try and do legal excuse
and fight me on the law and stuff.
So I'm sure it's going to be a very detailed
and long appeal on this.
So I am asking people to help spread the word.
The biggest thing that we need right now is for New Yorkers,
I mean, Americans in general, but New Yorkers especially,
and even global citizens to know about this lawsuit,
to know about our win and to know about the appeal
that's going on.
Because the more people that know,
I think the more press that will pick it up,
if people know podcasters or newscasters
or newspaper writers or bloggers or whatever,
who would cover this story, please reach out to them.
Please have them reach out to me.
It's really important that we spread the word far
and wide about this.
It also, there are some international attorneys
that have heard about this win already,
and they've reached out to me to try to talk to me
and get some insight into what my arguments were
and how I structured the case in order to be successful.
And so I've been talking with them.
I'm happy to try to help other attorneys
who either want to specifically fight back
on quarantine issues,
or if there's other government overreach,
there are a lot of different kinds of COVID restrictions
that governments have been doing the past two plus years.
So this case could be a precedent or be a model
for not just those governments that are trying to employ
quarantine and isolation orders or facilities,
it could also apply to other COVID restrictions,
which are unconstitutional, illegal and such.
So it can hopefully help many people,
many attorneys stand up and push back in their state
or in their country,
because this is really a monumental win.
This was the only lawsuit, it wasn't just the first lawsuit,
this was the only lawsuit in the country of its kind.
There was no other lawsuit challenging isolation
and quarantine procedures.
So it's really, it's quite historic.
And again, I'm very happy to try to help whoever would like
to have assistance, but we definitely need to have the word spread
through alternative media or if anybody has contact
with mainstream media and they're willing to pick this up,
whether it's print, the Wall Street Journal,
or the Washington Times, the Washington Post,
any sort of publication that is willing to pick this up,
that has a nice reach, I'm happy to do an interview
or discuss talking points with them or whatnot,
because getting the word out there is tremendous.
I put it in the chat,
but I can definitely put it in here again.
Uniting New York State is the citizens group
that I'm representing along with this group
of New York State legislators.
And they set up a webpage specifically for this lawsuit.
It has a link to the regulation,
so you could read the regulation itself.
It has a link to the judge's decision,
so you could read what the judge wrote about it.
It has a press release.
It has press conference that we did,
I did with Senator Borrello,
Assemblyman Tague and Assemblyman Lawler.
When we first launched the lawsuit in April,
we did a press conference.
So the video to that is on this website.
And there's a list of things people could do
to get involved.
If people wanna volunteer,
if people wanna do media outreach,
there are flyers on that website
that people could either post.
You can take it, download it,
post it on your social media to help raise awareness,
or you can print out flyers and hand them out.
I mean, there's a multitude of things
that people could do to get involved.
And that's all at, again,
I will type it here into the chat.
It's unitingnys for Uniting New York State.
So unitingnys.com slash lawsuit.
And I'm going to also give an email.
So I'm kind of reading the chat as I'm talking,
but I'm not doing it to you.
Don't get distracted by the chat
because that's how the chat that goes on, Bobby Anne.
So we're gonna have questions of you,
hands go up so that's a more efficient way for you,
but we'll get to the chat to you at the end.
Or just save the chat anyway.
Okay.
That's terrific.
Yeah.
All right, so spread the word everybody.
And everybody please note the strategies
taken by government bodies
to make any legal proceedings difficult.
And so whilst there's been a conversation,
hey, lawyers aren't doing anything,
it's important to realize that the government
is doing every dirty trick in the book
that it can possibly do.
And Bobby Anne has given you a taste
of those types of dirty tricks.
Bobby Anne, traditionally questions first
come from Stephen Frost and then people put your hands up.
Stephen, do you have any questions of Bobby Anne?
Yes.
Just two seconds.
So well done Bobby Anne, absolutely brilliant.
And even better that you did it pro bono
because a lot of lawyers argue that they can't do anything
without any money, which is pathetic I think.
And also Tom who helped you, what a hero.
And the Senator and the two, there were two,
what were they?
I can't quite remember what they're.
Yes, in New York state we call them senators in one house
and then the other house are assemblymen.
So I have two assemblymen Lawler and Tague
on the lawsuit with Senator Borrello.
Do you think they would like to come on to speak to us or not?
Yeah, you broke up a little bit,
but I can certainly reach out to them
and see if they would be willing to come and speak.
I know one of them, assemblyman Michael Lawler
is actually now running for Congress,
which is our federal level of government.
So he's currently in the state of New York state government
and he's trying to run now for a seat in Congress
at the federal levels.
Are they in contact with Senator Ron Johnson?
I am not, no.
No, are they?
Oh, you're not in contact.
Okay, well I can put you into contact with him,
but they're not in contact with him, no?
I have not asked them.
I'm assuming not, but I have not asked them
that specific question.
Okay, because Ron Johnson, sorry.
So Ron Johnson is running for re-election I think.
So I just wanted to ask you, they're appealing,
but can you cross appeal?
Because it was past date 30.
I'm sorry, they're appealing and your question is what?
The question was, can you cross appeal?
He's already had a go.
No, Natalie is.
But there is no response.
Charles.
It's breaking up a little.
Got it.
Got it, ma'am.
For some reason I can't mute anybody, Charles.
I've got to instruct you, Stephen.
I'll make you, anyway, keep going with questions
of Bobby Anne.
Okay, so I wanted to ask you, Bobby Anne,
whether you can cross appeal.
Do you know what that is or is that just in the UK?
Yeah, no, you can do that in New York as well.
If there's an appeal by one side,
you do have the opportunity to cross appeal
and argue back the points.
I did have a couple of attorneys in Germany
ask if they could do an amicus brief
to support the appeal, which I'm looking into.
I'm not quite sure if you can do that
on an international level, but I am looking into that.
So have you reached out to, what is his name, Kennedy,
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.?
Yes, so I, yes, his organization is called
Children's Health Defense.
And I am in close touch with a number
of the Children's Health Defense leaders in New York State.
They know about my lawsuit.
They have been, now that we've won,
they have been very helpful in trying
to help spread the word.
They did have me on for a couple of interviews
on Children's Health Defense television.
So I've done a couple of interviews there with them
and the president of Children's Health Defense,
Mary Holland, who's also an attorney,
has been supportive and she's helping me spread the word.
They're doing an article in one of their publications
about the lawsuit and the win and the appeal.
And yes, Bobby Kennedy Jr., I know,
he was actually one of my professors in law school.
So I know Bobby and I told him about this lawsuit
just before I filed it.
I saw him at a function in New York City
and I told him about it.
So he was also supportive of it.
So-
Have you told him that you won it?
Does he know?
I have not spoken with him yet about that, no.
I think he knows through his network,
but I have not spoken directly with him about it.
So I just wanted to ask how many states
had this type of regulation concerning,
how many states out of the 50
have this type of regulation now?
So to my knowledge, New York was the only state
that had the regulation in place,
meaning that Governor Hokel has been promulgating
this regulation since she took office in August last year
when our former governor Cuomo stepped down.
She was the Lieutenant Governor
and she rose automatically to be governor.
So she's not even technically elected.
So she's been issuing this since last August
and basically, I mean, completely illegally
and with no regard to the fact that it is illegal.
And so, yeah, so she's been doing this consistently.
I don't know, I think Washington State,
which is out on the West Coast,
I think they have something in place.
I am not quite aware.
Somebody did mention it to me,
but I have not done any research to see what that is.
And California maybe?
California maybe?
No, California does not.
Okay.
California does not.
But what happens in the United States
is oftentimes you will see somebody,
something will happen in New York
and then all of a sudden, it becomes a trend.
So it was really important to stop this here in New York
because then, if I was not able to,
or if they went on appeal or something,
then certainly we would see it continuing
and taking hold in other states as well.
Yeah.
So, Bobbi-Ann, I just wanted to ask you,
so you don't know of any kind of regulation
which even comes near this regulation about the quarantine?
Is that right?
You're asking if I know any other regulations like this one?
You don't know of any other regulations
in any other state apart from Washington State,
is that right?
Correct.
I do not know of any that you know of.
I don't know of any that currently have
this regulation in place.
That doesn't mean that they,
maybe there are states that do,
but the people just don't know about it
and therefore, we haven't heard about it,
or perhaps they're contemplating it.
Yes, I understand.
It's in the works or something,
but I don't know of any that actually have it.
I believe New York was the first.
Yeah.
So I've got a question, Avery, do you know whether,
have you heard anything on C19D
surrounding that?
I haven't seen anything about this case
because I think it's, I mean, I could do it of course,
but I was interested to see whether it would actually hit
C19D, but I don't think it has.
So in that case,
The news media in this country has aired the success
that Bobbie Anne has had of winning this case.
So that's been out in the news.
I would just suggest to her,
if she wants to have a fairly easy route to an interview,
she may want to check with Newsmax amongst others
if she hasn't yet.
The other thing is I know in the state of Florida,
buried in our regulations,
there's something about the Department of Health
has the, or state surgeon general has the ability
to order certain things that can be done to people.
Laurie, you might want to chime in
if I'm incorrect about this,
but I know Sean McBride, the attorney here in Florida
has harped on this,
the fact that we need to make changes to subtleties
that are in our Florida state statutes
that would give the Department of Health
or the state surgeon general certain rights
that can encroach on our freedoms.
Is that right, Laurie?
Yeah, we definitely, so we do have this
and Bobbie Anne, from what I understand,
most states do have it.
And so even with great old Governor DeSantis,
we have its Florida statute 381.00315.
And just, this is reading from attorney Sean McBride's
warnings to us about how we're really not free here,
allows the state health officer
to order anyone to be quarantined, isolated, examined,
tested, or treated for public health
during a public health emergency,
and allows law enforcement to be used.
So we're trying to engage our sheriffs here,
like Micah was talking about,
because they're our bottom line.
They're the only ones who can stop this county by county.
And the other thing I wanted to tell you, Bobbie Anne,
is so I've worked with Ralph Larego,
I don't know if you're familiar with him in New York,
so he helps families who, like mine,
my sister was murdered in the hospital
by the CDC protocols.
So he helps families to try to get them the court orders
to get the patient the treatment that they need.
And he is head of the conservative party in New York,
and he can definitely connect you.
And I know would be very happy to book the governor
and the AG, so I would think that you connecting with him
and him knowing about your case,
I'm gonna email him and let him know about that,
because I think y'all can work together.
And he has so many connections to do that.
So yeah, Bobbie Anne, so I think we can help you,
but we need to know what you need,
and maybe you have not time to really think about it.
You said earlier, and I'd worked this out for myself,
and I'm not a lawyer,
that the New York State win is hugely important
for America in that other states will follow suit, hopefully,
or other lawyers will follow your example
and challenge this.
So Laurie thinks that they've got at least this regulation
in place in Florida.
It's for sure.
Yeah, it's for sure.
We're trying to fight it, we're trying to repeal it,
and Todd Callender would like to get with Bobbie Anne.
So the next question, Laurie, is why has no lawyer
in Florida challenged this?
And why has the attorney general in Florida
not said anything about it?
And why hasn't the Santa's listened to us about it?
I mean, we have been very vocal, very vocal.
They ignore us.
I mean, we did rallies, we did, I mean,
I hand delivered information to them.
So it's political right now.
He's trying to get reelected.
Well, it seems to me it's more than political.
It's lawyers who are sitting on their hands,
waiting for money to arrive,
which isn't going to arrive in what is an emergency
from all our points of view,
but not the kind of emergency that the WHO is talking about.
Well, Tom is on this call too,
and Tom has worked with Sean,
who's the attorney who's been screaming about this.
And they've actually met with legislators
and other attorneys.
So they're trying, it's just not,
I mean, that's why we're moving on.
Sorry to say a lot of attorneys won't do anything
if they're not paid.
And that's terrible.
Listen, listen, Steven, my name's Tom Maltourke.
I'm here in central Florida.
I'm with move freely America.org.
My state unit is move freely Florida.
We fight for medical freedom statutes at the state level.
You have to understand each state is different.
The laws are different.
Bobby Anne said New York had a law on the books
that been there since the 60s, and they went around it.
You have to understand in the US,
the politics at the state level is insane.
It's not just the federal insanity
that we see out of the Marxists in DC.
It's in Tallahassee here in Florida.
And DeSantis has done a great job generating a narrative
that this is a free state.
It's not.
If you look at the statutes, there are six statutes
that are anti-medical freedom.
They can quarantine us, force quarantine us,
and force treat us.
He signed that law in 2020,
like all the other governors did with the pandemic
and the scare tactics and COVID hysteria.
It's still with us at this time.
The lobbyists are knee deep in Tallahassee,
in these state capitals.
There is so much money to be made
with a force quarantine, force treatment law
for the Florida Hospital Association and for Big Pharma.
If they lose these laws, that is an income hit to them.
One of the reasons the Florida State Constitution
is so amended is because it's absolute gridlock
in Tallahassee.
You have three Republicans running the state.
DeSantis, Speaker Sprouls,
and Senate President, Wilton Simpson.
They fight like cats.
They don't legislate, they do deals.
It may benefit the people, but it benefits the politicians.
And if you look at the campaign finance donation page,
you will see millions and millions of dollars
flowing into political action.
This has nothing to do with what's right or what's wrong.
This is all about power, money, and authority.
And when DeSantis leaves and goes to Washington, DC,
I have run into the socialists in Tallahassee,
who are in geosynchronous orbit around state legislator
waiting to jump in.
Remember the crackhead, Gillum, Andrew Gillum,
he almost won.
These elections are not a done deal.
Nobody wants November, this fall, the midterms to happen.
There's so much in play here.
So you guys gotta understand something.
This is warfare.
They are at war against us.
They will come after people like Bobby Anne and her team.
They'll come after every single one of you.
They're probably watching this call.
Whatever country you live in, whatever state you live in,
whatever precinct, you better know the laws.
And you better take on your civic duty,
band together with citizens,
and fight this tyranny tooth and nail, and never give up.
Fight it to the death.
Take your rights back.
Take your sovereignty back.
This country was founded on state's rights
and state sovereignty.
We didn't want an almighty power in Washington, DC,
but by golly, we've got it
because we failed in our civic duty.
We were too busy raising our kids,
going to baseball games and watching the football game.
But it's time to get off the couch,
put down the remote, do what Bobby Anne did, and fight.
With all you've got, you've gotta fight.
We can sit around here and pee up a flagpole all day long,
but until we band together and fight
and do something like Bobby Anne did, which is Herculean,
and her work's not over.
They're coming after her.
Tom, are you the lawyer who helped Bobby Anne?
I'm not a lawyer.
I'm just a guy that's pissed off.
Yeah.
I'm a retired Marine fighter pilot.
I play for keeps.
Right.
Tom, are you in contact with the two generals
I'm in contact with?
Yes.
There's a bunch of people on here.
The Move Freely America is in 32 states.
In Florida, we have a massive coalition
of medical freedom people.
It's very powerful.
Lori's involved.
So we're fighting at the state level
to take back states' rights and state sovereignty.
Until we're successful at that,
we are going to get our asses handed to us
every single time.
And when we go to Tallahassee,
we've got all our ducks in a row.
And if it doesn't make political sense, it doesn't happen.
And by political sense, not us, we the people,
but them, the politicians with the big money lobbyists.
Because when you don't fulfill your civic duty
or whatever you call it in your country,
the lobbyists are gonna take over.
Every single federal and state politician
in the United States of America
has money in their pockets from big pharma.
And when this mandate came out,
that was $30 billion to big pharma
that did not have to go to sales and marketing.
That went straight to the bottom line,
into the political action funds,
and right to the politicians.
And don't you think the Senator Ron Johnson can help you?
He can't.
Why is he by himself?
Why?
Where's Ted Cruz?
Oh, that's right.
Ted Cruz's wife, Heidi, works for Pfizer.
Everyone, there's 120 state reps in Florida
and 40 state senators.
Every single one of them has big pharma money.
This is war, ladies and gentlemen.
It's time to stand up and fight.
You've gotta fight the forces of evil.
If you're a lawyer, you gotta fight like Bobby M.
If you're a doctor, you better fight like Robert Malone.
And if you're an ordinary citizen like me,
you better fight.
Now, I'm gonna shut up.
I recommend you let Hernan talk.
He's got his hand up.
That's a very, very smart man right there.
He's part of our coalition.
Right.
Charles?
Thank you.
Thank you, Tom.
Stephen, have you finished your questions of Bobby?
Well, I was in the middle of them.
Let me just have a look, Bobby.
So what I thought was, I think we can get you onto,
I don't know, Avery, could we get Bobby Anne onto Joe Rogan?
I mean, after that speech, I agree with you, Tom, by the way.
It may not make that much difference.
But so I think that a lot of people don't know
about Bobby Anne's victory,
and it's very important that they do know about it.
And it may have been mentioned on C-19D, Avery,
but I haven't seen it.
And that's a big miss in my opinion.
So they're all talking about the data
and they think it's all about the data
and it's not about the data.
It's about looking at cases like this,
which can be repeated all around America
and all over the world.
Stephen, I don't actually participate in C-19D.
It's too much chatter, too many messages,
most of which I found irrelevant last year.
I'm in C21X.
C21X is a lot more focused,
very, very focused on early treatment,
on the vaccines, on trying to get,
we're the ones that actually had that article last night
from Steve Kirsch that was shared.
So we've got a lot of people in our group, over 200.
I mean, you have Paul Alexander and Dr. Erso,
Dr. Amerling, who's in our group here in Florida.
The list goes on.
Kelly Vick.
Do any of those people in C21X,
you know, the people you're just talking about now,
do they know about this victory in New York State?
Because the victory in New York State,
if I'm not mistaken, is very important, isn't it, Bobby Anne?
New York State is not just any old state.
Isn't it the golden state?
I thought that was California.
Oh, I thought they had one on the East as well.
Maybe so.
I haven't seen a message on C21X.
I mean, it's been all matter.
Anyway, we're gonna get the message.
Let's work a strategy to get the message out.
Steven? Yeah, we need to think about it, yeah.
I'll get this out to C21X.
All right.
Charles, do you want to ask Hernan to speak?
We've got hands up, so let's get the hands.
So Bobby Anne, are you okay for the next 40 minutes?
We're going until the...
Yes.
What time would that be?
10.30 UK time, 8.30 AM Melbourne time.
So Hernan, next.
Thank you, Tom Alderick, for the shout out.
A very quick narrative.
The first one is in any war,
you look at the problem from a tactical
and a strategic level.
The majority of what I hear is at the tactical level.
So the question is,
what is our offensive plan at the strategic level?
And my follow-on question to that is,
why are we not working together to change the laws?
Okay, so the issue is,
there has to be a lot of volunteer effort involved.
What I have seen the last couple of years,
because before I brought this lawsuit
in the spring of this year,
I was doing a lot of advocacy work.
The last year, I was doing a lot of advocacy work.
The last two years, which happened completely.
It was not planned at all.
I was just practicing law, doing my thing.
And when March of 2020 came around
and they started locking people down in their homes,
yeah, I said, no, no, sorry.
This is not how government works.
Everybody's gone completely crazy.
The constitution was not written
to keep the people in check.
The constitution was written
to keep the politicians in check.
So I started to speak out
and people were reaching out texts, phone calls, emails.
Nobody knew, do I have to lock down?
Do I have to shut my business?
Can I go to work?
Can I open my store?
Can I open my restaurant?
Am I gonna get arrested?
People didn't know what was going on.
What was legal?
What wasn't?
What was constitutional?
What wasn't?
So I actually just started making videos
and posting them on the internet for free,
just for people to get information
so they could understand what was going on.
So I started posting on Rumble,
first YouTube and then they censored me.
So then I went over to Rumble.
So I actually, I don't post often now
because I'm very, very busy with this case and other work.
But the name on Rumble is All Things Lawyer,
is the name of the channel.
But my point is that people don't typically step up
and do something unless they are being directly
and imminently threatened with something
that they don't like.
So if people hear about, even with my lawsuit
for quarantine camps, right?
I mean, you would think people
would be completely outraged,
but a lot of people hear about it and then they say,
well, I can't imagine that the state
would actually enforce that.
I can't imagine that they would actually do that.
Or I haven't heard of anybody actually getting locked up.
So unless they're actually knocking on someone's door
and saying, we're taking your child now
and we'll let you know when you get to see them again,
a lot of people aren't gonna step up
and volunteer their time.
So it comes down to trying to get organizations
that already exist that are fighting other fights
to come together on, for example, this issue,
because in my opinion and in the judge's opinion on my case,
cause he asked this during oral arguments
when the attorney general and I were sparring
during oral arguments in court,
he said, isn't having a quarantine or isolation order
a lot different than having to wear a mask?
Doesn't it violate a significant human right
to move freely about your life?
And of course the attorney general said, no,
there's no difference between having to wear a mask
or being locked up for days or weeks or months on end
without any proof that you actually did anything wrong.
So this is a topic that I think everybody globally
should be concerned with.
And we're actually seeing these quarantine facilities,
these forced quarantines in countries,
obviously China, but in Canada, in Australia,
I mean, you're seeing these things happen.
And so here in the United States or here in New York,
it's hard to get people to move and do something
because it's not in their face
and it's not knocking on their door.
But I do think that it is very important topic.
If something like this takes hold in New York,
guaranteed 1000%, it will spread like wildfire
across the country.
The other states will look and say, well, wait a minute,
wait a minute, New York is allowed to forcibly quarantine
and isolate their citizens.
So can we, we're gonna do it too.
We saw this with, we've seen it for a long time,
but most recently, I'll give an example
because it's restricting freedom and religious beliefs.
We saw it when New York state in 2019
got rid of the religious exemption possibility
for children getting a vaccine.
So in 2019, New York state legislature changed their law
to say that a child cannot be exempt from getting a vaccine
for a religious purpose, for a religious meaning.
And then all of a sudden, oh, wait a minute,
now New Jersey tried to do it.
Wait a minute, now Connecticut did it.
It actually passed in Connecticut last year.
So now Connecticut, you can't have
a religious exemption either.
So things start to trickle out from New York
and then they just spread.
And then once they go to all the blue states,
eventually they're gonna go to all the states.
And then the federal government comes in and says,
oh, well, look, all the states like this law,
they all have it.
Now we're gonna do it at the federal level
because obviously that's what the citizens want
because look at all the states that already have it.
So it's just, it's tyranny.
It's tyranny like unbelievably.
And it's gotta be stopped here and now
because now other states can look and say,
oh gosh, that got shot down in New York.
Yeah, okay, well, I guess I shouldn't try it
because if New York couldn't get away with it,
certainly we can't get away with it.
But that's why fighting this appeal is so crucial
because if they are able to overturn this decision,
now we're back to square one
where the regulation will become valid again.
And now we're back to square one
fighting against complete tyranny
and then having it spread across the country to other states.
And once it's across the country to other states
or once it's federal in the United States,
I think we all know what's gonna happen
to all the other countries around the world
when they're saying, well, wait a minute,
the United States is allowed to forcibly quarantine
or isolate their people without any proof
that they did anything wrong.
They don't have any proof they actually have a disease.
So it's just a little tiny thing to some people.
Like somebody in Kansas or somebody in Oregon or whatever
saying, oh, well, who cares if New York's governor
is allowed to force her citizens into quarantine
without proof of anything?
It does matter to the person sitting at their table,
having dinner in Kansas because Kansas is gonna come,
it's gonna come to you next.
And then once it's across the country, in this country,
where are you going to go and hide?
Like it's just, it's tyranny
and it's going to become prevalent if we don't stop it.
And in my opinion,
here is where we stop it at the nugget, right?
We're stopping at a ground zero if we can stop here
for the reasons that I've laid out already.
And just to go back one minute
to what Lori was saying earlier, I believe it was Lori,
about Florida having a law.
So the difference, every state,
what Tom was saying is correct.
Every state is different.
You have different state governments
and they're comprised of different people
and parties and whatnot.
So the different states have different rules,
different regulations, different laws.
But if there's, New York does have a quarantine law.
It's section 2120 of the public health law.
So if Florida has one too, I'm not surprised.
New York has one, we've had it for 70 years,
but it has a lot of due process protections
for the citizens built into it.
So you can't, an agency cannot just say on a whim,
oh, there's no health emergency.
I think Mr. Smith, or I think this whole group of people
who went to this political fundraiser
for the governor's opponent,
I think all those people now have whatever, tuberculosis
or COVID or whatever's on their list.
We need to lock you guys all up.
There's a big difference between that
and going through the law that has passed and on the books
and has protections built into it.
So you have to kind of look on a case by case basis,
you have to look and see what are you challenging
or what are you upset about?
What are you in up and arms about?
Is it legal?
Is it constitutional?
Or is it a complete thrashing of the constitution?
It's very case specific.
It's very case specific as law always is.
Okay, so very good.
Bobby Hoonan, your question has been answered.
Well, to a degree, the basic point that I'm making here
is that they are changing the laws, we are not.
And we, as a bunch of different organizations
have to converge together
on a set of mutually agreed upon model legislation.
I have started that process already,
MedicalFreedomAct.org.
We're not an organization, we're a movement
and you guys can all adopt it.
Feel free to work with us to get it changed.
But we have to start doing
what the World Economic Forum is doing, regulatory capture.
We have to retake back the laws of our country and our state.
That has to be our ultimate long-term 20-year goal.
There's no other solution.
Excellent, thank you Hoonan.
So put your, that's the website, MedicalFreedomAct.org.
Yes, sir, that's it.
Excellent, everybody please take note, check it out.
And well done on the work that you are doing Hoonan.
Jerry from Ireland, next question
because we've got half an hour left.
We've got a few hands up.
So, and Bobby Hoonan, be quick on the quickfire answers.
I know you can, you're a lawyer
so you can give extensive answers.
So let's do the summary answers.
Otherwise we will be running out of time.
Jerry.
Yet again, I'll introduce myself.
I'm an Irish GP of 40 years
who has struck off the medical register for refusing
to go along with the hoax of COVID-19,
for refusing to get the PCR test done,
for refusing to wear a mask,
for refusing to take part in the social isolation
and refusing to give the messenger RNA assault.
That's who I am.
I would like to thank Bobby, Laurie, Tom and Hernan
for their very positive and heartfelt attack on this hoax
and the fight that they're putting up.
I have said, and I will continue to say,
if you don't, if you're not prepared to go all in
on this game of poker,
you don't understand the gravity of the situation.
This is the greatest crime in not only medical history
but in world history.
And it'll probably have the greatest consequences
with possibly millions and hundreds of millions
of people dead as a direct result of this vaccine.
So as I say, if you don't,
if you're not prepared to be all in,
well, then you don't understand the gravity of it.
And that's up to us, particularly us doctors,
because we're the people.
This is a medical problem.
Us doctors have the responsibility to educate people
and make them understand the gravity of this condition.
What I would say is, talk about all in.
We have to fund those people who are fighting on our side.
Now, unfortunately, when money comes into things
and crowdfunding and GoFundMe
and the sort of green-eyed monster comes up
and the possibility of embezzlement in that,
I made a commitment a couple of weeks ago to Albert
that I intend to keep,
to help finance his research into VAERS.
And my problem is just getting the money
to Albert, which I want to do and I will do.
But overall, as I say, if we're not prepared
to shove our hand across with our full bet,
we need to go all in on this game
because they're all in and we need to be.
Overall, I, you know, I'm not going to be all in
I would like to thank Bobby and those.
And the other point I'd like to make would be,
we need a pool, the amicus briefs
that Bobby was talking about,
she, you know, gave the impression
that she found some of them very helpful.
I think we need a pool.
I am facing the medical council in whenever
there's a concept of justice denied
or justice delayed is justice denied.
I have been temporarily suspended
from the medical register for what, 17 months now.
So that's kind of justice denied.
So I, in effect, have been struck off.
My business is destroyed.
So what I would like to do,
I'd like to be able to get my hands
on those type of amicus briefs and the judgements in that.
Now I know the judge, I've already read the judgment
that Bobby has put up,
but I'd like to be able to get my hands,
I'd like to be able to get my hands on it relatively easily
because I'm an old dinosaur, as far as computers go.
And getting onto a Zoom call is sometimes difficult for me.
Nevermind go searching through the chats and that.
So as I say, I would like to have access to these things
because I'm not legally represented as of yet
in my defense against the medical council.
So thanks folks for all the effort you're putting in.
We need you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jerry.
And it's in the chat.
We'll make sure that you do get access to those papers.
Well said.
All right.
Jerry, great work.
Glenn now.
Glenn from the USA, Bobby.
Bobby Anne.
Yes.
This is a very interesting group.
Joining us Bobby, Lori, Tom and Hernan.
I've been involved in a variety of activities.
I'm the founder and chairman of the Unity Against COVID.
A major element of what I've worked on
is around providing public comment into the FDA process.
I started in October, I repeated it in February
when they attempted the six months to five-year-olds
and repeated again in June when they went ahead
and did it again and passed it with virtually
no positive aspects to any of the randomized control trials.
As part of that effort, we were able to encourage the public
to submit 130,796 comments to the FDA.
Now part of the FDA's process is that they must consider
and make available to the staff
all of the comments that are submitted.
However, the process for making available
is moving something from submitted to posted.
As of the decision date of the FDA,
there were zero posted submissions.
This is a massive coverup of a grand scale.
Not only did they not keep up with the count
that were there, they intentionally blocked any.
It's zero, there's never been a case of this,
I would guess in any agency on any regulation.
This is just one of many cycles
of what we're seeing is coverup.
That is hundreds to thousands of times worse
than what we saw in Watergate.
And where is our press to help on this?
Nowhere.
So I did join with Leslie Minuchian and Naomi Wolf
as part of the process for suing the Biden administration
and the FDA is you must start with something called
the citizen's petition.
So these elements of coverup that I just described
have been put into that citizen's petition
as well as a number of other entries
that they had already been working on.
So that is an active process.
It's a confusing one in that the federal courts
require you to go through this step
before they actually allow the suit.
But it is in progress and that citizen petition
is available online.
I've also been pursuing some other avenues.
And so some things I wanted to alert you to
that to some extent as a non-lawyer,
I'm a retired engineer.
I was not aware of and I've actually been quite surprised
how many other people are unaware of.
The first amendment is an extraordinarily powerful
piece of legislation.
Many people think it's just the freedom of speech,
but in fact, it's freedom of religion,
it's freedom of speech, it's freedom of press,
it's freedom to peacefully assemble.
It's only 45 words, it covers all of those things.
And there's one other element to it.
And that's the petition clause.
I'm gonna read you the essence of what you end up with
when you walk through the first amendment,
just addressing the petition clause, 20 words.
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people
to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now, first amendment, that means the Supreme Court
will support everything that's in that statement.
One of the things we've heard about is the people
getting targeted for domestic terrorism,
things like people speaking up
at a board of education meeting.
What I'm trying to identify here is if one is careful
and one approaches their grievances
exactly like the petition clause of the first amendment,
you are absolutely protected.
You are protected by the Supreme Court,
you are protected by the constitutional sheriffs,
you should be protected by local law enforcement
as well as every attorney,
every prosecutor in the country.
Now, that doesn't mean you will get that support immediately,
but you should be assured that it will arrive for you
if that were the case.
So keep in mind, it is a petition clause,
it requires that you petition the government
for a redress of grievances.
So you need to state your grievances
and you need to state what you believe
is an appropriate redress to correct it.
If you do that combination of things,
we are the only country in the world
that has that kind of first amendment
and in this particular case,
a direct ability to petition our government for action.
The item of that elk that I'm also working on,
I'm not gonna go into a lot of detail at this point,
but that's around terminating the national emergency.
The original national emergency was put in effect
on March 13th, crazy Friday the 13th of 2020.
It has been renewed each year.
However, there's pending bills in the US Congress
to repeal and to terminate that national emergency.
It's called joint resolutions.
There is a joint resolution that is in the Senate
and has already passed.
It passed by 48 to 47 on March 3rd of 2022.
So the job is half done.
The comparison one for the House of Representatives
is HJRES, R-E-S dot 46.
And it is pending and we believe
that there should be a concerted effort
to engage our public and to move this forward
to press our congressmen to support that termination
of the national emergency.
So I'm curious to what degree any of the four of you,
Bobby, Laurie, Tom, or Hernan had been thinking
in that terms.
I'm also curious, I've had various people describe to me
some of the powers that the sheriffs can bring to bear.
And if there have been any actions around engaging
the sheriffs as an alternative law enforcement mechanism
that can be engaged by the public
without having to go to court in all of its delays
and all of its extra costs.
Thank you.
Thank you, Glenn.
Bobby, Anne, first, you, what are your thoughts
on Glenn's well-articulated
and well-thought through strategies?
Yeah, so thank you, Glenn.
You know, somebody had put me in touch with Leslie
briefly through email.
We haven't really connected in a detailed manner.
And then also somebody had connected me with Naomi Wolf
also through email, but we have connected either.
But I know that your organization is pretty vast
from what I hear and that you guys are doing great things
with Leslie and Naomi and this new law student stuff.
And then being able to use that,
like I think Naomi Wolf has a forum where she has
an audience and whatnot, it's like interviews and stuff.
I would be happy to go on her show and answer questions
and talk to people about this and help raise awareness
and educate people because this is an information war.
You know, censorship is real.
Censorship is terrible.
Censorship can get us into the mess that we're in
and can prevent us from getting out of the mess
that we're in.
And, you know, my lawsuit is being censored.
The regulation for the whole forced quarantines
is being censored.
You know, anytime I turn to try and say something,
do something to speak out, it's being censored.
So anyone that has outlets, groups, organizations,
or regulation that have a platform,
getting this word out on your platform, like I said,
I'm happy to do an interview or answer questions
or, you know, whatever the case may be,
to effectuate an education about this regulation,
about our lawsuit, about the fact that we want
and about the fact that now, you know,
we have to stave off an appeal.
Stave off an appeal.
And just to go back for a minute to earlier,
what the gentleman earlier was saying,
I think it was Hernan was saying it, you know,
they're changing the laws, they're doing this.
We need to change the laws.
We definitely do need to effectuate change
the way they are.
Lawsuits, I've said this from day one.
You know, I've been speaking out for a couple of years now
about this stuff.
I've said this from day one.
One lawsuit is not going to free a nation
or free a world.
It's gonna help, but there has to be things,
other things that are being done too.
It has to be a multi-pronged approach.
We have to be coming at this problem from different levels
and from different angles in order to be truly successful
and to be successful so that, you know,
we don't lose a lot of time and ground in the process
or in the meanwhile.
So lawsuits definitely are needed, absolutely 100%.
And nobody was taking up this lawsuit.
So I took it up myself.
And to go back to someone's point about, you know,
everybody, you know, lawyers wanna get paid.
I understand, you know, very, very few people
can work for free.
I can't afford to work for free, trust me.
I have a lot of responsibilities,
but it wasn't about working for free versus getting paid.
It was about, there is no way I am going to let this stand
because this is so wrong
from not just a constitutional standpoint,
from a human civil rights standpoint.
And, you know, was I looking to move out of New York?
Was I shopping around for a place in Florida, let's say,
where it's much more free?
Yeah, who wouldn't wanna leave a state
that's trying to do this?
But the reason I didn't leave is because if I leave
and nobody else is standing up to fight this,
who's gonna fight it?
No one's gonna fight it.
And if nobody's gonna fight it, it's gonna stand.
And if it stands, now we're in big trouble
because now it's gonna spread across the country.
So, you know, it's a matter of, you know,
some people say to me, oh, I wanna help, I wanna help.
What can I do?
I'm not a lawyer.
You know, you don't have to be a lawyer.
You don't have to be a paralegal.
You don't have to be a doctor or a scientist.
And you don't have to be on the front lines
because a lot of people say,
I'm afraid of cancel culture.
You're like, I can't afford to lose my job.
You know, I'm the breadwinner in my family.
Trust me, I totally get that.
I 100%, I understand that.
But then stand behind and support somebody
who is willing to be on the front lines.
Somebody who is willing to risk their reputation.
Somebody that is willing to stand up
and lose a lot in the face of doing what's right.
You know, make a donation.
I mean, if nothing else, make a donation.
And no donation is too small because again,
I'm doing this for free.
So, you know, we have a donate button
on unitingnys.com slash lawsuit.
And you know, people can donate or back somebody
who's running for office, who's willing to make a change,
who's willing to stand up for the people,
volunteer on their campaign or help promote them,
go on social media and just promote them.
You know, there are a thousand things
that people can do to help and still stay behind the lines.
You know, still stay behind the scenes
if they are, you know, not excited about
or uncomfortable with being on the front line.
So, you know, I applaud everybody on this call
for standing up and stepping out and speaking up.
And I think if people have connections
that can help me get the word out,
the bigger the platform, the better,
but I am happy to go on smaller platforms too.
It's just the word has to come out.
Bobby Anne, there's a lot of links in the chat
that you will find useful now.
Hernan and Laurie and Tom, by the way,
Tom, your words keep ringing in my ears.
Take on your civic duties, which is what Bobby Anne is saying.
You can take on your civic duties by supporting people.
You don't have to be on the front line.
Take on your civic duties, take on your sovereignty.
So Glenn asked a specific question,
bringing to our attention this first amendment issue.
Hernan or Laurie, do I have anything to say?
Well, we did have Sheriff Mack.
I don't know if you're familiar with him, Glenn,
but Sheriff Mack just had a press conference last week
with sheriffs that he's been working
with constitutional sheriffs
to fight the election integrity issue.
And so we've joined with him to try to fight
this exact issue that Bobby Anne.
So this is just a complete God thing.
And I thank you, Dr. Brinkley
for inviting me to the call and Stephen for welcoming it
to all of the people on our team,
because Nick Catarano, who's on this call,
he is the one who filed the case against Disney.
Okay, I mean, we've got people on here.
He has tremendous media contacts that can help.
And I mean, I'm stunned that I didn't know about this.
I mean, we've been really working to try to,
you know, see what we could do to get the Santas
to repeal the quarantine act.
And here we have Bobby Anne, thank you so much, you know,
for doing what you're doing,
because we're gonna jump on it.
I mean, that's one thing here in Florida, we are workers.
And I mean, I spend more time volunteering than my real job.
I mean, my family, you know, is like you're saying,
you know, we need to make money,
but God is calling us to do this and we are doing it
and we are working and we're just using every contact we can.
I mean, this is God's day, Sunday,
and it's turning out to be like the busiest day
I always work, you know, it's amazing
because he just keeps putting these people together.
So we were brought together for this.
And I know, I mean, Bobby Anne, Ralph Larego
and Beth Peralato are both in New York.
Beth Peralato has her own law form.
She was gonna work with Alliance Defending Freedom.
So we've got to get you connected with them.
And I know Nick, if you wanna jump on Nick real quick
and just tell her what, you know,
how you can get her with the media
because we definitely need to get this out there.
It's like you said, who would not want to know
that they are very close to being locked up?
I mean, we have a FEMA camp, it's in Miami.
It's ready to go, you know?
I mean, people don't even know this.
So go ahead, Nick.
I was gonna say, Bobby Anne,
well, we had a really hard time
when we were bringing a lawsuit against Disney
and we did it twice.
The media here locally covered it very unsubstantially.
You know, they gave us like a five second news clip
or sound bite, but we had Undercover DC.
I have a contact over there.
I think that could pick it up.
I saw there was a Stu Peters video.
She attached one of the videos,
one of the interviews I did,
and it helped get a lot of traction.
And from there, Epic Times is somebody
we work with quite a bit.
And if Epic Times picks it up,
it will spread around the nation.
They really have good coverage.
They have really good readership.
And from there, the AP picked it up.
Once the AP picked it up, everybody came calling.
So I think I would recommend it
and maybe Lori get her contact
and let's put her in touch with our contacts at Epic Times.
And let's see if we can get that story told.
I just sent your information over to somebody I know
that does press, works with Clay Clark,
works with all those people in the background.
So I'll see what she'll have to say when she responds,
but we'll work on helping you get a little bit of traction.
Mel Kay, I don't know if you've talked with Mel Kay.
I could put you in contact with her show.
She definitely has quite an audience that picks up traction.
There's a lot of the smaller stuff,
but I think you've got to grind it out.
And Epic Times is one of those things that crosses
right in between those conservative smaller papers,
but it also crosses into the mainstream
and that will give you a launch pad.
Excellent.
Kudos to Bobby and it's hard these days to get AGs
to engage, but you went the extra steps
and got your legislature to join into your suit.
And I think that probably gave you a lot of clout.
Yeah, Nick, well done on your work.
And Nick, your steps, how you articulated
how it was difficult to get publicity initially,
that's well put.
And Bobby Anne, as Stephen said,
there's a lot of people here who can help you,
who are willing to get the message out.
And you know, Laurie, the fact that I didn't know this case
and Laurie, you didn't know the case.
So this has been fantastic.
Tom, do you want to say anything or her none?
And just everybody grievances,
grievances, petitions for grievances.
Just keep with that in the back of your mind,
because that's the issue that Glenn has raised,
a very interesting one, that if you are entitled
to stand up in public and ask for support
for petition against grievances and what the solution is.
So her none, anybody?
Otherwise we'll go to Anna.
Yeah, I'll make one last plug here.
And if I could then defer to Tom Alterick,
he's more well-spoken and he outranks me anyway.
Our lawyers are our frontline warriors.
However, we need to supply our frontline warriors,
the lawyers, with the proper legal framework
by which they can win these wars.
And like it's already been identified,
the laws in each state are very different.
In Florida, despite having a very good governor,
unfortunately his staff maybe did not read
or purposely did not allow him to read
the complete contents of current legislation.
So what's happening here is strictly a political battle.
And that's where I think, again,
we need to focus our efforts on changing all the laws
at the state and federal level,
because our grand objective needs to be
to constrain government and corporations.
Again, medicalfreedomact.org,
it's a concept, not an organization.
I hope that all your organizations
can adopt Medical Freedom Act as a concept
that you can all tactically implement with all your members.
Tom Alterick.
Thank you.
Thank you, Charles.
I'll make it quick.
I don't mean to take up all the time.
What's gotten us into this trouble
is that the constituents have forgotten
about their civic duty.
Here in this country, our constitution in the US
was built on self-governance and civic duty.
And I'll be the first to admit,
I should have been doing this activism 15 years ago,
not a year ago.
Lack of constituent engagement in any country,
lack of involvement with your making your laws
is what's dug us into this hole.
People like Bobbie Ann can't keep fighting this stuff
in courts.
She said it herself.
The federal government, the state government,
a lot of times they just print money
and they can litigate you to death.
They don't have to be right.
They'll bury you in evidence
and they can litigate you on and on and on.
The fact that Bobbie Ann got this done is miraculous,
especially in New York state.
And so they're gonna come after her.
So the key here for everybody, I believe,
don't miss this takeaway.
Medicalfreedomact.org provides framework,
but people like Bobbie Ann and the doctors
who are the two primary counter-attack,
we're counter-attacking legally,
we're counter-attacking medically,
but the constituents have to come up the middle
and the constituents have to be present.
We have to be there talking to our legislators
saying this will not stand.
It will not go any further.
So if the constituents in your country
or your state or your province
are not willing to involve themselves in some way,
write the check, make a donation,
go talk to your legislator, something,
if you're not willing to fulfill your civic duty
of where you live, then you are a waste of oxygen
because the World Health Organization,
Klaus Schwab, George Soros, Bill Gates,
they're coming after us and they're just getting started.
That's all I'll say.
I would love to hear from Tom Bogart.
Thank you, thank you, Tom.
Okay, Anna, next.
Oh, so there's another Tom on the call, Tom Bogart.
Yeah, so I got that.
Anna's had her hand up and then we'll go to Tom Bogart.
Hi.
First of all, Bobby, and thank you so much.
I really, really appreciate the work you're doing.
Is that okay?
I think it could.
Take your video off for the moment.
Yeah, it might be.
I might have to turn off my video.
I'll turn off my video.
Yeah.
Hi, Bobby.
Yeah, so first of all, I'm a senior UK citizen
So first of all, I'm a senior UK solicitor.
I'm also a retired army officer.
So first of all, I wanted to say,
I totally think Tom is saying, Tom Alterick, right?
But in the UK, and I'm assuming it's the same in America,
it's higher than a civic duty because if you omit to act,
then you are on the face of it,
aiding and abetting complicit in the crimes
that are happening.
So it's not simply a duty.
You are literally exposing yourself
to personal criminal civil liability
by failing to take any action.
And it's a point I make to people
and they're astonished by that.
So I'd like to make that for everyone here.
But the question I have for you, Bobby Anne,
is are you a military person?
Do you have a military background?
No, I do not.
No?
No.
Me, I don't know.
No, okay, because have you yourself read
the Geneva Conventions or the Neuremberg?
You're breaking up a bit there.
You asked if I've read.
So what she said, Bobby Anne, she said,
have you read the Neuremberg conventions and,
sorry, the Neuremberg Code and the Geneva Conventions?
That was the question.
Yeah.
No, the Neuremberg Conventions.
The Neuremberg Judgment.
Sorry, Neuremberg Judgment, sorry.
But no, I'm not familiar with the documents
that you're referring to,
although I am familiar with the Neuremberg Code.
Anne?
Okay, the reason I are not, yeah, yeah.
The reason I ask is this.
I have not met a single lawyer or spoken to a single lawyer
who has actually read the Geneva Conventions,
nor have I met one who's read the Neuremberg Judgments.
Now, that legal framework is precisely what is occurring
what needs to be applied in this situation
if we are all agreed that we are indeed at war,
which we are, and that this is bio warfare
and other means and methods of warfare
that are being deployed upon them.
Now, the analysis from experts around the world
is that we are indeed at war
and that there are various means and methods
and weapons being deployed against.
And therefore, everybody needs to be reading
the Geneva Conventions and reading the judgments
because they all make it abundantly clear
that any kind of men, any kind of isolating people,
quarantine, et cetera, is a prohibited act
of unlawful warfare.
And it amounts to a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions.
And that invokes the right to self-defense,
which poses a breach of the peace
and a national security threat, right?
So when Tom says that we've got the legal profession
and the medical profession and the citizens,
we've also got the military
because the UK Ministry of Defense manual
on the law of armed conflict specifically says
that's the UK's understanding and interpretation
of the law of armed conflict.
Specifically states in chapter seven, paragraph seven five,
that medical interventions and treatments
must be given with informed consent freely given.
And if you fail to do that,
you've committed a prohibited act of unlawful warfare.
Now, what I despair about
is that there are all these lawyers around the world
and yet they're applying a legal framework
within the law of armed conflict
when we're all saying we're at war.
So first of all, I'm astounded,
but secondly, I'm appealing to everyone.
Please read those material.
You cannot understand what's going on.
Also, Anna, I think you would agree with me
that the Nuremberg judgment
is about events which took place in the second world war.
And at the time,
human medical experimentation was taking place.
And that's exactly what's taking place now.
So the whole, all the masks, the-
Exactly that's-
Yes, all the measures in inverted commas,
that's human medical experimentation.
If you don't read the Nuremberg judgments,
then you do not understand the nature
of human medical experimentation
in times of a medico-political alliance.
And that's what we've got now.
So I cannot, I agree with you, Anna,
it's very important because you've jogged me to realize,
again, I used to say this about three months ago
and I've forgotten,
but this is really important to understand.
If you don't understand
that this is human medical experimentation,
which is expressly forbidden by the Nuremberg code,
is not just informed consent,
it's all the rest, animal trials, there are 10 points there.
And all the lawyers should know about the Nuremberg code,
but they should also read the judgment,
the Nuremberg judgment and the Geneva conventions.
I agree with you, Anna.
Anna, okay.
So if I could just-
I'll be in.
Yeah, so I'll just say real quick that
that is not applicable to my lawsuit.
So the reason I won my lawsuit, I'm pretty sure,
is because I did not bring science into it.
And so attorneys have to have,
you have to have a strategy with your lawsuit
and you can't just throw everything in,
plus the kitchen sink,
because it's just not the way to succeed.
So my strategy was I'm going to sue over
the legal issues.
And in my papers, I specifically say
this lawsuit is not about the science.
It is not about the effectiveness
of quarantining individuals
in order to stop the spread of a disease.
That is not what I'm asking the court to rule on.
That is not any part of this lawsuit.
I want the court to rule on whether or not
the governor and her department of health
have the power to issue this regulation,
yes or no, black and white, that's it.
Do they have the power or don't they?
And that's why I won.
Because when you start to bring in
all of these other things
and you want to have 5,000 expert witnesses about science,
judges, at least not in New York state
and probably not in this country,
judges do not want to rule on science
because they're not scientists, they're not doctors,
they're not trained for that.
So they want to rule on law
and they're going to rule on law most easily
and most comfortably.
So it goes back to what I was saying before,
you have to know what you're dealing with
and who your audience is.
So you have to know what the regulation
or the law is that you're challenging
and you have to know who your audience is,
meaning what court are you in,
so that you can come up with a strategy
that's going to be a winning strategy.
So that's one thing I wanted to point out.
And the other thing I wanted to point out is that
it's very easy to get lost.
The attorney general in this case
was trying to bring the science into it.
They were trying so badly to bring the science into it.
They wanted to muddy the waters,
they wanted to confuse the judge,
they wanted to bring in things
and say I was arguing things that I wasn't arguing
and I had to keep pulling it back on track.
That's not what I'm talking about.
This is what I'm talking about.
That's not what I'm talking about.
This is what I'm talking about.
So you have to,
I know you're not a group of attorneys.
I know we have a few attorneys on here,
but it's a little bit more complex than just saying
you need to read a certain document
or a certain set of rules on an international level
and then go and sue on it
and think that you're going to win.
You really have to break it down.
That's why lawsuits are so time consuming
and cost so much money
is because the time it takes to do the research,
to draft everything and to have a winning case,
it's an exorbitant amount of time.
It really is.
So-
Okay, sorry.
Sorry, can I just come back on that
because presenting science to the court,
I'm talking about grave breaches
of the law of armed conflict.
I'm talking about the prohibited acts
of unlawful warfare are being committed.
Nothing to do with science
and everything to do with the law of armed conflict,
which must be upheld.
And from where we're sitting in the US
is to have declared war on us
because they're committing prohibited acts
of unlawful warfare, not only on each other,
but through their products on us here in the UK.
Okay?
So as I'm speaking, my heart's racing
because I'm very frustrated.
None of the lawyers seem to recognize
that these are prohibited acts of unlawful warfare.
I'm not talking about the science.
But you are talking about the science
because as soon as you say that it's unfair
and it's, wait a minute,
as soon as you say it is unauthorized acts
of doing experiments on people,
this doesn't work, this kills people, this and that,
you're talking about science
because now the question has to become a question of fact.
Does this vaccine work?
Does this do it?
No, I'm not.
Does the vaccine work?
It would come into the lawsuit in a scientific manner.
I'm not.
You're breaking that balance.
I'm not, I'm not.
It's a much simpler point.
You cannot give medical treatment without consent.
Okay, it's a more simple point.
It's nothing to do with,
it's you cannot give medical treatment or intervention.
That is the real act of war.
There's no debate about it.
It's whether or not you've given a medical treatment or not.
True.
Anna, Anna, Anna, Anna, everybody.
And you make the point beautifully.
We're dealing with Bobby Anne's excellent case.
What you're raising is another case
and you're raising it to the attention of the people here
very effectively and we're going fast past time.
And so it's not that people are ignoring you Anna,
it's people have taken notes and you've raised it
and the reminder,
the Geneva Convention is relevant.
Those are, there are other situations,
not Bobby Anne's situation,
where raising a case before the courts is entirely relevant.
So you are not being ignored.
And we've got to get to Tom Bogart
and Jim and Avery and we've got to finish this call.
And by the way, after this meeting,
there was another telegram video chat that happens.
Tom Rodman has put that link for those who can,
who wish to continue the conversation.
So, and I've taken a note of that
because I think prohibited,
the words are prohibited acts of unlawful warfare.
And as I said, Tom Alterick before,
take on your civic duties,
support people like Anna in those cases.
Tom Bogart.
Hello, Charles.
And thank you for having me on the call today.
Sorry for spamming the chat earlier.
Anybody interested in understanding what's going on
with the US hospital system and COVID and money
and all that document is posted in the chat
a handful of times, very important information,
highly detailed, no fluff, no slant, all factual data
done by a research team of 30 in Tennessee.
I highly recommend everybody read it.
You can get ahold of the people
who wrote it for the 40 page version,
much more detailed than one I posted as a 15 page.
Bobby Anne, what you're doing is awesome.
And I swear if you went and read my mission statement,
on movefreelyamerica.org right now,
it might as well be exactly what you're saying.
So I applaud you for everything you've done.
The work you're doing is fantastic.
And I work hand in hand with Tom Alterick and Hernan
at Move Freely and we're affecting change
on a legislative level here in the US.
And so I see it in three points and I'll just be brief
because everything's already been said in my opinion.
The litigation and legislation.
And if we lose on both those fronts,
it's not gonna be good for anyone.
Cause if America falls, I think the world's gonna fall
in a thousand years of dark times
cause there's nowhere else to go.
I think everybody should get a copy of Sun Tzu's Art of War.
And I think that's exactly what Bobby's doing
in her strategy is the enemy is dragging us
onto their battlefield by having us down here
in the trenches arguing about the science, the science.
You're not gonna win that information warfare
because the US media and the global media on hand
is bought and paid for, all propagandists in my opinion.
So we have to figure out, we have to strategize better ways
to circumvent them and not allow them to bring us
onto their battlefield.
So what we're doing and just like Tom said,
and I couldn't say any better myself,
you got legislative, you got litigation
and we need to get people off their asses
and get them to work in the United States
to be involved in their civic duty.
And we push that it's intermission statements
in the words on our website.
We provide a constitutional foundations course
to remind adults of what their civic duty is.
And we need to hammer that home.
And the one last point I'll make
and spread this among your families, freedom is not free.
I'm a single father of three,
an airline pilot for a major airline in the United States.
I am willing to lose my life.
And I do not say that lightly because I have kids.
I'm willing to lose my career.
I'm willing to lose my life to protect the freedoms
that we have as Americans and therefore the world
because this is it.
If America falls, the whole world goes under.
And I don't say that in America grandiose kind of way.
That's just a long and short of it.
America isn't free.
Internalize what you are willing to sacrifice
and make that right in your heads
because it's not gonna get any easier.
And Tom and Bobby and Hernan said everything else
I could have said, thank you for your time.
Beautifully, beautifully said.
Thank you, Tom.
And Bobby Kennedy, Tom, I said in December, everybody,
for those of you who are on the call,
on what hill are you willing to die?
So Tom beautifully said,
so is your group, what was it called?
Freely, have you put that link?
You put the link in the chat, haven't you?
Sure, I'll put in there again, movefreelyamerica.org.
Beautiful, thank you.
Movefreelyamerica.org, everybody.
And it's wonderful.
There are so many organizations
and I think it's important to understand to not despair.
We've talked about this previously
that I haven't heard of movefreelyamerica.org.
I know many of many organizations,
that's the value of this conversation.
And then suddenly Bobby, and you get exposed
to a whole bunch of other groups
that have amazing connections.
And we are marshaling our resources
against a plan that's been going for decades
and we're pushing back.
And there's no doubt, there's no doubt
that it's only the people that will win this fight,
not replacing politicians with politicians.
All right, we're getting tight for time.
We'll go to Jim and Avery, thank you, Tom.
Thank you.
Can you hear me here?
Yes, thanks very much.
We really appreciate your input.
Bobby, what a great job you've done.
Attorneys sharing resources, this is very important.
What is your methodology of sharing your discovery
that you've got?
Sharing your, sharing what you've learned
with the other attorneys and with the physicians
and with the people who can use your documents.
We understand that this is an intelligence controlled media
hospitals, Department of Defense.
We know that this is a big war.
Where do we, how do we share the documents?
And then the next question is,
how do we focus on discovery?
Each one, there are many lawyers like you, Tom Renz,
that are running various lawsuits.
How do you focus discover?
Okay, so.
Sorry about that.
How do you focus your, or how do you share discovery
and how do you get the right questions to ask,
especially of the Intelligence Community,
Department of Defense and the lawyers
who seem to be colluding and the hospitals?
Thank you.
Yeah, so those are great questions, Jim.
So it is, it would be fantastic to have attorneys
in different lawsuits and in different states
or even in the same state to share information
and work together in that manner.
It is extremely difficult as Mary Holland
from Children's Health Defense says,
she's the president there.
She's also an attorney, trying to get attorneys
to work together and get something done
unless they're in the same law firm, it's like herding cats.
So it is, it's very difficult.
I have reached out to other attorneys
in the, I call it constitutional freedom movement.
And nobody was interested in going on this case with me.
Again, some didn't wanna work for free.
Some did not see my vision of a pathway to success.
Some thought you had to wait until New Yorkers
were being thrown into quarantine camps against their will
before they thought you could have a cause of action
and have standing to bring the lawsuit.
But I took a very unique approach
and I argued separation of powers,
which is very unique and different
in that I had actual New York state legislators,
the lawmakers themselves on my lawsuit as petitioners.
And so it was a very unique approach and it worked
and we won in New York state, right?
So I am happy to corroborate with other attorneys,
but I have tried and it has not been successful.
Hence my taking this case on by myself
and attorney Tom Marcel who did come on
and help me pro bono also,
donated all his time and resources to help me go
from federal court back to state court.
It was really just, he's a terrific attorney.
He's also a terrific person that he would donate his time.
I mean, for a solid week,
that's all he and I worked on together
was that one target goal and we were ultimately successful.
But yeah, I mean, this lawsuit,
especially because I'm doing it by myself
has taken up all my time.
I just, I don't have time to tend to other paying clients
or other matters.
So it is a tremendous undertaking
and I think just other attorneys were not interested
in putting in that much time and effort and energy
and not getting paid for it.
So that's all I can think of.
But like I said, I'm happy if there's a group
that wants to get, form a gelling of attorneys,
I am happy to be one of those attorneys
that shares information,
but so far my efforts to do such a thing
have not come to fruition.
Well, more than that are different.
Go beyond Nate.
I'm sorry.
More than that are different than that
is a group that may be willing to provide expert help
on getting withheld information
because when you get withheld information
that's withheld from the other parties and not turned over,
if you can get that,
then you also get your attorney's fees
for getting those withheld documents.
It's the Goodyear versus Hagar case, I believe it is.
Anyway, when you catch the other person in fraud,
when you catch the other person
with lacking candor to the court,
that's when you get your attorney's fees.
And we may be able to have experts,
including physicians and other people
that can build their time to stop these people
from lying and presenting fraud in the courts.
And we may be able to help you with that.
Thank you.
Jim, actually, if you can get in touch with Bobbi Anne,
and please, Bobbi Anne is so busy with this case.
So the request has gone out
and any insights that each of us have,
let's help Bobbi Anne in what she's requested help on.
Jim, good insight there.
Avery, you're last and then back to Stephen
and we'll finish and then we can go to Tom,
the other telegram group
for those who have time to keep talking.
Avery.
Two quick things, Bobbi Anne, thank you so much.
I think one real frustration we as physicians have
from a practical standpoint is we get fed lies,
lies being fed to the public,
to the practitioners in medicine.
And it's so frustrating.
And finally, we do have solid data now about the shots.
But the problem is, it's just like with Amy Barrett
at the Supreme Court, with one of the colleges,
there was a lawsuit by students, parents, I think,
to not force these students to be vaccinated.
And Amy Barrett ruled, just basically said,
we're not gonna take the case.
And it had to do in a way with what you've pointed out.
You have to be focused not necessarily on the science,
but on the law.
And you focus very tightly on one part of your law
in the state of New York and you want on that.
And that's what you have to continue to do.
The problem we face though,
is where do you ever make the interconnection
between science and judges who have to make a decision
in a courtroom on whether a patient can be transferred
out of a hospital because they're being mismanaged.
Instead, you get a verdict by a judge in Florida who says,
well, it has to do with the conscience of the hospital.
So we're gonna rule against taking that patient
out of Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville,
which is a case that actually did occur.
So it's so frustrating that the science is difficult
to bring into these, even when we know we're right
and we're costing people's lives.
The last point I wanna make is the Epoch Times
did publish a blurb, you may have seen it on July 11th.
It was a day that says,
New York State sets dangerous precedent
for draconian quarantine regulations.
And it's at the very top of the page,
it says Epoch Times bright.
I'm not sure what bright is.
I think it's a health news,
but it says, quick update uniting NYS and as the link.
And it pleads with New York State citizens
to join the cause to fight against the totalitarianism
of the New York State government,
the governor and the attorney general.
So take a look at that.
I found that on a search with Google or DuckDuckGo actually.
So it's dated July 11th, but just so you know that,
I don't see any other major news outlets on that one page,
but you know the pages in searches a lot of times,
if they come out in some other reputable information source,
they get pushed down to the bottom of another page.
Anyway, thank you for what you've done in New York.
By the way, bright is a streaming TV service.
They have a full program of players,
including Dr. Artist, where they broadcast.
Excellent, thank you, Glenn.
Thank you, Avery.
So Bobby, any comment before we get to Stephen
as our last questions to you,
and then we'll close this meeting.
From what Avery raised, Bobby Ann?
Yeah, so there have been, I mentioned before,
really if you go online and you look for some sort of
information or media about this,
you're not gonna find much.
The New York Post ran something.
Stu Peters had me on his show.
Dr. Shasta Erickson was monumental or instrumental
in getting that connection and having Stu interview me,
and that's helped a lot.
I mean, he has a big audience.
Mel Kay had picked up and interviewed me,
had picked this up maybe a month ago,
and so I reached out to let her know that we won,
so she's gonna try and have me come back on
to do an update.
So there are certain areas where word is getting out,
but it's not nearly as much.
I mean, I was reading the chat before,
and somebody said,
oh, this should be a Tucker Carlson story.
Yeah, it should be a Tucker Carlson story.
It should be also on Newsmax and OAN,
and a host of different Fox contributors or Fox hosts
should be picking this up because this is,
like I said, this is very different
from forcing people to wear masks
or forcing people to stand six feet apart from each other.
So I completely agree with you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Bobbi Anne.
Okay, Stephen, last questions to you.
Well, what you've done, Bobbi Anne, is really great, I think,
and is a lesson to all of us as to what is possible.
I would be interested, did you think you could win it?
So I have to say, my New York State legislators
who came on the lawsuit, Senator Borrello,
Assemblyman Teague, Assemblyman Lawler,
and the ones that wrote the amicus brief,
particularly Assemblyman Andrew Goodell,
they were quite confident.
Andrew Goodell is also an attorney, as I mentioned earlier.
They were quite confident that I was gonna win
because of the approach that I took,
because of the causes of actions that I raised,
because of the way that I framed the argument.
And it was almost impossible for the judge
to not rule in our favor
because of the way that it was presented
and the arguments that I made.
So that's why I did it that way,
because you have to know your audience.
You must, or you're going to fail.
Or if you win, if you succeed,
it's going to be from the stars aligning properly
and the wind blowing in the right direction.
So the lawsuit was filed in the beginning of April.
I'll just say I was studying and researching
and working on it for a solid three months before that.
So, and when I say working on it, I mean every day, all day.
I put aside everything else to do this
because it was so important.
And there was a timeframe involved
because they've been issuing it as an emergency regulation
since August of 2021.
And they were working to make it a permanent regulation.
So I knew that there was a timeframe
and I knew that I had to beat the clock.
And so I dropped everything and picked this up.
So it's just super important that, you know,
it's an example of, you know, you,
and the other thing is I used to be
with a large international law firm based in New York City,
but, you know, that was 20 years ago.
I mean, now I've had my own law practice for 20 years.
And, you know, it was Davy versus Goliath.
David versus Goliath, you know,
the state has all the resources.
They have all our tax dollars to fight back.
And we won, and we won because we had the right argument
and the right judge.
And it was really a strong sign to not just,
not just the government to stay in your lane
or the executive branch to stay in your lane,
but it's assigned to the legislators,
all the ones who didn't want to get on the lawsuit.
Cause I spoke to many who were in support of the lawsuit
and did not like the quarantine regulation
and thought I was right,
but they didn't want to actually put their name
to the lawsuit and get involved for other reasons.
I bet they wish they did now.
Well, that's what I'm saying.
You know, now, now some of them are like, wow, you know,
reaching out to me, congratulations, it's fabulous.
You know, I should have come on the lawsuit with you,
you know, so, because this is what the voters want.
The politicians want to please the voters
and the voters want politicians who are going to stand up
for their rights and not go along with the machine, right?
Stand up for the people, not the politics.
So yeah, it's really, but it's also, I think, I hope,
it's inspirational to other attorneys
or just other people out there that are like,
well, I'm just one person, you know, I can't do anything.
I can't really make a difference.
You absolutely can make a difference.
You just have to have the determination and the drive.
Which is why, Bobbi, and we need to help you as a group
to get the story better aired, should we say.
Oh, for sure.
I think if other attorneys heard this story,
they would say, you know what?
I'm gonna do something too,
or I'm going to help somebody that's doing something.
You know, I'll just dedicate my weekends, you know,
to helping them or something.
You don't have to do what I did and drop everything
and take this on as, you know, everything that you eat,
breathe and sleep.
You can do it, you know, donate your time in the evening,
donate your time on the weekends.
There's always, always an excuse that you can make
to not do something, right?
There's always something else you can do instead.
Of course there is.
But you know what?
Huh, we are gonna be in big trouble
if other people don't stand up too,
because this is the serious stuff.
Our lives.
This is serious stuff. Our lives are in danger.
All our lives.
And our way of life is in danger too.
Yeah.
All right, Stacey, we're gonna end.
Can I just ask,
are you in touch with Warner Mendenhall?
I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
He's a lawyer. Warner Mendenhall.
I'm not in touch, no.
Are you in touch with Todd Callender?
Tom, you had introduced us by email,
so I am supposed to be speaking with him this week.
Todd Callender, yeah.
Yes, yes, you introduced us by email.
So I can introduce, okay.
Oh yes, that's right, yes.
Yes, you did.
And Tom Renz as well.
Also, Bobby-Ann, I'm in touch,
bearing in mind what you've just said now,
or about two minutes ago.
I'm in touch with 70 lawyers around the world.
I put them in touch with each other.
I was hoping that they would kind of pick up.
A lot of them were asking me to do it,
and then I did it, connected them all,
and nothing happened.
Or there were a few emails flying around,
and one or two saying that-
Yeah, but you know what it is, Stephen?
And I'm seeing this with other things too,
because the citizens group
that is on this lawsuit, this quarantine lawsuit,
Uniting New York State, fantastic group,
and I've been intimately involved with them
from the very beginning.
But if there's nobody willing to take the lead,
and there's nobody willing to kind of,
I mean, there's no other word but lead.
If there's nobody willing to take the responsibility-
I know, exactly.
And the time and the energy to lead,
then nothing's going to happen.
Exactly.
So in your case, you took the lead in your case.
In my case, I was trying to survive here in North Wales
through these monstrous times,
and something drove me to form a group,
and I just carried on and carried on and carried on.
I didn't know why I was doing it,
but then it became obvious to me, even me in the end,
why I was doing it.
I was kind of putting people in contact with each other,
and you need someone to do that.
But if I hadn't done it, nobody else would have done it.
And it was my idea.
So I thought I should do this
because I don't know where it's going to lead,
but I feel that it's what I need to do.
And I think everybody in this group, I think,
may have those feelings.
They have an idea, and they think,
"'Oh, but it won't work because it's my idea.'"
Do you understand me?
And they don't realize why they're doing it either,
but something is making them do it,
and it becomes obvious afterwards.
And I think maybe you started on your mission,
thinking, well, there's not much chance,
but I've got to do it.
And then eventually you won,
and then you realized why it was so important.
Anyway, brilliant.
The importance is camp.
It really can't be overstated.
It really can't.
I absolutely agree.
And this is so important that we get this word out
because other people need to know, first of all,
that it exists, but second of all,
that you can beat it.
You can beat it.
Also, Bobbi-Ann, there are so few people
who are prepared to take responsibility,
so they have thoughts.
People write to me and say,
"'Shall we do this? Can we do this?'
And I say, well, you've thought of it.
Why don't you try it?
You're probably the best person to do it.
But they've never seen themselves as a leader before.
Do you understand me?
So they don't know themselves,
and they don't...
So a lot of the best people don't understand
that they're clever, for example,
no one's ever encouraged them.
And we've got loads of people in this group,
incredibly bright people,
and it's clear that they don't understand the importance
of what they're talking about.
All right.
We're gonna go.
So well said, Stephen.
Again, Bobbi-Ann, big round of applause for you.
Great job.
And we're in there.
And you've spread the message.
So we'll be with you again on Tuesday night, everybody.
Stephen will be sending the invitation.
Do you know who the guest is yet, Stephen?
I think it's going to be Alexandra Latipova.
Excellent.
On data.
And then on the...
Well, no, she knows all about how pharmaceutical companies,
what they should have done and how they should have done it.
She works with Craig Particouper as well,
and he's going to speak to us another day.
Yes, and then on Sunday night,
we've got Albert on VAERS and the likes.
Yes, then the VDs, yeah.
So that's what's on, everybody.
Thank you for joining us.
Tom Rodman has put the link in.
Good to see you, Albert and Mark.
Thank you, everybody.
Bobbi-Ann, we're here.
We will do what we can.
Everybody has said that they will.
Save the chat, everybody.
Bobbi-Ann, you as well.
Make sure that you do,
because there's a lot of good links in there
and email addresses.
And please understand, everybody,
the time pressures on Bobbi-Ann,
so we're going to help her.
Stephen, well done for organizing the group,
and we'll be with you in two days' time.
Have a beautiful Sunday night, Monday, everybody.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you for having me.
Thank you, Bobbi-Ann.
Great.
Thank you.
Goodbye, everybody.
Thank you.
Thanks, God bless, everyone.
God bless you all.
Charles, can you send me the chance?
Stephen, I will.
And while everybody's exiting,
just while I've got you,
what you need to do,
rather than just clicking on the link for the meeting,
Yes.
Log in, which is what I do.
So log in first,
and then join the meeting from your,
when you're logged in on Zoom, okay?
That way you have full control when you come on.
That's why you didn't have the power to mute,
because you've been clicking on the link.
Log in first, go to your meeting.
That's what I do.
That's why I come on as you.
Thanks.
Thank you, Charles.
Thanks, everybody.
Bye then.
Bye.
Thank you for the kind feedback.