Ohio Stands Up - Jon Rappoport Interviews Attorney Tom Renz (Covid-19)

Video Transcript:

All right, so this is John Raffaport here, investigative reporter at No More Fake News, and this is being brought to you by Salari.com, Katherine Austin-Fitts. I'm here with Ohio Attorney Tom Mrens, who has filed what I believe is a stunning, astonishing much needed lawsuit in Ohio on behalf of plaintiffs against Governor Mike DeWine and the state of Ohio for their declaration of a state of emergency and the damages that have ensued as the result of that declaration, including business closure, lockdown, et cetera, and so on and so forth. But that is just the beginning of this, as you will see as this conversation ensues. So, Tom, thank you for being here and having read through your lengthy court filing, I was to say I was pleasantly surprised to be a vast understatement because you're not only basing this case on constitutional facts and freedom, but on the science underlying the declaration of the state of emergency, which I believe is absolutely essential. So, can you say something about that because I think not only the audience, but other attorneys out there should be taking notice of this. Well, thanks for having me, John. I'm honored to be here. And yeah, you're right. So, when we were looking at this, we talked to our clients and they wanted to get back to normal, real normal, not new normal, not as well as normal. They wanted to get back to being Americans and living in a free republic. So, we looked at how we could do this and one of the things that became apparent to me is there are a lot of great attorneys out there that are challenging things, but the problem is is that a lot of them are challenging this on various bases where they make it in order or two orders struck down, but it's like cutting the head off of Hydra. Once you do it, two more heads come up. So, we looked at this and we said, well, if we really want this to go away, we need to show that this shouldn't be here in the first place. We've got to challenge a premise. And it's a tough thing to do in a court and for an attorney. You know, we're if we could do math, we'd be engineers, if we could do science, we'd be doctors instead of attorneys. So, you know, the thing about it is, is we had to do a lot of work to take this science, the real science and to boil it down to something that was useful and digestible in both the courts and for us to be able to argue. So, we did that and the idea was that if the science and if the facts that that underlie this entire action are false, well, then we shouldn't be doing what we're doing. Yes. Okay. So, just to restate what you're saying in summary terms, if I, for example, as the governor say, I'm declaring a state of emergency because we have a very threatening danger situation here and this justifies the following actions that I'm taking. Stay home. Don't go to work. Wear a mask, etc., etc., etc. Then somebody like you and your clients have the right to come along and say, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. What are you basing this declaration on? What are the underlying facts and science, etc., that you think gives you the reasonable right to declare the state of emergency in the first place? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. So, essentially, you know, the power to declare an emergency is important. I mean, if we get invaded or if we have a bioterror attack, you know, the governor is they got to be able to react. So, we don't question that they have a right to react, but they have to have a basis for reacting and it's got to be a true basis, right? And that's not been tested fully under the Constitution. The Supreme Court did give us precedent to say that we absolutely have the right to challenge an ongoing emergency. That came from a case that came out of the great depression way back when. Not quite as old as Jacobson, which all the governors are relying on for this, which is amazing because Jacobson is a case does not justify any of this. But that case allows us to challenge the premise. It allows us to challenge whether this emergency should be here. And there's a lot of new things in this constitutionally, but that's kind of the summary of it. Okay, so again, if I'm the governor and I say we have 16,000 new cases in the last four weeks, which is a tremendous threat and therefore justifies my lockdown order. And you could show in court that the 16,000 new cases are actually 34 new cases. This would be relevant to say the least, right? Very, very relevant. Ultimately, this is something that your viewers listeners should be scared of. There is not actually a very well-defined precedent for what you have to do to have an emergency. That's terrifying to me. There's also a lot of things that happen once emergencies declared that have not been very well tested in the court. So we don't know some of that. We think we do. And we certainly believe that in America, the constitution prevents these guys from just going crazy. But you know what? Ultimately, you're dead on. It just boils down to this. If we say, as a governor, you know, we've got 190,000 deaths, we have to start doing, taking action, actions to save our country. In these actions, we can do whatever we got to do. But it turns out that there's only 40,000 deaths. Well, you know, that certainly doesn't support that. It's very relevant in court. Yes, absolutely. And this seems to be, I won't say completely missing from people's minds, but they've been treated to such a terrifying amount of, quote, news media, what I would call propaganda, public health officials spouting off pronouncements from high places. That the public tends to be hypnotized by all of this and to accept it without question. So, for instance, I don't know what you want to talk to here exactly and how much detail, but let's take, for example, the diagnostic test for COVID-19, the PCR test. You're prepared to argue in court that this test is not what it seems to be. Absolutely, absolutely. And I definitely want to talk about that, but let me hit something that you said first that actually is critical to this. You mentioned the propaganda. And this is why people like you are so important because honestly, that's intentional. We have documents from the CDC. We have evidence. And you know what, you don't even need to look at our evidence. Run a Google search for public health, motivational theory and fear. If you run a Google scholarship search and you look into this, what you'll find is since the 60s, and this isn't conspiracy theory, this is just part of public health education. When you want to become a public health specialist, this is what you learn. If you want people to follow public health dictates, you have to scare them. This is intentional. We have a document from a CDC spokesman talking about how he needs to partner with the media, how he needs to create high levels of fear and anxiety in the public to promote, in this case, this document was related to a vaccination. He wanted to have everybody taking the flu vaccine, he was talking to industry executives about how to increase demand on it. It was a mind blowing presentation. It was so frank and honest. It really was amazing, but they talk about partnering with the news media, partnering and putting out this information, always where the glass is half empty. Be able to spin it so there's some basis of truth, but always present the glass is half empty so that you can scare the population into action. That is truly both unethical and no more than a manipulation of the public. That is underlying a lot of what we're hearing in the news. I'm not sure why there's not more people like you who are actually investigating this far enough to find out the truth because the truth is there. You do have to do some digging, but there's a lot of journalistic malpractice in this. We need people like you doing this. I'm grateful for that. That's why I'm glad to be here because if we don't get the word out, then what we have is a narrative created by people who are making millions of dollars off of promoting the narrative. The funding that's been going to the CDC from promoting this narrative is mind blowing. Like I said, this isn't some guy talking about a conspiracy theory. This is just reality. If you search and you do any homework on public health and public motivational theory, getting the people to do what they need to do, a ton of it is based on fear. We actually have in our case along with that another separate document from a couple public health professionals who find that approach and this to be somewhat unethical and they argue against the problems it's going to cause because ultimately here's the thing. When people find out that the facts of this case are what they are, the true facts and that they've been lied to, what happens next time when we have a real public health emergency? No one believes the CDC because they've destroyed their credibility. That becomes a real crisis and then we could lose a lot of lives. All because it was more convenient. We got the funding this time to promote it. That's a critical part and it was something that I think is really important to point out when you ask that question. Okay. The narrative that you're talking about, this is a narrative that claims to be talking science. In other words, it's invoking fear. That's the purpose of it. But it's doing it with numbers, statistics, take this test, trace here, do this, stay home because the transmission of the virus, et cetera, et cetera, the narrative is built on these bricks of so-called science which really when you look below the surface are not science at all. Right. We actually have, so yeah, people tell me, well, you've been fact-checked. That's been debumped. Okay. Well, here's what you got to know. If I lied to a federal court, I lose my license. So if I don't believe what I'm saying, it doesn't work well for me. I have documents. I have evidence. Evidence that make it to federal court. For example, we have the director of public health and Illinois on record stating that the number of people in the death count is people with COVID, not from. We have a similar statement from Dr. Berks herself. So when we hear about this 190,000 death from COVID, that's not from. And this is an example of how they manipulate it, right. So they changed the tracking for COVID, the death tracking. This came out in a CDC document and we can cite through it we do in the case. So before I get letters about conspiracy theories, take a look at the CDC documents. The 190,000 numbers, the number of people who have died with COVID. Now, first of all, I don't know that I believe that's even the number of people who have died with COVID because the testing for COVID is nonsense. But the thing is, is that means under CDC guidelines, if you get hit by a bus and you die and you die from being hit by the bus, but you had COVID when you were dying, well, you'd be counted there. And we have absurd examples of people who were listed as COVID deaths when they obviously didn't die from COVID, but they died with COVID. So legally, there are a lot to be listed as a COVID death. And this deception, this misleading of the public between the width and the from is a critical, critical thing. My scientists who have evaluated the data on the CDC and who have done their homework and these guys are smarter than any person should ever be are estimating that the total number of people who have probably actually died from COVID, not with, but from to be in the 25 to 35,000 range, which is not even a real severe flu season. Okay. So to again summarize the width and the from, if I happen to be diagnosed with COVID and then I have a motorcycle crash and die on the freeway, then somebody writes COVID 19 death on my file and that counts as a COVID death that would be death with the virus supposedly, as opposed to, no, the virus actually caused the death, which is death from the virus. And so this to put it very politely to say this is a confusion of from and with would cause the actual death count in the United States. The number of people that are said to be dead from COVID 19 to plummet, as you say, to levels that are a mild flu season on that level. And of course, we've never had any lockdowns or states of emergency or anything like this or mask wearing or distancing from an ordinary flu season. That's true. So talk about the PCR test, which is supposedly the gold standard. This is what is used to say you're a case, you're a COVID case, you're infected, you have the virus. We now count you as a COVID case because you tested positive on the diagnostic test, which is called the PCR. Talk about that. Yeah. So the PCR test and I've had a lot of doctors spend a lot of time educating me on this. And we've looked at this from every angle and what we've done is we've taken the worst case scenario for our case and argued from that position. Okay. And we have to do that because we would rather argue and win big than the other way around. So the PCR test was invented by a guy who won a Nobel Prize for the test, brilliant guy. And he specifically said this test is wonderful for labs and should never be used to diagnose illness. He said that because it doesn't work. You can't diagnose illness with the PCR test. See, when this all started, everybody talks about testing. We don't have tests. We don't have tests. So they come up with something, anything, because that's what politicians do. This wasn't anybody's fault. This is just the reality that no one ever tests for population-based viruses like this that are not super, super severe. So there just isn't anything. We don't test everybody in the population for the flu. So they come up with this PCR test, right? The PCR test doesn't work. Here in Ohio, we had a governor to wine tested positive before he tested negative over the course of two days and three days, something like that. He had a tested positive and then had two more negative tests the next two days. Well, how could that happen in a gold standard test? Well, I'll tell you how it could happen. The PCR test looks and sees whether or not there are any fragments of the virus that causes COVID-19 fragments. Now, we go through our life every day. And my doctors have explained to me that we have tons of viruses and bacteria and all sorts of nasty things that are in our system all the time. They float around in the air, they're just a part of the world and that's why we have an immune system. Our immune system wins almost all of the time. So having a fragment does not mean you're sick, nor does it mean you're infected, nor does it mean anything else. It just means you have a fragment. So this test is super hypersensitive and can tell whether or not you have a fragment. If you have a fragment and if you, depending on who your test maker is, because by the way, the CDC has not set a standard for what it means to have COVID-19. There is no national standard. Instead, every one of the hundred plus manufacturers of the COVID tests set their own standard. And so if you take it with one test, you may have it and if you take it with another, you may not. So these these manufacturers all set the standard. There's no national standard. And once you run it, you could have a fragment of this virus in your system that is completely meaningless, never get sick, never have any issues, but still be diagnosed as a COVID test or a COVID case under this gold standard type of a test. So what you're getting is you've got the potential for a massive amount of false positives. And you know, it just depends on how you run the test. It's interesting to see them talk about how there there could be false negatives, but they don't mention the false positives. It doesn't really matter whether there's negatives for positives because the test doesn't work and it doesn't mean anything. Well, to establish that in court, and I know exactly what you're talking about. I've written extensively on the PCR. You're going to have to call expert witnesses. Actually, before that, you're going to be doing discovery, which means bringing people in who are reputed experts, who are the officials, giving us the official line, and questioning them at great length and detail under oath. Yes, sir. So I'm assuming that this would mean that you would have people sitting there, and you would say, okay, now we're going to enter this area of discussing the PCR test because you have made many statements about the test and what it means, and how we must rely on it, and base our decisions on it to lock down, etc., etc. So we want to get your statements on the record and ask you very serious questions about the veracity and reliability and accuracy of the test. So I presume that in this discovery process, a great deal of highly significant information is going to come out. That is absolutely our hope. I will tell you that coming into this case, probably the number one most important strategic aspect of this case was getting to discovery. Discovery to me is everything. You know, I'm a normal guy from Ohio. I'm not special. I'm an attorney. I do my best. I'm fighting for a cause. There's better attorneys than me. There's better people than me. Smarter people. And so I know that. My goal here, though, was if I got to discovery, which we are getting there now, we will have discovery. Then what that means is I can start bringing the facts to light, the real facts. No spin. I get to see the real data. And it's an interesting thing because we keep in Ohio, we've had people elected officials from Ohio General Assembly are just ignored when they've asked for data on this by the governor's office. No one is sharing any of the data. So I don't know what they have to hide. And I know you don't typically hide something unless you have something to hide. But as we get to this data from the CDC, from the Ohio Department of Health, from all these different groups, and we see the real data, we'll be able to make public God willing. I mean, as soon as we get this information and we get it ready, we will submit it to the court, which is typically public record. And people will be able to see what the truth is. Not no question about conspiracy. No question about whether it's real or not. It's just based on their data. Now we've done everything in our case based on their data, but they hit a lot of it. So we couldn't do any more. I welcome more of it, but discovery will allow us to find out the real truth. It'll also allow us to find out who knew what and what they knew it. You know, who's been lying? When did they start lying? Did the doctors who were making cons of money off of federal funds? Did they lie? Did they commit fraud to get that money? Did the governor lie? Who lied? Because based on the data, we're seeing someone's lying. And this is their data, not mine. So I'm very eager for discovery. Because ultimately, after discovery, it doesn't matter whether I win or not, someone will be able to win in a big way. I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm going to try and win. I'm carrying this to the bitter end one way or another. I'm very eager to do so. But the key here is getting the facts and finding the facts and getting these facts out to the public. Because not only do we need to win in the court, we need to make sure that the public is aware of what's happened so that they're capable of knowing in the future that, you know, maybe we shouldn't just say, well, trust your elected officials, trust your bureaucrat, which I keep hearing. You know, I don't trust them. They need to show me, they need to prove to me that there's a reason to take my rights away before I'm willing to just trust them to take them. So discovery's huge. We're very excited about it. Discovering could show, for instance, much, much, much lower case numbers than announced, much, much lower death numbers than announced. The test itself, excuse me, is unreliable, useless in fact, that scare tactics have been consciously deployed in order to frighten people into accepting dictates, handed down from government officials, that this so-called pandemic, which is used to justify all of these harsh, harsh measures, is not really a pandemic at all. Yes. Discovery could reveal all of this. Yes. Yes, it really could. You could have Anthony Fauci sitting there. Yes, he could. Discovery under oath. With you rolling up your sleeves for a very long question and answer session. We hope to do this to that. I would love to have a lot of these people explain to me their basis for arguing that we should have our fundamental rights of bridge. I hear them out there just yesterday, or just recently, Redfield was out there talking about these masks. I almost wore a mask to this interview because I thought maybe it would prevent me spreading a computer virus and I wanted to just be courteous to you. I figured it would do a good job of stopping a computer virus to you as it would stop and coronavirus for someone else. I mean, it's absurd. We have decades of science on masks because doctors have worn them in the operating room forever. The reason they wear them in the operating room is not because it stops virus systems spreading. It's because if they're operating and they happen to get snotty or drool-y or something else that's normally normal and human, it doesn't get that into the patient. I mean, the idea that it's going to actually stop a virus is absurd. It's well known, it doesn't. In fact, it's also well-known in science that if you wear a mask improperly, it's a greater risk than it is a benefit. That's why Fauci and all these people, when this first started happening, said the public shouldn't wear a mask because they knew it wasn't safe. I don't know what in God's name they were thinking when they decided to change their mind on all this. I think it was really probably based on just the intent to manipulate people further. If you wear a mask, we actually do have an email which I'm hoping I can get the actual email on. It's a screenshot, so I can't use it as evidence yet. But where we saw the governor and one of his doctors talking and they talk about masks and the comment was made, well, at least people can feel like they're a part of the solution. I don't need to feel like I'm a part of the solution. I don't think there's a problem. You have, you want to wear a mask? Good, wear one, but don't tell me I need to. It's absurd. Why do you think so many people have fallen into a line? Let's just take masks, for example. You see them everywhere. And if you're not wearing a mask, sometimes you get hostile reactions from people. So maybe this is outside the scope of the case. I don't know, but what is going on with people? Yeah, well, here's the thing. So if I win the case tomorrow and we don't have these conversations, then I still got 100 million plus Americans who've been scared and are going to stay locked in their house and will never hear anything but the official narrative on it, which will get spun in some garbage way. So this is a little outside the case, but certainly relevant to winning this fight. As far as things go, people trust their doctors and they should. Your local doctor, your doctor, probably a good guy. He's probably been, he or she has probably been lied to as much as everyone else. By the way, the CDC has a special section where it basically summarizes data for doctors. And you can imagine it's not always sharing all of the data, sharing what makes their case best. Doctors are busy. They're seeing however many patients a day, they've got some big health system telling them now that they have to see x number of patients per hour or else. They don't have time to sit and research and study this. Plus, you got to remember these doctors, they only see the sick as to the sick. So to them, if you've got research that's coming your way from someone that you're supposed to be able to trust like the CDC or your big hospital system that says coronavirus is killing everybody. And then you see only the sick as to the sick. You're going to think it's trouble, it's bad, right? Problem is is that when you get to the data that the CDC is using and sharing with labs and sharing on the high level, it says something different. You also have the problem with the fact that if you speak out as a doctor, you may well lose your job. There's lots of cases of great doctors around the country who've lost their job because they spoke out against the narrative on this. So why is that? Well, that's because these big hospital systems are making tons of money from COVID. They lost all sorts of money when the governor and all these places shut them down. But the federal funding ended up being a big deal for them. So you have a lot of people who are supporting this narrative who are making it hard for local people for individuals to know the truth. I think that the trust for people between them and their medical providers is part of the problem. You just don't ever question anyone who's a medical provider. And I think that one kind of up the chain. When you hear Dr. Fauci, Dr. Brooks, Dr. Althell and you how dangerous it is, well, how many people can read a scientific study on health care? Very, very few. I mean, it's complicated stuff. I can't tell you how much time I had to spend to learn how to do all this. So, you know, the thing is, is I think that it's just been a very, very, very well planned, very sophisticated attempt to manipulate people. And they've done so incredibly effectively. And I think that most people just want to go about their lives and didn't have the time or the energy to dig into this. And when every night you hear about the next person that died, by the way, I mentioned the CDC presentation. It talks specifically in that presentation about making sure that the media is showing kids and people who wouldn't normally be affected who are dying, right? So every night you hear on the news media about the one kid who died or the one healthy young adult that died, that was, you know, certainly not the norm. In Ohio, last time I checked, by the way, we have not had a single child under the age of 19 died. So they show this. They show this on purpose because that's how you scare people. And so it's just a well-placed narrative. It'll very well done narrative. And unless we have someone else out there talking and sharing truth, why would you question it? Understood. So I want viewers and listeners to be reminded again of the double nature of the case that you're filing. This is not only about constitutional freedoms and the imposed crushing and limitations on those freedoms through declarations of states of emergency and lockdowns and closures of businesses, the untold amount of human and economic wreckage that has been caused by incursions on guaranteed freedoms and liberties. But it's also saying if you're going to declare a state of emergency like this and impose all these restrictions, you're on the hook to explain why. You're on the hook to present data, facts, science that justifies this. You can't just say the experts all tell us or it's obvious or this is what the CDC said. CDC said. And so your case is coming at it from both angles and in court, your plan is to question the underlying fact and science that's being used or abused to make these emergency declarations to pull the pin out from under the whole thing. In other words, absolutely. We believe that the premise is flawed. You have to have a reason if you're going to so there's different standards. When you go to court and you got to argue something constitutionally and I'm not going to get too much in the weeds here because I'll put people to sleep real quick. But when you go to the court and you say this is unconstitutional, the court looks at it through different loans. So certain things, if you made a law that was a racist law, for example, the state has to prove that that law is necessary and it serves a compelling interest in that it's narrowly tailored and it's not doing any more than that. They've really got a high standard to meet. There's other laws where the states only got to have a rational basis. Certain things can be a bridge on a rational basis. But there's essentially three main standards, arguably a fourth. And what we're saying is that certainly the facts don't justify meeting the high standard. Certainly the facts don't justify meeting the intermediate standard. And we absolutely do not believe that the facts justify even meeting the lowest standard to bridge constitutional rights. And one of the things that's not really been tested enough in my opinion under the constitution is the ninth amendment. The ninth amendment lets us be free. It essentially says you just can't make up these ridiculous rules out of nowhere. If the ninth amendment has any meaning, it certainly applies to what's happened here because there's a lot of things that just no one would have thought they would ever abridged. We look at the ruling out of Pennsylvania, which was a wonderful ruling. They brought up a number of situations and questions about rights that no one's really ever challenged in court. The court had to figure out what sort of review they should do on on a constitutional challenge related to these rights. That's tough and it's a big deal for a court to do. But the reason they had to do it is because we just never had anyone try and pretend that this is Venezuela slash communist China slash, I mean, it's ridiculous. I mean, telling people that they can't go to work, telling people that their local furniture store is not valuable and is not essential. But your big chain furniture store is, telling people that going to see Graham at the nursing home is not a decision to make anymore, it's now the states. And these are things that are absurd. No one ever thought we'd have to challenge these in court because this is United States. We're supposed to be free. So, you know, we're really hitting a lot of new ground here. But I think that ultimately I do believe based on everything I have seen in just common sense that the court is going to end up seeing things our way. At least that's my hope. The Pennsylvania case came out well. ours is quite a bit more aggressive than the Pennsylvania case. We're challenging a lot more. But I do think we're going to end up on pretty good grounds with this. I certainly hope so. Okay, now you want a jury trial. You want citizens to hear what we've been talking about here. The science, what about the test, what about the case numbers? Are they real or they fake? The death numbers? Is that real or fake? Do we really have a pandemic or not? In other words, is there any basis whatsoever for having declared a state of emergency and all of the lockdowns and closures and so on? You want citizens to be in panel as a jury to hear expert witnesses testifying under oath about all of this. And tell us why. Well, I think that's critical. So some of this, you know, will be before the judge and that just part of the law. That's the way that works. And that's okay. I mean, I believe that we've got a good judge who's going to do what he does. Contrary to public opinion, I actually have a lot of reverence for the courts and think that for the most part, there's bad rulings everywhere. There's always a few bad guys on any profession. But I think the courts do try to get to justice. That said, in this case, we think it's critical to have a jury trial. We want a panel of our peers. You know what? Let me tell you the truth. Let me show you the truth. Let me show you the real data. Let the state argue their side. And if you think that we're full of it, well, okay. But I think part of the jury trial, part of the advantages is when this is done. This wasn't just decided by a judge. And so I think that removes some of the, well, it's just an activist judge. I don't, yeah, that's nonsense. I don't necessarily believe that happens as often as others. But it just removes it from the equation. Instead, we've got a jury. And I'll tell you that it's my opinion that the jury's probably a lot more often than not. Get it right. Not always. They do make mistakes, but a lot more often than not. So, you know, I think it's, I think it's an important aspect of this case. We're not to the point where that's a guarantee yet. But I do really don't know how we would, uh, I'm sure the state will challenge it. I believe the state strategy in this case entirely is going to be based on procedure. I don't know how they can stand up in terms of actual substantive law or fact. So I think they're going to try and get us thrown out of court at every single turn. I think they're going to try trying to try and object to a jury trial. I think they're going to try and object to anything that we want to do. I really hope they don't. Because if we care about getting to justice, they don't really have a good reason to object. But they'll try because that's really, I think the only, it's only, like they have to stand on, in my opinion. I don't see how else they can argue that this is constitutional and justified. Like I said, we're using their facts, not ours. So, um, yeah. The thing, one of the things that I like personally about the idea of a jury trial is that both sides will be alerted in the courtroom that they have to present information to these people, not just a judge sitting on the bench. It has to be made comprehensible to the people who are the jury. So as sophisticated as some of this information is and sorting out truth from lies and so on, the attorneys on both sides are going to know, okay, we've got to make this understandable to the people sitting here. It's not that the people are dumb. It's that they need to be brought into this because after all, they're the ones who are being affected. We all are being affected, but let's have representatives of the people decide this. Let's have that be significant. And in my experience as a reporter for a long time, whenever I've seen a case made journalistically that was clear, rational, concise and upset the apple cart of official claims, people understood it. They grasped it if it was presented correctly. They could see, oh, well, in that case, now that you're showing me what's going on, of course they're lying. Now I see it. Well, I think a jury would be in for some shattering revelations sitting in the box, listening to this all come out in court. Is there any chance that this trial would be open videoed, open to the public, people sitting there watching a day after day? I have no idea. I really don't. I haven't really even gotten far enough to think about that, to be honest, but I tell you what, it would be wonderful if it was. I do think that this is so relevant to the public that it would be a wonderful thing if people could see it. And I challenged, like I said, from the beginning, and I'll say this publicly, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if we're wrong, we ask the state, the CDC, or anyone else to give us full access to the data. We have experts. We'll have it evaluated. We're going to look at it. And if we're wrong, I'll issue a public apology, and I'll go away, and you'll never hear from me again. Happy to do it. If not, to your question about the trial being made public, it's typically not in federal court, but I don't know. I think there'd be a lot of value in people getting the opportunity to hear the truth, and to have this broken down in a way that they can understand it. Right now, we assert that the CDC, the ODH, the number of these people, have intentionally misled the public. In fact, I saw there was a news story about, I want to say somewhere in Tennessee, a mayor, and someone else were emailing about how they needed to keep the case count from the local bars under wraps, because they've shut down the local bars and taverns, but the cases that have come out of them have been nearly none. And so that someone got ahold of this email and published it, and someone did a news story art on it. And they're caught, red handed. We're trying to hide this because we don't want backslash about what we're doing. There's value to people seeing this, because if I'm right, and obviously I believe I am, I can't bring this case if I didn't have a good case belief in that I am. I think people need to see it. They need to hear it. They need to know the facts. So that's why from our end, we've made everything as public as we can. Our evidence is available. Not all of it yet, because we can't make it all available immediately. But as we submit it to the court, we're going to continue if, to the full extent that we're allowed to making it public, we've made the case public. I hope lawyers in every state and the country file this case. You know, sometimes people worry about sharing their work. Well, I'll help them. They can call me. I will be happy to help them file this case anywhere that they want to file it. We want this done. We want our freedoms back. So I think that the value, this is why I'm here, right? I'm not interested in being famous. I'm not interested in my face being everywhere. But I also, I am interested in my freedoms. And if we don't educate people, if I don't come out and do this, if I don't come out and talk with people and share our story, well, it's going to get spun in the news. And it's going to be just ripped and shredded and no one will ever hear the truth. So I got to do this. And by the same token, if we can have this public in any way, shape or form, I think it needs to be because otherwise, even if we win, like I said, we still get a hundred million plus scared Americans who think that it was a political win rather than a win based on actual science and fact. Freedom, when you say we're taking your freedom away tomorrow, people say why? To me, that's what this case is about. And you're saying why? And in the discovery process, you find out a lot more about why from their side, you question them deeply, you bring out things that they don't want to have brought out. Many things come to light about why. And then in court, with your expert witnesses, the case really becomes accentuated and emphasized. And you show, hey, when they said that they're taking away your freedom, and you said why? Guess what? It turns out there is no good why. In fact, it's a very bad why. And it involves misleading, lying, obfuscating, hiding, emphasizing this, but taking that away, etc, etc, etc. I mean, this is so fundamental to me to the country and what it's based upon that this case has to go forward. Yes, yes, I absolutely believe that. I'll tell you, one of the things that's amazing to me is that why hasn't been asked more? And ultimately, I see people, well, this isn't that bad, you should be okay with it. Right? Well, here's the problem. This is setting a precedent. If we allow this precedent to be set, you may not care about the rights you're losing now, but what about the rights you might lose in the future? Right? So let's take this and let's put this in another setting. Right? So I think probably one of the most important things that's happened in the 20th century was the civil rights movement. So let's go back to the 60s in Alabama and in some of these places where they were, they're saying, you know, civil rights no good, right? Imagine if the governor back then could have declared a public health emergency, said that this is these marches, Selma, all these different marches, these are not allowed. It's a public health emergency. We don't want these marches. Imagine what that would have done to our nation. Imagine where we'd be today. You know, right now you may not care about having to wear a mask, but the thing is, is should you be forced to do it? Should someone be allowed to force you to do it? Because what if you got a new governor in the future that doesn't care about the rights that you care about? What happens then? You know, right now you say, well, I don't care. But guess what? You may care in the future, and once the precedent's set, it's set. We've got a fight for this to ensure that our future is and you know, it's amazing. This is politicized naturally. Clearly in the news media, this is, you know, if you believe that you don't wear a mask to your right wing's alley, I don't understand that. I do not understand that. I see the protests. No one's wearing masks. I support the right for these people to protest. I don't have to agree with what they're what they're saying in all cases. Some cases I do some I don't, but what I believe is that they have the absolute fundamental right in this country to protest. No question about it. They're not wearing masks, though. These governors could easily have shut this down and said, sorry, you can't protest public health. We got a COVID problem. If that had happened, where would we be? Would these same people who are politicizing this on the left say that this is okay then? And how's it any different? We have the 14th Amendment. We have equal protection of laws. Why is it that we're allowing people together for protests, but they can't gather for church? I don't understand that. And the thing is is I think they should be able to gather for protests, but they should also be able to go to church. It's your decision in this country and we start giving up our freedoms. Where do you draw the line? The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We've got to watch. We've got to fight. And it's not about whether you care about the freedom you've lost today. It's about whether you might care about the freedom you will lose tomorrow. So that's where we're at on this. It seems to me that now in the era of science, this is kind of the hypnotic effect. We're talking science here. So we can declare a state of emergency on that basis. And there's nothing really to argue about because you wouldn't understand it anyway. And our people are the smartest people. And just trust us because this information is very technical, but it's very true. And so you must do the following and you can't do this and you can't do that and we're shutting everything down. So this becomes a major major problem as one of the most significant ways to take away people's freedoms, declare states of emergency, destroy the constitution, which it does. I mean, if you, as you say, if you can declare a state of emergency based on a whim at any time, a governor, a president, a premier, whatever, you know, then whatever has been enshrined in documents, guaranteeing rights and freedoms is automatically destroyed. It's gone. It's as if it never existed. So in the modern age, the way this is normally justified has something to do with science because people tend to accept grandiose statements about science and generalities and they just, it's almost like a religion now. So therefore, this is a great way for governments to declare emergencies because people say, well, the experts must know. Yeah, so that's absolutely right. And this is something I can't claim to be the guy who should lead the legal profession by any means, you know, only said some guy from Ohio, right? That said, I'm firmly of the belief that lawyers need to be willing to challenge more than just what they normally look at. It's a scary thing. So I've got myself almost probably in the vicinity of 2000 hours in this case. It's an obscene amount of time. I had to learn so many things that, you know, they aren't taught in law school. This is a critical thing and I can't just learn them. I have to know them. That's a tough, tough thing. But if we believe in justice, if we believe that our constitution is worth fighting for, if we believe that we should be free people, the lawyers have a duty, in my opinion, to do more. I put my money where my mouth was on this and I did it because I believe that I have kids. I actually have a mother in nursing home jail right now. My brother calls it a petting zoo because he can go and he can look at her from through a window and wave at her. He can't actually see her because my mother is apparently not capable of making her own decision in Ohio, whether or not she wants to take the terrible risk of visiting with her grandchildren and children while she's in the nursing home because Mike DeWine has decided that she's not capable of making that decision. So, you know, as I look at this, this is a fight that we have to have. I hope other people will have the courage to put the time and the effort. And lawyers, we talk a lot about access to justice and pro bono work and I think both are very important things. I've got my pro bono hours this year. I think we're good on that. I'm getting paid, but that's not the point. I'm also giving a lot towards this and the reason is that's what we've got to do. We've got to give to this. I believe in access to justice. Everybody deserves a good lawyer when they're in trouble with the law because the law is complicated. But part of this, when we talk about access to justice, as we as attorneys, we understand that everybody deserves a fair shot with the law and if you don't have a good lawyer, well, you probably aren't going to get a fair shot. Well, here's the thing. As you said, science has become the way of things. And now what's happening, and I've seen this more than just with the cult, I've seen other instances where apparently nonsense things have been pushed and those things have been pushed under the guys' assignments. And everybody just says, well, we can't question it at science. Well, okay, well, what if the scientists are lying? And how much of the scientists who are saying that it's science getting paid for saying it's science? These are questions that we've got to ask. I mean, you can't just blindly trust that people are going to be honest all the time. I believe most people are honest most of the time. But you know, you start waving millions of dollars of grant money in front of someone. They're going to write the study the way that you want the study written. And right now, this serves as a case study in the idea that we really have to question science just because someone says it's back doesn't mean it is. And if we don't question that, and I think really for attorneys, attorneys have to question that. And if they don't, well, I think they're really missing out. And I think that's part of what's happened here. I find it amazing that six months into this, the best we could come up with was some guy from Freeman, Ohio, and another guy from Moreno, Ohio, to take on this fight. There's two of us. There's two attorneys in an intern on this case. And we're both regular people. And we're doing to do our best. We're going to fight till the bitter end. But this should have been taken by the biggest long firms in the country immediately. Where is this? Where are these people? Why are they not stepping up? I mean, I support these people. These are my peers and these probably better lawyers than me. But where were they? And that's something that I think is a profession we got to ask ourselves because we've watched our constitutional freedoms be stumped on like never before. And are you telling me that the legal profession didn't think it was good to question this? Really? Of all professions? This should have happened a week into it, two weeks into it, a month into it at the most. When they decided to do statewide house arrests, by the way, I challenge anyone to look at the lockdown order that occurred in Ohio and set it next to the criminal definition of house arrest under the Ohio revised code and tell me they see a big difference. We had a statewide house arrest without due process in Ohio. Nothing, just you're all you can find your house unless there's an emergency or something necessary. No one questioned this. It's incredulous to me. I'm just incredulous about that. How could you not question this? I don't care. I'm going to be honest with you unless someone is walking down my street, firing a machine gun at someone else because we've been invaded. Don't tell me I got to stay in my house. That's absurd. But yet we don't question it. No one even said, well, you know, is the science real? It took it took months before anyone and then you're stuck with me. I mean, really? I can't fathom this. So yeah. Nothing able fathom this is a is a major strength. I can tell you because what you're saying, I would echo about journalists. You mean that after a month, two months, three months, virtually no mainstream journalists are seriously criticizing or questioning the lockdown orders, the house arrests, the science behind this when it's their job to investigate that down to the core and not to trust officials just because they're making pronouncements and not to say the experts, the authorities, etc. warn that as of up up without any explanation. Finally here, I just want the viewing audience to understand that as this case moves forward and in discovery and in court, you have a number of expert witnesses on your side, scientists who will challenge every significant piece of data that has been used in order to justify the lockdowns in the house arrest and so on and so forth. Yes, we do. We have some brilliant, brilliant people. And what this tells me and should tell everybody is never believe that there is only one stream of science, although it's made to look that way because you can see on television that there's a press conference and at the press conference, there is a doctor who has a prime position and can step forward and make some pronouncement that everybody sees. Don't assume this is all there is to science or that that's the only point of view that a true scientist would have as we will see as your case progresses. There are many, many very bright scientists who see this quote pandemic in a whole different light. There are many brilliant scientists, there are scientists who have spoken out and lost their jobs for doing so. There are people who have done everything they could to get people to pay attention to what's really happening and a great personal sacrifice. There are a lot of people who recognize that this is nonsense and here's the one common trait I have found with the people who are telling us that we're all going to die from this. They all are getting paid a lot based on that. Now I'm not going to tell you that I know the motive for this because I don't and I don't need to. My case isn't about motive, it's not a criminal case. All I have to do is show that this was unconstitutional and why? Which I say that like it's a small feat but I don't need to know but I will I challenge people, I challenge everyone. Follow the money. Where's the money going? How's it getting there? Remember the first thing we did when this disease was common was passed an $8 billion funding bill to decide what to do with the CDC. $8 billion. Now when we talk about our trillions of dollars that we do that that may not seem like a lot but think about what you do with $8 billion. Do you think that if you give the CDC $8 billion to find out what to do with coronavirus? They're going to come back and say that's not a big deal. Don't worry about it. I mean, you know, so then we we pass more and you know naturally all the groups that are getting money through federal funding, you know, the groups who are doing the testing, the groups who are doing this, the groups who are doing that, everybody's getting money. You think they're going to speak out against this? Well, your medical profession outside of your actual good doctors who are really speaking out or trying to take care of you and just don't know, it's been it's been bought and paid for on this. There are great doctors out there. I've got some great friends. I have some great doctors who are on my team here. They are out there but some of the groups that are running the profession, the bigger groups, the big systems that are making all this money on it. Ask yourself, do you trust someone who's getting paid millions of dollars for this? Do you want to trust your freedoms to someone who's got a very good financial incentive not to give them to you? That's it seems like a bad idea to me. I think we ought to be asking questions here. Finally, Tom, what can people do to support this case, the plaintiffs you moving forward? Okay, so Ohio stands up as the group and this is as grassroots as possible. These plaintiffs are just amazing patriots and good people. They put this together. They're putting this together as we speak. It's still being developed and it's under development every day. This is an expensive case. There's just no two ways about it and that's not just because of me. It's just expensive to try a federal case, especially one of this magnitude. More money we have, the more we can do. You can look at my website, rentstashlaw.com and there's links to Ohio stands up there. We need financial support. We need people to talk. We need you to become educated and to share your information. Now, I'm going to ask that people don't tell the next guy who's wearing a mask. Don't say you're an idiot. It won't do any good. You're not going to change any hearts or minds that way. There are some brilliant, brilliant people who believe this whole thing. Just absolutely hook line and sinker. We have to start educating with them. We've got to let them see the truth and come to their own conclusions because we've got to get our country back to normal. That doesn't happen from being confrontational and angry with people. It happens from educating people and sharing truth. So if you can financially is great, talk about it, share it, share the information, get this out there. That's why I'm on this interview and all these other interviews. It's because I got to get this information out there. If we win and everybody's still scared, it doesn't, it helps, but it doesn't do what it needs to do. So share the information. For those of you that believe in it and do it, we take prayers. And beyond that, get active, get involved. We're hoping that this gets filed in every state. I'm working to get infrastructure together so that we can help support that happening in every state. It's not there yet. We're in process. Like I said, you get a guy from Fremont, a guy from Moreno, Ohio, neither are big places who are working their tails off to do this with an amazing group of plaintiffs and incredible, incredible support people, people who are just working around the clock volunteer. As we get it going, please start finding attorneys who will fight for this in your state. We'll help them in any way we can. But educate, fight, stand up. If we don't fight for our freedom, it won't be here. So we need to do that and that I urge you all to do so. Okay, Tom. Thank you so much. I really appreciate your time and more than that, you're taking this case on and what it means for all of us because you should know if you've watched the last hour what it means. It means everything. So thank you again, Tom and I'm sure we'll be talking soon once more. Thank you, Tom. It's been a real honor and I do appreciate it. Okay.