This afternoon, I am thrilled to have here someone who was recently on our weekly update,
Warner Mendenhall, a lawyer who has always fought for the underdog.
He's defended whistleblowers, fought against corruption, and he tried to stop fraud and
abuse his entire career.
We like that.
Does he ever have his work cut out for him in the COVID era?
So Warner, the audience is yours.
Thank you, thank you.
Oh, wait, one thing.
Did I mention that for those of you who came in late, we do have a microphone.
We will take questions at the end, but you have to talk into the microphone or we don't
get it recorded so that everybody can hear it later.
So that's key.
Okay.
Thank you.
I'll tell you what I'm not going to do.
I'm not going to go too deep into my personal legal history.
You can find that on the web.
One of the things that's interesting to me, and I kind of realized in the last couple
of weeks, just because of some of the litigation that Jeremy Friedman and I are doing, is
that we forget to read parts of our Constitution constantly.
We all need to read it, and I look at it all the time.
I'm always checking to make sure I got something quoted right.
But the one thing I was reading, it was just two weeks ago, I picked it up again, and I
just started from the beginning, and I read the purpose statement for the Constitution.
It's in the first paragraph.
Don't overlook the first paragraph.
Remember who we were.
These were citizens who gathered together and decided to form their more perfect union.
And they said that the purpose of that union, the purpose of these states, the purpose
of these constitutions was to secure the blessings of liberty.
Secure the blessings of liberty.
So anything that goes against your liberty is against the Constitution, right off the
bat.
The other reason that this has come up for me is because we're doing a little bit of
election litigation.
I've actually done election litigation for a couple of decades, but we signed on for
the Colorado voters who want Trump on their ballot to help them with an amicus creed.
So that was, you know, things are spinning around me often, but I get a call on a Friday
by a lady named Tori Maras, and she says, hey, I'd like to file something under the
Ninth Amendment.
I know you love the Ninth Amendment, and nobody else has even mentioned it.
The Ninth Amendment's another one to look at, because even though we have these delineated
rights, one through eight, the Ninth Amendment says, yes, but that's not all folks.
Because remember what the purpose of the Constitution is.
It's to secure the blessings of liberty.
So we list a few rights, but you guys have many, many, many other rights.
And I think some of those rights are personally, and we've had some nice litigation over this,
and that's kind of how I got started in some of the COVID litigation, the right to work,
the right to own a business, the right to run your family the way you see fit.
That's the Ninth Amendment stuff.
It's griswalled.
There's a couple of cases.
There's not many.
I just got criticized.
I was very proud to be criticized by Larry Tribe and Erwin Trzymaryski.
These are, they may not be known to you, but they're like the top-level constitutional
scholars in the country that they both said I'm an idiot.
So I'm very happy to have that criticism, because now we can have that conversation.
Anyway, I just wanted to start off with our Constitution, because we're here, we're in
this country.
We need to remember these things, and it's at issue in almost every single case that
we do, liberty.
The story, and I'm here representing Freedom Council, Catherine, would you stand up for
just a minute?
Catherine is co-founder of Freedom Council, and you guys at VSRF back there, would you
stand up a bit?
Please, I want to recognize you.
These ladies and a whole big crew of other people just were so instrumental in the first
COVID litigation conference in March, and I think it really brought, it was just an
amazing event.
Another one is coming up in Vegas.
What's the date?
March 7th and 8th in Vegas.
The outgrowth of the COVID litigation conference in March was that these attorneys, they didn't
even realize that we had a community.
They're out here beating their heads against walls, Siouxin County, cities, states, companies,
whatever, and they didn't realize that there were a lot of other people doing it.
Coming out of that, Catherine and I decided to found Freedom Council.
Catherine's not an attorney, by the way, and I think that's part of the point here, even
at the COVID litigation conference.
We had a whole thing on pro-say litigation.
What can you do?
Lawyers are hard to find.
They're hard to hunt.
They're a rare breed.
One of the things, and one of the reasons in particular, I think Catherine really brings
a perspective that I don't hold very well, but it's the perspective of who are the victims,
who are the people she's constantly reminding me.
What can we do?
What can they do?
Give them something to do.
Make sure that they're empowered.
I really appreciate that insight and that push, because frankly, I'm in a little bubble.
I'm suing people, and I'm in this little bubble, so it's very helpful to have input from not
the normal sources.
We have a Freedom Council conference.
I'll explain the difference at the end here, but we have a Freedom Council conference in
June and Denver as well.
We've got a couple legal conferences coming up.
Please attend those.
It's really a great place to discuss what we can do, how we can get the job done.
I've always had a very busy career and never had enough time, so when COVID hit, I was
really thankful, because they shut everything down, and I'd always had this dream, God,
if I could just stop the world for 30 days, I might be able to get caught up.
The courts closed.
I got extensions on everything, because they weren't going to have any hearings, and I
had my 30 or so days, but in the midst of that, my brother's own small businesses.
I have friends who own bars, restaurants.
I'm just watching devastation in the economy, and the small businesses in particular was
what I was most sensitive to, and we represent a lot of small businesses.
The first case we filed was in 2020 for a bar that refused to shut down when the governor
told them to shut down.
They lost their business.
They have actually now reopened under a new license, liquor license, but we sued because
who shut them down was liquor control, and I went to court, and I'm like, what's liquor
control talking about, health care, and diseases, and pandemics?
This is ridiculous.
They have no authority for this.
Turns out, and then I sued in a particular way called a declaratory judgment.
Three years later, appeals, everything, and a lot of stuff, we lose, but not completely.
One of the issues when I filed that case, everybody told me I did it wrong, kind of
like Leary Tribe.
Everybody told me I did it wrong.
The Supreme Court, in saying it was moot, said, no, this is how you do it.
You file a declaratory judgment to determine whether or not the administrative body has
that power.
That is how you do it.
We have set a trail.
If they shut down a business again, I'm going to point to my case at the Ohio Supreme Court.
It's not my case.
It's my client's case, but I do take a lot of ownership.
You guys know that.
You can do that today.
There's a couple of clients in the room here, Brooke Jackson, Angela Wolbrecht, and we'll
talk about those cases a little bit, too, but that's how I got started.
Katherine and I got to know each other because I was desperately reaching out.
Who's doing anything?
I mean, I'm trying to find attorneys myself because of the team up with and clients and
everything else.
Katherine's now at the state legislature, and she puts the data on the screen, except
she removes the timeline.
She says to the legislature, well, you tell me when this pandemic hit.
You tell me when these effective masking measures, quarantine measures, had any impact at all.
Guess what?
That's a perfect cross-examination because there's no way to see beyond the normal scope
of an infectious disease going through the population where any of these interventions
made any difference at all.
She made her point.
I happened to see it.
I'm like, oh my God, who is this woman who's getting into the data like this because I'm
not really a data guy, but I was impressed by the argument from a legal perspective.
It's a perfect cross-examination.
So anyway, we have since done, and I'll try to watch my time here.
I've got so much to talk about, and I do want to take some questions.
I'm going to go through a little bit of our litigation, and by the way, Betsy, we really
want to model our Freedom Council on FLCCC.
You guys are doing such a great job.
They really serve a model of how to exist in this space, be very, very inclusive.
We are inclusive.
We're all over the spectrum politically, I think you should know.
And that's good, but we can talk to each other.
We don't spit at each other.
It's amazing that you can have a civil society, but on this issue, we're all together.
Well, FLCCC is certainly modeling a behavior.
I am trying, you know, we're trying to follow on.
But I want you guys to be aware, our litigation, I would say, most of it is actually unseen.
Even though we get to go to court, and the thing I love about court, and Jeremy constantly
reiterates this, is, hey, we're there.
We have the facts.
You bring your facts, we bring our facts, and somebody's going to decide the facts.
And what emerges is the truth.
So the courtroom is an adversarial process that we've relied on to get to some commonality
and truth in our society.
Because the truth is not a fixed thing, just like science has never fixed.
It's a battle.
It's a battle, it's an exploration, it's experimentation.
And the court allows us to do that, and we are winning those cases.
We are winning probably two-thirds of the cases, maybe three-quarters nationwide,
all over the place.
And do you know how many cases there have been?
Oh, I think we're close to 20,000 total cases.
And it covers a gamut of things.
It's not just vaccine injury, or hospital injury, it's insurance, and property, and
shutdowns, and everything else.
But it's 20,000 cases.
In a very short time, really.
Very short time.
And cases that we filed at the beginning, like that bar that got shut down, it just resolved
a few months ago.
Brooks case is ongoing.
It was started in 2020.
I mean, this stuff takes years, unfortunately.
But think about that.
And the press doesn't cover it.
They are not covering the victories.
They are not spreading the news about how successful we're actually being.
I think people feel sometimes hopeless, helpless.
I mean, we're not getting anywhere.
We're getting somewhere.
We are getting somewhere.
Thank you.
So, there are a lot of things.
So I call that a check off, unseen litigation.
One of the things that really, really concerns me, I have kids and grandkids, okay?
My son was in college during part of this, and he's out now.
Thank God he went to California.
Whatever.
Okay.
We have our disagreements.
But one of the things that really concerns me and has concerned me, I mean,
with the mandates in particular, I mean, that's been a huge, huge effort.
I mean, that has been a central issue for our practice.
But the educational, it's like a cattle shoe.
And initially, it was covered all people going into education.
It was like a cattle shoe.
We fought it.
We sued five universities in Ohio, University of California, Regents.
We won.
I can go into some of those victories in a minute, but, and actually, 2021, right?
This is ongoing.
I still have university cases ongoing today.
Regents is just getting fired up.
I mean, but that covered all students.
And we've seen all of the educational institutions for the most part.
And I wish Luchia Sanatra were here.
But I think we're down to 60 or 70 that still have mandates in the country.
What a success.
Is the timeline in the courts normal?
Or do you think there's a lot of foot dragging on these cases?
Well, here's, here's where we are.
Most of the educational institutions that we sued, including school boards, by
the way, they caved very quickly.
And then most of the cases, the courts then ultimately ruled as moot,
meaning, well, there's no controversy.
So these educational institutions, for the most part, with this exception,
I'm going to talk about in a minute, they caved.
They caved across Ohio.
They caved across the United States.
As long as you got a lawsuit in, got it filed.
But it doesn't mean you won that lawsuit or did you?
I think, huh?
Until next time.
Until next time, yeah.
We did win, but I want people to realize that by getting those things filed,
by people standing up, students standing up, people resisting, and
just going to court, they caved.
So we have some, and the issue becomes standing.
After the controversy goes away, then you have a standing issue.
So we are fighting hard to hold on to some, we have a few of them still going.
I got a school board case, Ohio University, that case is ongoing.
The Pellet Court told us we had standing in the Ohio University case, so
we're still hanging on.
Cuz we want them to cry uncle, right?
I grew up with two brothers.
I mean, you fight till you cry uncle, right?
That's where we're going to.
So that's my background, that's my legal training.
But there's an area that, I mean, as a dad,
it just kills me.
The kids who are going into medical school, and
I got a daughter who wants to go into medicine.
I got friends' daughters and sons that want to go into medicine.
I got friends that want to be firefighters,
who want their kids to be firefighters?
Well, guess what a firefighter has to do?
They have to do EMT training or paramedic training.
They are not letting our children get a medical education unless they agree to
take a fucking shot.
I'm 62 years old.
Who knows how much time I got left, but I want opportunity for these kids.
I want them to be able to get their medical education and
come out here and help treat this society that just made itself sick.
The other thing I see in medicine is there's an access problem.
If you're a salesperson for a medical device company or
drug company, well, I'm seeing hospitals now demand that you show
your Vax card to get the pass that you need to get through their security
systems that they set up to keep the families out.
Right?
So they've got these walls and security and passes and all this crap that I never
had when I went to the hospital.
When my wife was in labor, we just walked in and out.
Walked in and out of the room.
I mean, that's how it's supposed to be.
And family, we all know family's healing.
Love is healing.
You've got to have loved ones around you or you're not going to heal.
You're going to feel alone and bereft.
So that access is, you know, my salespeople that we represent, we're
doing city health care, we've got a bunch of people there, but this sales issue.
One of the ladies in our case, this is on the public record, so
I'm not giving away HIPAA information, she survived cancer four times.
Her doctor said, do not take the shot.
She's getting blocked from going into one of the hospitals that she's trying to
serve right now.
She has a medical exemption verified by doctors, four-time cancer survivor,
can't get in to do her job because of what this stupid hospital's doing.
Now, that may be a lawsuit, but that's a fairly recent development, and
we may sue over that because that's ridiculous.
The second thing that's killing me is they've destroyed the doctor-patient
relationship with all this stuff.
The corporate practice of medicine is just destroying medicine right now.
And I mean, I've got so many horror stories, but
there's one I'm going to tell you about.
They have a scribe following a doctor around the hospital.
He's fired now, actually.
They follow him around the hospital to see if he was recommending the vaccine,
quote unquote, to the patients.
And to see if he was prescribing ivermectin, the scribe is supposed to be
within the HIPAA, the patient-doctor-patient relationship.
The scribe was sending the notes to the administration, and then he gets
disciplined, and now you've got scribe, AI, and all this other crap.
The administrations, they're spying on the doctors.
You guys already know this, I know.
But I mean, that's corporate practice of medicine.
So we're going to take on that case.
I hope you'll hear about it very soon.
We're actually working on the complaint because we've got to go after
corporate practice of medicine.
And I guess I'm going to get into the protocols for your medicine.
Is he still working there?
No, he's gone.
No, he got fired.
No, he stood his ground.
He's not going to change what he does.
But I mean, and I get it.
Not everybody can do that.
Not everybody's in a position to do that.
He happens to be about my age.
He's had a good career.
So he's floating around the country working where he can.
Christopher Rake was a doctor at UCLA Medical Center, who some of you may know.
He was walked off the campus in October of 2021.
He's a very religious person.
And they actually were begging him to get a religious exemption, do something,
anything.
He would not bend the knee.
He's like, my religion is that I don't use my religion for stuff like this.
That's my religion.
So they walked him out with security off the campus.
And he just said no.
And he cited Nuremberg principles, experimental drugs, everything you can think about.
And that was a long time ago.
But the Rake case is just now firing up.
And Angela's part of that as well.
We have a number of lead plaintiffs, and Angela's one of them.
But we're trying to represent 220,000 employees of the University of California
system to stop them from mandating any medical project onto their people.
And we are actually suing, we went to the belly of the beast.
We're suing in County Court in Alameda County in Oakland,
California under state law, right?
And you know why law is good there, and we think it's good.
Because the people of California are very liberal.
And they voted for privacy rights and bodily autonomy and everything else.
Well, and they passed a referendum.
The citizens passed a referendum for privacy.
It's data privacy, it's personal privacy, it's bodily autonomy.
We're using what California set up.
We're using the California system to beat the regents of the University of
California, which are violating its state's citizen's constitutional rights.
Under the California Constitution.
And then likewise, our five lawsuits in Ohio are all under the Ohio Constitution.
Under state law, no federal law.
The federal courts, there's different standards, sometimes it's more complex.
But we're winning in under state law.
And I hope we're going to win this one under state law.
So Jeremy's my wonderful co-counsel sitting over there with Brooke Jackman.
Thank you so much, Jeremy.
Stand up, Jeremy, come on, come on.
So Jeremy and I've been friends for a long time, 23 years maybe?
Is it that long?
We both are false claims act lawyers.
That's how we get, we got to know each other at first.
The next thing that I want to say is that we recognize that people don't
realize what their rights are.
We're dealing with that every day.
And if you file, and it starts at the application for a job.
If you file an application for a job and you've got say a religious belief that
you shouldn't take the shot and they discriminate against you, you have a case.
You can file with your local human rights organization at the state.
In Ohio it's called the Ohio Civil Rights Organization.
At this federal level though, you can file with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
the EEOC, file it online, use these, and I swear to God,
it's unbelievable how many people don't seem to know that these processes are out there.
But it's for us to use, our taxpayer dollars pay for it.
And guess what?
The EEOC has supported some of these cases recently.
And I think it's because we embarrass them actually.
Rachel Rodriguez, who practices out of Florida,
found through a FOIA that they had set up a special office, and
they got the information to deny all the EEOC complaints.
And it had to be reviewed in DC, not locally.
Well, as soon as she finds that, I mean, we're on the phone.
I mean, I want to sue the EEOC, I'm like, this is great,
let's go get them these bastards.
Well, they changed their policies, and in fact submitted a brief supporting
an employee who had been fired, and we're relying on the EEOC's brief now.
It's unbelievable.
So our work, your work, everybody's work, to dig and dig and
find out what they're doing, it's frigging embarrassing what they did in the background.
Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plant in southern Ohio, steel workers are down there.
You know what we found down there?
That there was a million dollar incentive for
the company to get its workforce to 90% vaccinated.
And as soon as we found that, guess what happened?
The mandates went away.
These are federal nuclear energy employees and contractors.
It went away.
We filed a TRO and federal court in Columbus, and they mooted it.
So we recovered, that case alone recovered 170 jobs, like boom.
And we actually have a couple that we're moving on.
But I will tell you, in the midst of that battle, in the midst of that battle,
we had been contacted by the employees, and there were some people,
there was a young, relatively young guy in his 40s.
He was part of the group that had formed.
And I hate to tell you, but you guys already know the story.
He's not with us anymore.
He didn't feel like he could stand up and be fired over this lawsuit.
He got shot and he died.
So, it's a killer.
We also, in that group, we had a miscarriage as well,
which I believe that was shot related as well.
So, woo.
Ah, yeah, I'm sorry.
I gotta get something to drink.
You have a slide up there.
I wondered if you wanted to elaborate anything about the false claims act.
I'm going to. How much time, how much time do I have?
Well, how many, how much time do you want for questions?
Can we do like 15 minutes?
So, if I get 15 more minutes.
15 more minutes?
Warn me when I'm done at 15 more minutes.
Got it, I will.
As quickly as I can.
Trust me.
Okay.
Anyway, I'm glad I have an outline.
Sometimes I run without an outline.
The EOC, I just want you guys to be aware that you can make,
if you're in trouble and something's happening, make the filings.
Force the administrative state, that's what it is, to do its job.
And, and, you know, our group of lawyers has done an incredible amount of
beautiful work on the employment side.
And I, I can't tell you how brilliant the attorneys are that have come on board.
There's, you know, 240 some of them.
And, and by sharing our successes, our failures, our ideas, our theories,
we are leveling up so fast that the arguments are getting so good.
They have improved our litigation unbelievably.
I mean, all the, it's the group mind at work among these counsel.
And if you know any lawyers, please send them our way.
We need more lawyers.
And we'll help them.
We're, we're trying to help because a lot of us are solo, small practitioners.
You know, and, and we need help.
We need to, you know, we need people who've been down the road before.
You know, that can show us where the pitfalls are and have been there.
And a lot of the lawyers that stepped up are not, they're practicing
out of their areas.
I got domestic relations people doing employment law.
I got, you know, employment law people doing false claims act.
I got brand new attorneys doing medical malpractice.
I mean, good Lord.
You know, so we're trying to help level everybody up, you know,
and help, help fill in the gaps for all of us.
I mean, me included to be frank.
So one of our cases, and I'm going to go into, I'm going to move on a little bit.
So that's, this is what we're able to do and we're trying to do for medical issues,
doctors, you know, the medical students especially.
You know, and the, oh, the medical students.
I guess I forgot about that.
The medical students just kill me because that's where the mandates are still in place.
They got to go through this cattle run to get the shot before they get
into, into their jobs and get their education.
It's just unbelievable.
The next thing that we're dealing with is, you know, I want to talk a little bit
about the death by hospital cases.
Mary Holland mentioned criminal issues.
And we are actually through the death by hospital cases.
We're trying to build evidence that may lead to a criminal complaint.
And I, I'll give you a, we have one in Ohio, Karen Michelonis.
These are all on the docket.
You can follow these cases.
So Karen Michelonis, you know, here's the lady, comes in.
She had COVID, she recovered from COVID, but her body was weak.
She gets community acquired bacterial pneumonia, comes in the hospital.
What treatment do you think they gave her?
COVID treatment.
They have these COVID treatment protocols.
She gets a COVID treatment protocol and she's dead.
So guess what?
Community acquired bacterial pneumonia is not covered by the PREP Act.
You know, they misuse the treatment.
It's a complete misapplication of the treatment.
They're not covered by that.
You have a med mal case.
And we, we have experts on that case, but we need more doctors willing to write the
letters of merit that we need to bring these cases when we see medical malpractice in the,
in the docket.
And it's hard or in the, in the, in the records.
It's been, it's been very difficult and we need doctors to step up.
We have some wonderful doctors who have though.
Thank you.
But we need more.
I got 240 attorneys who need doctors, right?
And hopefully we'll have a thousand attorneys by the end of the year that need doctors.
They need doctor experts, doctor testimony, doctor review, doctor consultation, just to
understand it.
I'm not a doctor.
I don't understand a medical record.
I mean, I do a little bit, but you know, I want you, you got to walk me through this.
Where's the problem?
You know, and, and we, we're working on systems to get that process to move more efficiently,
more quickly, and, and especially for the doctors, I know this.
If you get a 16,000 page record, we try to have it pre-reviewed by a nurse who's knowledgeable
so that you don't have to deal with 16,000 pages, for example.
But you know, that, that's horrific what they did to her and she was a nurse.
She told them what she had.
She said, I need antibiotics.
She knew what was going on.
Shara case is another one.
You know, that's the Down syndrome child who was killed.
And Scott is very adamant about this, Scott Shara the dad, you know, they killed her and
they put on a DNR without the family's, you know, consent at all.
And the key thing with the Shara case that we got through, because there was no consent
for the treatment, we alleged battery.
I didn't expect the battery count to win and we won.
So you, every case you face a motion to dismiss, which we're facing in Brooks case, we faced
it in Rake's case.
But the judge said, oh no, that survives.
It's battery.
You know, you have enough, you've alleged enough to, you know, say there's battery.
Well, battery is not only a civil offense, it's a crime.
So we're building the record.
We get to do depositions.
We get to get their records.
We get to question them and we get to hold them civilly accountable, but we're taking
what we learn in that case, you know, to the prosecutors, already there and we've already
had some initial discussions, but they want to see what we get and then they'll make a
decision then.
So the other thing that's out there is Minnesota.
It is amazing what's going up in Minnesota.
You know, first of all, it's got a long statute of limitations, three year statute of limitations.
So a lot of states, it's one year, two year, you've been in those three years.
There are a lot of dead people that need their deaths vindicated.
And the Minnesota people, because I think because of the extra time in part and just
because some really, really strong activists up there have come together as a group to
attack the system, because that's what it is now.
It's the death system at their hospital.
And right now, what do we have, 120 widows, some survivors, 120 families, this is in Minneapolis
folks that have come together to counter attack what these hospitals did, 20 widows from mercy
alone.
So we're going to package those 20 up and looking through the records, it's a system.
We see it.
Do you have the doctors to testify?
Well, we're here looking for doctors, of course.
I'm sitting here though thinking that your big problem with all of this is Pharma basically
owns the doctors because the ones that speak out know that what's going to happen to them
could well be what happened to Pierre Corey and Paul Merrick.
And they've got children in college and deaths and blah, blah, blah, and all of that.
I'm glad you raised that.
I mean, look, the brave doctors that have come forward to testify and help and be public
about what's going on, I mean, they've all, you know, everybody knows what I hope what's
happened to Merrill Nass and what's going on there.
Renata Moon, I heard, and maybe somebody can confirm that she just won her case in Washington.
I heard that.
Is that true?
Oh, fantastic.
So these battles can be fought, and I provided a slide deck.
I'm not going to go over it, 78 pages of slide deck about what you guys face in the medical
licensing arena.
And Alan Dumoff, you know, who represents Pierre, that's his slide deck, okay?
He provided it to me, you know, for whatever I wanted to use it for, and I wanted to make
sure you guys had it and knew the name, Alan Dumoff.
And he actually has come to our free, we have a weekly meeting and we have some briefings
for the lawyers that are all internal, none of it's public.
But Alan's training lawyers how to defend the doctors.
Alan's toward the end of his career, he's helping us know, you know, helping us learn
what does it take, and we've got attorneys who want to defend you guys.
If you're in trouble, we want to defend you, those battles have to take place.
So we've got some very bright counsel that is, you know, some have already done it.
I mean, one of my partners, Tom Connors, you know, he represented doctors for 30 years.
You know, he's toward the end of his career, but I mean, we are trying to gear up Pete
Serrano in Washington with Silent Majority Foundation.
He is, that's a motivated young man.
You know, and he's ex-military, I mean, there was a bunch of, there was a group of ex-military
at COVID litigation, they're all lawyers.
These guys are ready to charge the hill, I mean, I'm telling you.
So I like the military mindset.
And then a lot of military, of course, we know what's happened there, that's a cattle
shoot too.
You know, we've lost, you know, we've lost a quarter million or more of our armed forces
over this crap.
And you guys know what's happening at the hospital, one of the hospitals we represent,
200 nurses were fired, we're still, you know, we have that lawsuit ongoing.
But that losing 200, losing 250,000, that's the margin between a functional hospital or
a functional military, hate to tell you, but our national defense is trashed right now.
You know, we take the best and the brightest, the most aggressive, the most, you know, the
most ethical, and we look at their records too.
People come to me, that's the thing that amazes me too.
They're pristine.
These people, these military men and women, these doctors, these nurses, they're pristine.
There's no discipline, there's no drug use, there's no affairs at the office.
They're pristine.
They're religious, spiritual, strongly committed people.
It's exactly who we need in our society, in our hospitals, in our military, in every
other institution that's out there.
And that's who we're going after.
But we're becoming an army, I guess, because we have to.
Five minutes, four questions.
So one of the beautiful things about Scott Shara and I think Minnesota shows, not so
much the McCallonis case, but remember that criminal prosecution is political, right?
It's political.
Don't ever forget, it's political.
We elect prosecutors or district attorneys or whatever you call them.
We elect mayors and other people who are in charge of our justice system.
It's political.
And pharma can buy them too.
Well, not so much locally.
Okay.
They're not invested yet locally.
We might trigger a lot of donations for a lot of prosecutors real quick here, but it's
political.
Remember to, first of all, get to know them, get to know who's running for your prosecutor,
and ask them when they're going to hold them accountable.
The second thing that's happening in Minnesota and Shara is media attention.
It's tremendous media attention.
It's political.
What do they pay attention to?
They pay attention to, oh, that's starting to look embarrassing when I got 20 widows
at one hospital.
All of them had the same protocol and all their husbands died.
Oh, that's a problem.
And it's on there.
CBS local news.
Scott Shara, he's done his own effort, miraculous effort to spread the news.
He's got billboards all over Wisconsin talking about his daughter.
He's, that's the level of commitment, but that's what it's going to take to get attention
and to get some criminal prosecutions going.
The other thing that's possible out there, there are some special statutes in states,
including the progressive states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, think back to the early 20th century,
that you have a separate mechanism.
You can go to a judge and ask for a probable cause finding for a criminal charge.
So we're actually in those processes too.
And then there's some citizen grand juries that actually have been meeting.
We got one of our people got on one of those citizen grand juries that you can form independent
of the justice system.
He did misbehave a little bit.
He got so upset.
He got ejected.
But, you know, he did manage to get one formed and get on it.
And I mean, that's like, it's a try.
It's an effort.
And we're learning from these efforts because these are institutions and ideas and laws
that are in these states.
We haven't used them.
We didn't think we need them.
But we were a frontier looking country.
We have some frontier mechanisms.
This is frontier justice, it really is, but in the best sense of it.
We as citizens had to come together to figure out how to deal with crime in our communities
and people who did things.
So some of these laws are still in the books from 100 years ago, 200 years ago.
Just pay attention to those and they're coming up.
So I think I've gone over the help that we need to, maybe not too much, but we need records
review, letters of merit, we need billers, pharmacists, expert witnesses, vax injury.
I got to keep going a minute.
You got a minute.
Okay.
Go.
We're trying to figure out a way, and I use the False Claims Act in a lot of things.
This slide will be available to you guys.
Who can be a defendant?
You see that?
So what we're doing on this is we're using the False Claims Act to turn the tables on
the hospitals.
Do you know there's a vaccine provider participation agreement?
This is one example of many.
It is, they're mandatory reporters.
Just like if a child came in, all beat up, right?
They got to report it.
They got to report it to the police, the child services, whatever.
They are mandatory reporters under the False Claims Act, under the provider participation
agreement, and there are civil and criminal penalties, federal criminal penalties to fail
to report to bears.
Just be aware of it.
I didn't know that.
I didn't know that.
It is considered hiding information from the federal government that you're required to
turn over, and it actually falls under the Lie Statute, 18 USC 1001.
Failure to say things sometimes can be a lie.
We kind of all know that in our personal lives.
Failure to say something can be a lie, right?
That same thing is true under the Bear System.
We can turn, and the liability is pertinent.
Let me give you the simplest idea, and it's a little more complex.
There's a lot of things we can talk about.
If you get COVID after you've had the shot, that's a reportable event of the Bear System.
It's a violation not to report it by your pharmacy, by your hospital, by your employer,
wherever you got your shot.
It's a violation for any program participant.
It's a violation of the False Claims Act.
It's a violation of criminal law.
There are mandatory reports if they're not doing it, and I know they're not because I
got nurses that were fired for trying to make reports.
It's mandatory, mandatory, mandatory, and that's a way to turn it on them.
We can turn the victims on the hospitals, and we're actually working on the system right
now to gather victims, like in pick a hospital, find 10 victims, people who got COVID or had
some adverse event, gather them together, file a False Claims Act case.
You can't do that without an attorney.
I will say that attorneys are actually mandatory in that process.
They don't let civilians do that.
It has to be an attorney, but we've got attorneys.
We're training on how to do this, and we have a model complaint that we've provided to all
the attorneys so they can do it.
Last two points, and then I'll get on funding.
I'm not good at asking for funding, but we need funding.
You can imagine if we've got just 20-mile practice cases against one hospital, how much
funding that takes.
It's a lot.
It's a couple million bucks, really, to fund that case.
Chris Rake's case with 200,000-plus employees at the University of California System, we're
going to be massively, we're going to really massively need the data there.
Brooke's case, we're at motion to dismiss stage.
If we survive that, we're going to be in discovery against Pfizer for the lies and cheating that
they did to get this thing through the FDA, so we need, listen.
These cases are absolutely critical.
Brooke's case goes through.
It's fraud.
Guess what?
The statute of limitations for fraud is long.
It's also a crime.
By the way, that would open them up, it would take, get rid of the prep act.
Please help us.
Let's get rid of the prep act.
That's one way to do it.
There's other ways to do it, and those are going, but this is a key case.
They committed fraud.
That's what we've alleged.
I think I just defamed somebody.
We've alleged that they've committed fraud, and we have the evidence, and it's in court,
and we're trying to get past the motion to dismiss right now.
Chris Rake's case, we need to get the data from the University of California system,
which was engaged in this experiment, has all kinds of research going on on this shot
and the consequences.
We need to get them.
We need to get their data.
We got past the motion to dismiss.
So now we get discovery.
We're into the discovery case on Chris Rake and Angela's case.
We're in discovery phase right now.
Good Lord, they have to give us documents.
I think we need to do questions, but because you're such a good guy and doing such good
work, and because the next session in the ballroom does not start until two o'clock,
we'll just go to five minutes of.
I don't care.
I mean, whatever.
All right.
Well, that gives you more time.
I got my list.
I'm trying to get through.
The last thing on my list is conference.
There's the COVID litigation, two conference in March, and then there's going to be a freedom
council.
I did say I was going to differentiate that a little bit.
Because we're training and trying to get everybody together and the attorneys are working with
each other, what happened is we're starting to get in other areas of law as well, beyond
COVID.
So obviously, I'm in election law area.
We're in a friend of mine just got, looks like he's going to get hired to go defend
a clerk in Arizona here who's going to be in charge criminally.
Some of you may know about that because he was investigating the election fraud in Arizona.
So they have charged her criminally, I believe her name's Tina Peters, do you guys know that?
So people are reaching out to us all over the place to help in all kinds of ways.
We got the central bank digital currencies that are going to have all kinds of liberty
implications.
We've got all these elections, we've got to get our elections straight.
This fight started with COVID, but it needs to end in freedom and needs to restore our
Constitution.
That's what we're about, and that's a long battle.
We must have some questions out there.
We do have a mic right up here behind the first table, so please come and stand at the
mic if you have a question because we want everything on the record here, on the recording.
Yes?
So, doc working in Richmond, but a patient in state of Washington.
She refuses to fill prescription patient dies.
For lack of, in this case, ivermectin, an attendee duration of missing recovery, what's
the address to such a problem where pharmacies, I mean in this case four or five different
commercial pharmacies refused a physician order?
Well, I mean there's a lot of issues there, so the physician themselves has a potential
lawsuit.
The death, I mean we've got to have a lot of detail on that, though we do have an ivermectin
case that one of our attorneys has filed, one of the freedom counsel attorneys, not
my firm, but one of the freedom counsel attorneys has filed, so we are exploring exactly that
issue in other cases.
Here's what I want to say, just being down here, we're going to have an open meeting.
It's the third Thursday of every month, and I don't know what time you guys would like
to have that available to you, but we're going to have an open meeting where anybody can
come with any issue like that, and we're going to have lawyers on that meeting, and any doctor,
nurse, whoever wants to show up, so we're going to have this third Thursday meeting dealing
with these issues so that we can continually address questions to the extent that we can.
I don't know everything, we don't know everything, but the other thing that would provide us,
it gives us a heads up, it gives us an early warning signal as to what's happening in the
community, right?
What's happening at this college or that college?
What are the medical students having to do now?
What college has reinstituted some other kind of controls on the students?
We need an early warning system.
The third Thursday meeting is going to help provide that.
We're already doing this just on the legal side with the attorneys every Monday we meet,
it's not recorded, you just open it up to whatever anybody brings, and we get a real
sense of what's happening with all the litigation nationally from those meetings, and what's
the current concern?
I want to do the same thing, but to have a medical legal opportunity to do that.
So we're figuring that out, but we already decided third Thursdays it's going to be there,
we're going to just start doing it and see what happens.
That's what we did with the attorneys, it's turned out to be a wonderful thing, so we're
going to try to replicate that more on the medical side, focused on that, because we
do a lot of employment, false claims, other things, but go ahead.
Could you go through some of the implications of Brooks case, if it's successful, like could
this actually get rid of the liability protection from Pfizer?
Yeah, of course, that's the whole point, it's fraud, we've proved fraud, they're done, they're
also bankrupt, technically the penalties on the case are, I think they're growing now,
I think we're up to $4 trillion, so Pfizer doesn't have $4 trillion, obviously, but they
would force them into bankruptcy, they have some intellectual property, we might be able
to parcel out to some new companies with some ethical behavior, but their intellectual property,
what they do, they go into bankruptcy, if we were to win, it breaks them up and it spreads
their intellectual property all around, people can buy it, go ahead.
Hi, I'm a physician and I did pulmonary critical care through all of this COVID stuff, and
I was fortunate enough that I did work in an institution where they allowed me to do
the FLCC protocol, but not without grief, for sure.
But through all of that, there's nothing I want more than justice, justice for the patients,
justice for the doctors that suffered, justice for the unvaccinated people who were shamed
and denied surgeries or transplants, or people not being able to come in and see their families,
I told Senator Ron Johnson, we need to never let that happen again, where we shut down
the hospitals and no one is allowed in to see their families, I used to have to beg administrators
to please let in a child to see their father in the ICU not doing well, confused and agitated
and all we needed was a family member to just come in there and calm them down, instead
of giving them drugs after drugs after drugs, but I would love to offer my services to Freedom
Council to review charts, to do whatever I need to do, and I'm still on the plane, I'm
reading through LSAT books thinking, I'm thinking I want to go to law school.
My son is at Nebraska right now and he wants to attend law school and I have him fired
up and I'm thinking, you know, in three years buddy, when you go, maybe I'll go with you.
Woo!
You know, from a legal career perspective, I've got to tell you, you guys probably get
the sense, I've got sadness, I've got all kinds of things I've got to deal with, but
I also have joy in what I'm doing.
This is the most interesting litigation I've ever done in my life and we're doing everything
we can to work out the structures and methodologies to hold people accountable and we're litigating
the refounding of the country basically.
Our litigation refounds the country and that's what we're doing.
What more exciting thing to do than to read the first paragraph of the Constitution and
try to apply it, right?
Oh man, I'm so sorry and you guys saw me and it hits me, I cry at the weirdest times just
because we get, I'm a guy, I had brothers, you don't cry, but I deal with, it is really
hard to deal with, you know, every day we're hearing about death, you know, I mean, you
know, eh, you know, I'm thinking of one right now, eh, six-year-old girl died this week
after getting some shots, so, eh.
My grandbabies are three and two so you see where I am and I was on the phone with my
daughter.
I mean, she's, you know, I beat her ear but after that happened I was like, listen, her
youngest is going to preschool, I said, look, you do not let them tell you that that child
has to have a vaccine to go to that preschool and Ohio does have a pretty good structure.
We know how to fight in Ohio and I can get her into the public, it's a public school,
it's a good public school but I know they're going to come up with the vaccine requirements.
So, you know, after that, I mean, I was like, man, you know, I was on the phone with my
wife and I'm telling her about this, I'm like, oh my God, you know, I know I beat my daughter's
ear about this but I'm conferencing her in, this is killing me, you know, ah, you know,
I mean, as parents, you know, I guess we put ourselves out there because, you know, gosh,
if we just, I have never, you know, if we lost a child it's just devastating and even
though, you know, I will, I'm going to share a little bit, we did lose a child at birth
so it touches me very deeply and I cannot imagine losing your child so, that was, it's
a while ago but you never get over it, you never get over it.
So my dad used to tell us every time, you know, when we'd go, why, pop, why, and he goes,
well, you're dealing with people that say, please don't confuse me with the facts.
So I have a question regarding precedent law, how does precedent law act in your favor
or not in your favor and then also, when is Nuremberg 2.0, is this real or not real, are
we going to institute it and where is it governing in today and do you know Seth Keshel?
Do I know who, what?
Seth Keshel, he is a statistician that used to be in the military and he's traveled the
United States trying to document fraud in all the counties.
Let's make the connects, yeah, please.
Very good question, California in its state, in its state legislation has the Nuremberg
Code in it, they passed it specifically, so guess what's in our case, the Nuremberg Code.
Now we're fighting about it right now, it was one of the things that the judge doesn't
like but she gave us a chance to amend, we're trying to adjust to get that in our case.
On the privacy issue that I just talked about, we are also going after what's called use
Kogan's, it's the international standard of morality and law that is independent of constitutions,
that this is simply so bad, so obviously bad that it's an international standard that's
been violated by the University of California.
So that's, we are trying, we're fighting on that issue right now to get Nuremberg in
that case, it's not, she's dismissed it but she gave us a chance to amend, that's where
we are on that.
Go ahead.
I'm the mother of a vaccine into a child from 17 years ago, and so let me just, I'm
sorry, I'm going to be crying right now, the mama bear army has been waiting for you all,
welcome, glad you're here.
So going back that long ago with vaccines, what can be done to take down the 1986 act?
Well, you know, we're going to take it down, okay, let's just be clear about that, we're
going to take it down no matter what, we're going to, we've got to take down that act,
and that needs to be on the agenda until it's over.
So you know, all of the parents of the vaccine injured, I mean, there's such a weird dynamic
going on, because that was so hidden for so long, and it just didn't get the attention
it deserved, and the press covered it up, and I don't think the world realized what
all was going on, how bad the suppression was, but now they've applied it to all this
other stuff, so the bad news is it took so long, and it took this horrible situation,
but the good news is, I think we're waking up our country again to what we are and what
we're about, and it's not about not providing compensation if somebody sacrificed for the
overall greater good, right, so we need to have compensation, we need to have studies,
we need to understand what's happening, and we need to have it, it needs to be a national
priority, and we need to hold our candidates accountable to make that a national priority.
So is that, that's where I am, oh, it's, it's, oh, legally what can be done to take
it down, listen, we got, we have to have political change, I'm sorry, we have, I know, it's a,
this is a long battle, but you know, it's always law, politics, and media, those are
our three elements, we got an organization, you guys, right, and we have, we are building
an army of people, unfortunately we're building an army of people who've lost loved ones in
the hospitals, we're building an army of vaccine injured, there's enough people there to make
a real difference, it doesn't, you know, and we are committed, we are committed to doing
this, so we're gonna get there, so legally we need to continually challenge these things,
I, Mary can probably talk much better than I about the long effort over that, and then,
you know, I don't think, Mary, that there's been a, I mean, the, the constitutionality
of that act has been brought into question, go ahead, put, put Mary on the mic real quick,
I'm sorry.
So one of the priorities right now for Children's Health Defense is really putting focus on
the 86 acts, Kelly, and you know, we are gonna take it down, right, this level of liability
protection under the 86 act, which was sort of the prototype, and then the 2005 PREP Act,
all of this disappears when that's gone.
There's not the political will right now in Congress, but there are political actors
out there, including our chairman on leave, who are making this an issue.
There are cases, so when it has been challenged, the 86 act has been challenged legally, what
they've said is, is ultimately, these cases go to judges who are under the constitution,
Article 3 judges.
So they, that's their lie, but there's so many deprivations of, of due process.
It is so full of fraud that it doesn't work at all.
So we're about to file a case, CHD is supporting a case that's really about fraud in the omnibus
autism proceeding, which we know, basically, the Department of Justice absolutely a hundred
percent provably knew that vaccines caused autism when the court of federal claims and
then the court of appeals for the federal circuit ruled, based on what DOJ put in front
of them, that, oh, there's no connection between vaccines and autism.
And that was the basis for them, the Supreme Court's decision in Bruce, it was worth this
while I had them, and a lot of the fraud that's happened since.
Also, I want to say one other case that I'm excited about.
So we're about to file one that challenges the omnibus autism proceeding, another one
that I'm really excited about that we're supporting is, I, I, is, is about the HPV vaccine.
So the human papillomavirus vaccine that is now recommended to all children, basically
worldwide and adults up to age 45, it is based on fraud, provable fraud in the clinical trials.
And I co-authored a book, you can buy it over in the, in the booth, the HPV vaccine on trial
seeking justice for a generation betrayed.
So we're supporting litigation.
It's in federal court in North Carolina now, it's multi-district litigation.
It's against Merck for Gardasil.
We have hundreds of plaintiffs who had to go through the vaccine injury compensation program
first.
When they get out of that, they go right into federal civil court.
And again, they're on the ropes.
If we can prove fraud, they're done.
That's Merck.
There's big four pharma companies and there's punitive damages under the 1986 act.
If you can prove that they perpetrated a fraud on the regulator, which they did, right?
They lied to the FDA in the clinical trial information.
So please don't despair as, as Warner said, it is a long game.
They didn't set this up overnight.
They didn't set up COVID overnight.
It was decades in the making.
And you know, we knew that they were suppressing vaccine injury.
Most people didn't know.
And so we have to join in and get to that tipping point and we're not as far away as
we may imagine.
Do we have good people in this conference?
Last question and then a couple of announcements.
So one of my frustrations through the pandemic, talking to like local council members and
the mayor of my small town in Connecticut was the sense we're following the guidance
end of story.
There was like no more debate about pushing back on things.
So my question is, it, I don't know, it feels like some point everybody treated guidance
as law.
Well, I'm going to address that.
We just addressed that early in the process.
And what we found is the guidance was bribery.
So federal money was used in all of our, like the contractor that I told you with the million
dollar bonus was also given to schools and cities.
When you took that CARES Act money, you agreed by contract, not law, but contract.
You contracted to follow the guidance.
The guidance has no force except for the contract and the government agencies, the companies,
they all thought, oh, we can't violate the contract.
That's why they were so resistant and we needed to crack that.
It took a minute for us to learn about all these contracts.
But that's what was happening.
That's why they stared at you with blank stares.
The attorneys on the other side were saying, oh my God, you better follow their guidance
or you're going to have to give all that hundreds of millions of dollars back.
I mean, our school system in Akron got $250 million from the government for the COVID thing.
20,000 students, $250 million, are you kidding me?
And no wonder they were going with the program, right?
Well I got news for you and I said this to school boards.
We went around the state of Ohio talking to school boards and school board meetings.
And it said in the contract, it says you must follow CDC guidance to the extent practicable.
So their lawyers are saying, oh, you got to do everything you can to follow the guidance.
I'm coming in and telling school board to the extent practicable.
Well, it's impracticable to violate the Constitution at the state level, the US level,
every other level.
That's impracticable and you're going to have a problem here because we're going to sue you
over that, whether it's practicable or not.
So that was my position and I thought that was a defensible position.
Jeremy may not agree.
I don't know what do you think, Jeremy?
But to the extent practicable, use their words against them, parse those contracts out.
But we didn't even understand what all this was doing.
This CARES Act funding just ramrodded all this stuff through and this is just money they printed.
It's our money that they printed against us and then used and weaponized against us.
You know, the other thing they weaponized is the weaponization of compassion.
They weaponized compassion by convincing everybody grandma was going to die.
That little Billy was going to get the teacher sick.
So they weaponized compassion.
We need to understand these structures and systems and forms and framing
so that we don't fall into the frame.
So I was asking the question more of forward thinking.
So in the future, should this happen again?
You know what, you FOIA contracts?
Oh yeah, we know, no, no, no, no, no.
So you can, there's like what I'm essentially asking is like how can I
in my little local community stop the madness if it flares up again?
Well, I'm hoping that all of us are building allies within our communities.
I mean, you know, we have got to pay attention to local governments
because they have a huge ability to push back if they're willing to.
Our police force pushed back in Akron.
I happen to represent the FOP.
But the police said they came out with this crazy thing
that you couldn't have more than five people together at Thanksgiving.
I think that was that 2021.
And I'm like, I got 23 people invited to my family, you know,
and we had a debate about it actually at the Bar Association on Zoom.
And everybody called me a Trumper after that.
But our police union head who we work with, he came up and said, you know,
to the city that passed this stupid law, good luck enforcing it.
You know, he's totally, you know, was insubordinate.
He didn't get fired over it.
But we need to have people like that who'll stand up in our communities.
And he did.
Thank God.
Warner Mendenhall.
