[00:00:00] We're live. We are live here at The Big Mig Show with Lance Miliaccio, George Balanchine and Trennis Evans. We're laughing because when we came on, it's obviously a little tight here because we only have the one camera angle and we're like touching knees.
[00:00:13] We're like, Trennis, come on man, you got to ease it up. We were talking about TSA and how if you're not careful with TSA, you get the reach around. And of course I took offense to that and I told the guy, homo, you don't.
[00:00:24] He took immediate offense to that. I'm surprised you didn't file a pronoun violation on me or a federal statute of groping. So Trennis, big news. You're dropping some big news. You're going to be on 16 minutes it looks like.
[00:00:39] I read the document last night and what we're talking about, let me back this up for a minute. Trennis Evans, you know his background from J6. He was one of the early convicts, I guess is how we can qualify. Is that right? Arrestees? Early arrestees. Yeah.
[00:00:54] You were one of the early ones. Luckily enough in a way because how they're treating them now, it's even worse than how they treated Trennis. Not that it wasn't horrendous what they did to them because we all know J6 was a feds erection.
[00:01:06] We know that it was created and supported and really executed to get people to be afraid. They don't want us to peacefully protest. So we talk about the legal system. You know, we were just on here a few minutes ago with Ann Vandersteel.
[00:01:23] Trennis has taken it upon himself. He's a very sophisticated litigant at this point. He's obviously better than most attorneys in my opinion. I read his document last night. This has got to do with Donald Trump's conviction and he has taken an amazing
[00:01:39] tact and he's going right after subject matter jurisdiction but there's no reason for me to tell you about it. Trennis, first of all, let's get people up to speed. What have you been doing? Obviously a crazy amount of work on this. When did you start this process? March.
[00:01:54] I started this in March. March 18th? Yeah, I think that was actually the first draft started down the line when we started working through the arguments that were coming out. So I want to be clear, I can't take all the credit, right?
[00:02:09] I developed the theory and the idea up front. It's expanded through that process. It wasn't I did this and it was these nine points. I had four points coming out, right? It instantly struck me when I saw what was happening with that.
[00:02:25] You hear the talking heads going on about it. I've heard Mark Levin go on, I've heard Eastman go on, I've even Jonathan Turley now laying into this thing. But the reality is nobody was really doing anything. I filed the original case in the district court. Oh, gosh.
[00:02:47] I'm going to... What is it? June 7th? So I filed that May 12th or somewhere around there. Middle of May, I filed the original case in the district court, Western District Court in Texas. I was waiting on the verdict.
[00:03:05] We needed to get through the case to hear what we needed to hear. We got our dismissal expected. Now I tell people, you know that part when there's going to be a prize fight, like we were going to go prize fight and be like the presser
[00:03:16] where we're like this, right? Yeah, correct. And then there's a little shoving a scuffle up. Yeah, trainers running in. Screaming, you're yelling. Yeah, right. And then somebody's somebody's wife, like you slamming them with their purse. Only on the WWF or something. Yeah, exactly. There's these moments.
[00:03:33] And that's what the federal district court has become in high level cases. It's just the tussle up before the prize fight. So when you file something over there, people are like, oh, yeah, they got dismissed like we needed to get dismissed.
[00:03:48] The sooner that gets dismissed, if it went on the docket, got hurt for all argument. I could be six months, 18 months. I could be a long way out. Let me stop him just for a minute because I want to make sure
[00:03:59] the audience understands we're going back to that discussion. We just had a little while ago then about standing. Standing is the ultimate use rule applied by district courts. It's the ultimate rule applied by prosecutors. They claim that you don't have standing to ask for the relief
[00:04:17] in that particular venue. So they claim that the district court is the wrong venue. They claim that the appeals court is the wrong thing. They claim that you use the wrong argument. You shouldn't have used the Rehabilis Court. Shouldn't have used the Bivens 1983. You shouldn't have used the 2255.
[00:04:33] You should have gone to the appeals court. That's their first, in my opinion, that's their first salvo. They always argue that rather than look at your argument and say, wow, this is really valid what Trennis is saying. We really shouldn't have done this.
[00:04:47] They never look at the elements or the merits of what you filed. They first attack it structurally. So I just want the audience to understand that. Go from there. Yeah, it's the wiggle out of it. Right? I mean, it's like you've got them in the Indian leg bar
[00:05:00] or whatever you call it now. And they're like, no, sorry, we're not doing that. That's right. They slip out of it. It's like some jujitsu tactic by the court. It's horrible. You've got to waste your time and money. Yeah. But the defendant never gets out. Right?
[00:05:13] Yeah. If you're the defendant in a criminal proceeding, never getting out. Or if you're a conservative facing something civilly, good luck. You're going to go through a process no matter where it goes. So what we've done here is I filed the district court,
[00:05:29] recently filed the appellate court, and that's given me the opportunity and the ability to get where we need to go to be where we are now. I'm just kind of starting to sound like Paula Harris. Like, yeah, we've never been where we ever were.
[00:05:44] But it's not it's not word salad. Yeah, he loves a toss. A really good word. Sound about the importance of where we should have been. Here's toss a salad. Yeah. Yeah. To where we should have been, to where we can go to the future. That's the past.
[00:05:58] Look, I don't even I can't even follow that. There is no train of thought. I mean, this is a problem. That's why you can't follow it. So anyway, there's guys. Sure. You don't want to talk to her instead of me.
[00:06:10] I would much rather talk to her if I were. No, no, no. We want to hear about what you have to say. And honestly, I think this is stellar work. I read it. I read it cover to cover last night. And here's the point.
[00:06:22] Tell us you got started on this. You started. Melody Jennings, by the way, his friend. Yeah. Yeah. You started. You started in March. You got immediately. How long did it take for the district court to say you don't have standing?
[00:06:33] We don't have standing three days, three days, which is which tells you they gave it almost no consideration. And then the appeals court, how quickly did they go? They haven't dismissed me yet. Oh, well, I don't need that. I actually don't need the appeals court to dismiss me
[00:06:48] based on this. Once I'm there and I've already filed the process for appeal, I'm going above to Justice Alito. Yeah, right. Asking Justice Alito to emergency stay the sentencing and any other proceeding to do with the Donald Trump case. Right.
[00:07:04] So unless the court wants to take on a corrective action and throw the case out, and it wouldn't actually surprise me at this point. So where were you setting now? Is Justice Alito can by what we filed here? What Justice Alito could do is ask the district court
[00:07:21] or tell essentially the district court that they need to do a full review of the trial record of New York based on a number of issues. The issues with nine points in this, I think judicial estoppel is going to be one that's really going to resonate.
[00:07:38] And I know that it may not be the strongest of the argument. Right. I appreciate that you read it. You have a take. Can you explain judicial estoppel? Yeah, so yeah. So judicial estoppel is a situation where the court's already ruled on something.
[00:07:52] There's been a ruling on a matter like matter. And that matter is so close to this matter that we cannot give a different ruling on it. You can't say feeding at sixty three miles per hour and the speeding zone of six, you know, at 60 miles per hour.
[00:08:09] I can't say, well, you were doing sixty two and a half. Sorry, we're going to we're going to we're not going to get you just this. Exactly. We've already given an answer. You said it's it's against large. Not right.
[00:08:20] Tell them the case that you're using, because I thought this was a great choice because it's a recent ruling. But Norma Jean Anderson et al., which is what's known to the American people as Colorado ballot case. Exactly. So because the Colorado ballot case, I followed it so closely
[00:08:38] because I was none other than the intervener, pro se, in that case. And that went down kind of weird. I was you know, this is how this is how weird my life has become. An attorney buddy of mine calls me, goes, Are you watching C-SPAN right now?
[00:08:54] And I went normally in life, I'd be like, How do you find C-SPAN? Right. Five years ago, I'd be like, Isn't that like only a three? I mean, it's like ESPN 17. Right. Nobody's watching, you know, whatever the particular tournament. Yeah. And whatever. Right. Exactly.
[00:09:11] So and I go, No, I'm not watching this. You got to turn it on. And I realized that I have a save browser button and I clicked on C-SPAN and it comes on. So I'm embarrassed. I've become a nerd. C-SPAN nerd. So I click it on.
[00:09:25] I'm watching the trial. The Trump trial. Here's go back to the beginning. I go back. I watch the opening arguments. I'm like. What the hell am I just watch? That ignorant video that I've sent to you, we've talked about this. You guys have seen it.
[00:09:39] Me on the Capitol steps reading Trump's tweets. That's after four in the afternoon is being played right then and there. This is the freaking video that these morons are playing. And it's time stamp 224. Just like in the select committee, fraudulently altered into B.
[00:10:00] I'm like, You got to be kidding me. Then I watch other contests like this is wrong. That's wrong. They're not objecting to this. They didn't object. Oh, my. What a disaster. I call Mark Mosier from Harmeet Dillon's firm.
[00:10:11] I go, Mark, I got to talk to you like now. I know you're busy, but they should like literally ask. Like they should literally ask for continuance on this trial or recess for the rest of the day.
[00:10:24] Something somebody is going for something until I can get to Colorado. But I'm really sick. So I think the best thing is get them on the phone, straighten this out. They're missing so much stuff to object. They have no idea what they're watching.
[00:10:39] Mark knows I'm an expert on January 6th, and I had already served, you know, in that capacity for some of Trump's legal people long, long ago, a couple of years ago. So he goes, Well, what's wrong? And I go, This is wrong. This is wrong. This is this.
[00:10:51] J six committee altered the videos and time stamps and were not held accountable. No, not at all. I tried to take him to the Fifth Circuit. It was a mess anyway. Long story short. And you have to guys have the rules. That's evidence tampering.
[00:11:03] You're taking what would be exculpatory evidence and you're making it in culpatory evidence by the alteration, which would be prosecutorial misconduct. It would be by the rules of professional conduct. Exactly. Didn't you just say officer of the court?
[00:11:18] That should be reason enough to get immediately fired and disbarred. Yeah, it should be. That's not but it should be. Thank you. I think I love it when somebody else knows what the hell is going on. Yeah, nice. Oh, thank you for that. So here we go.
[00:11:31] So then we go through that. We go through the appellate court division and we go through this Colorado Supreme Court around an amicus. They deny it. They toss my amicus like it was yesterday's newspaper with the the dog shit on it, you know, and it was terrible.
[00:11:45] I was like, I can't believe they've just ignored this altogether. We get to United States Supreme Court, nine zero ruling rolls out the words of my amicus free. I mean, all five points we touched on four of them.
[00:11:57] I couldn't have gone any deeper on and gotten any more right. And then people like John and George Palace. I mean, we worked our butt off on that thing because we all knew. And John Mosley was just freaking instrumental in that thing
[00:12:12] with the Force Act 1878, 71 investigations, one of the Library Congress, getting the information, getting what we need to do. Nobody else in the country got right. One guy and then Jonathan Turley steps in and says something like the 11th hour, you know, like, where were all these people?
[00:12:30] Long story short. So all of this decision that came out at the end of the day, what most people don't realize is the decision why it was nine zero was based on there was a lot of points made that the justices did or didn't agree on.
[00:12:44] However, the one point where they agreed nine zero as that the state of Colorado could not utilize federal law. Right. And I am 43. They could not utilize federal law to try someone in their court. And if they wanted to go legislate, create their own version of federal law.
[00:13:05] Go for it. You want to make it word for word and just change it? And they can't do it. Expose fact, though. They can't do it post of the actual act. So realize that what he just did and get ready
[00:13:16] because here comes the flip the script on them. Go ahead. Well, you know, I think I started to think the TSA guy was an intellect that he really kind of caught on. Yeah, you might have been an intellectual woody for you, buddy. It's how I roll.
[00:13:31] Of course, I need an energy drink right now, because George and I have been running and got it for hours. So here you go. So here it is. So I recognize that we filed. We had that original premise. Not only that, but there was disenfranchising voters. Right.
[00:13:44] Yeah. I mean, think about this. Trump's one guy. He's being harmed by this. It's wrong. He's talking about it's it's wrong. Wrong is wrong. Doesn't mean wrong. That matter of wrongs wrong for one or 100 million. Right. Wrong is wrong. That is correct.
[00:13:59] But in the eyes of the law. Right. So in this situation, I thought this disenfranchised voter, we need to engage. I think we have a faster track. Trump can't file a motion in federal court, district court while he's in New York trial. He tried to do some things.
[00:14:13] He didn't have the ability to file into the same thing. And his appeal has to wait till after he's sentenced in the state of New York. Right. So he can't even file the appeal yet. Interesting problem. Somebody else can get there fast. I. Right.
[00:14:28] And that's where I filed so long. There's other points to this, but the judicial estoppel is one of the best in my mind, because the information, like you said, it's so fresh. Right. This happened. If you're talking in January of this year.
[00:14:43] And you might be potentially the first person to cite that case in an argument is that I don't know that it's been used prior to this. I haven't seen any other case law. This might be the first. Well, that gets me really excited.
[00:14:55] I'm going to be the very first person ever to cite Norma Jean. Yes. And at least in the Supreme Court. Well, and I want to say this, you guys have to realize that that's important, right? Because the Supreme Court made that ruling. And to get the strongest argument
[00:15:08] you have to use from the Supreme Court down. So you can use Supreme Court law as your primary argument for supporting case law. And that's the strongest application of the law, because obviously the Supreme Court, highest court in land.
[00:15:22] Then you can use your appeals court and then the district court and then a state court in an argument. But the lower you get, the more the argument they argue that it gets weaker. Although you would think that federal law would carry
[00:15:34] and then state law would just be important for your own state. But it's not. Well, their willingness to accept the supremacy clause is that states have lost their power. Correct. You know, it's kind of sad, but that's where we go.
[00:15:45] I mean, that's where we go seek those answers. Anyway, we have that. We have other components that are strong here, man. I mean, I'm really happy with the judicial estoppel. I'm really happy with that under the Norma G. Anderson of the Trump Valley case.
[00:15:58] I'm particularly happy with standing on citizen drives. Yeah. Under repetition. I tell you, you saw the repetition argument. Yes. So people say, well, what if they just dismiss the case or the appeal or something happens and Trump wins already? Then you're not going to get hurt.
[00:16:12] No, that's not true. Under repetition, we have to get hurt now because this has to be stopped going forward. Are either side or any party or individual could weaponize the federal government going forward? The DOJ? That's right. Are the government? I think it's already weaponized. Well,
[00:16:32] I mean, I'm just saying, I understand though, I understand the court's got to present, you know, present that in we you know, we have to stop and get back into some common sense area of the law that we can't run around the country just prosecuting
[00:16:45] the leading political candidate because we don't like him. And there's a get Trump mentality. There is no doubt that that's what we're seeing right now. You have to realize this is election interference, everything they're doing to Trump. And of course, every time they do something to him,
[00:17:00] they thought that the mugshot was going to make him weaker. They thought this litigation, he's a convicted felon. The more that happens, obviously, the better he does in the polls. Sometimes it takes a criminal to take down an organization of criminals and stuff. So why not? No doubt.
[00:17:14] I mean, let's go. No doubt. Let's get those. Let's get the felons across the United States United, because you guys all know you've already been harmed. We look at the urban communities, you look at the harm that these weaponized state and federal governments
[00:17:27] they basically had you guys race, you know, raise a whole generation of fatherless child children from these extremely long sentences. You just heard from Andrews, you feel how they're trading the bond numbers on criminal charges, the QCIP numbers. A lot of people aren't aware of that.
[00:17:44] So you guys have to realize that this is where it applies to you. People like Trenis, Trenis didn't have to do this. You don't have to do any of this. You don't have to make an effort to do any of this.
[00:17:53] And at the end of the day, what you want to think about is that this is what it's going to take. You can't stay on the sidelines. So Trenis, is there anything anybody can do to kind of help you with this? Push it forward?
[00:18:03] Get involved? What can they do? Printing costs and stuff like this. The expense of going to Supreme Court is huge. Oh, yeah. But this is, you know, this is just one action that we're in here. Codemius A represents January 6th dependents.
[00:18:16] Yes, we have a lot of January 6th dependents that are in dire need of help. And I'm having to tell people no every day. I don't know if you can imagine what that would be like if it was,
[00:18:25] you know, to your audience, I say this, if it was your loved one, right? Like it's your son, your daughter, your friend, your neighbor, your nephew, you know, husband, spouse, whatever. Can you imagine that you call somewhere for help?
[00:18:37] Like there's only a couple of people doing anything at all. And you call those people and they go, sorry, we're out of money. I can't help you. I can't take on anything else. Yeah. And they go, I mean, that's your response. And where do you go?
[00:18:52] Do you think you're going to call the ACLU and get help? Or are you going to call? You know, who are you calling? Oh, go get a federal public defender that, you know, like the last guy, we have one of our guys, like his federal public defender
[00:19:03] really just made a movie about the January 6 insurrection. Yeah. And then that's his federal public defender two months later. And you have to have to realize a public defender, many people call them a public pretender because they have cookie cutter motions.
[00:19:18] They'll barely look at the material of your case or the evidence because they don't care about the elements. They'll file a bunch of cookie cutter motions. You've only filed some motions. We will have some of these tasks. The majority of those motions really aren't based on anything
[00:19:30] that's relevant enough to win your case. They're not going to charge the fact that they're hiding the exculpatory evidence or they're hiding Brady material or Kiglio material. He's not going to do that because the problem is they're all kind of part
[00:19:43] of the system, they're all conspired, they're all conscripted into doing it a certain way. And it's one hand washes the other because at the end of the day, once you enter that plea, you've given subject matter jurisdiction to the court.
[00:19:56] And a lot of people don't realize that you should have demurred the charges. You should defer the charge to be able to say, I don't even know why I'm here. I don't believe I violated the law. I don't believe this court has subject matter jurisdiction.
[00:20:06] In the case of the J6 defendants, they have been ramrodded. People that got in early have had a much better situation than people are getting in now because they just keep extending the amount of time they're handing out.
[00:20:18] Well, and look what they're doing to them in the jails, right? Look at the treatment, the water, the food, the no medical. I mean, I'm seeing some J6 defendants that have horrendous blood clots and they're ignoring their obligation to give them the medical care that they need.
[00:20:34] Go ahead, I don't want to over speak. You talk to more of them than I do. Yeah. So here's the reality. These people that are being denied medical treatment is probably one of the most egregious and painful parts. Like, how can you tell someone they have cancer
[00:20:48] then three months later, you've even taken them for any kind of analysis, for a treatment plan? Nothing. You want to please explain it. You guys have to realize one of the things that's been done, just like when they call you a conspiracy theorist,
[00:21:02] they call you a Christian naturalist, they call you Maga. Right. They have to define you. The word felon has been constricted into this thing. And you have to realize there are so many people sitting in state and federal penitentiaries that are not guilty,
[00:21:16] that had their charges ramrod and had these indictments come down and they got their first set of indictments. And they said, well, if you if you if you enter into a plea with us right away, then then we're going to give you this deal.
[00:21:27] And when they tell you that the charges on this piece of paper is like 30 years or something that you really don't believe you should face, we're not talking about violent crimes. We can be talking about any level of crimes, but that's what they do.
[00:21:37] Each each count and each multiple part of the count carries more time. And then you don't give them the you don't agree to the plea. Guess what happens? Superceded indictment with more charges. And now they say, well, we would have given you this deal.
[00:21:49] But now that we've superseded you, you need a sign for this deal. And the point is, all those things you've heard about felons are not true. I'm not saying there aren't some people that deserve to be there because there are. That's what the system is for.
[00:22:01] But there are many people in jail or on their way to jail that never should have had that at the worst should have had probation or a deferred sentence. But just so you realize, the state only offers those deferred charges. The state only offers probation or home detention.
[00:22:17] You don't get that in a federal system because they want to see you do 96 percent of your time jail time. But realize once you're in, there's money in exactly. And once you're in. Don't think you're going to get good medical care,
[00:22:29] don't think you're going to get the food that they're supposed to be guaranteed for the care at all. Yeah. And because here's the thing, your sentence, your conviction is supposed to be your penance for your crime.
[00:22:40] You are going to be away from your family and your loved ones for 10 years. They're not supposed to make the time the BOP is not supposed to make the time worse as part of the penalty. That's not what the law allows. Go from there, Trace.
[00:22:54] Well, this is where we see egregious actions. You saw one to Patent and Quincy Booth, the warden in the jailer in D.C. One fire, one step down based on what happened to Chris Worrell out of Florida. That was a prime chance.
[00:23:06] In case some of them haven't heard that story. Yeah, Christopher Worrell, he had a broken hand or wrist. I'm trying to remember exactly. So the guy has broken hand. He has cancer, non-hot, lymphoma, I believe if I'm correct.
[00:23:18] And his arm is that that was that was where the break was. I don't think. Yeah, I don't know where the lymphoma. But anyway, he was advancing his stages because they weren't they weren't treating him. He had treatment that was going outside the jail outside of prison.
[00:23:32] Once they took him in and held him, it was held like a year and a half, two years on pretrial release. And amazingly, this guy, amazingly is, you know, doesn't get any treatment and he keeps going back in front of the judge.
[00:23:49] And they're like, OK, has he been in treatment? Well, no, we need to see his records. The next time the DOJ brings him in for a break, he has to see the hearing and see the records. They still don't produce them.
[00:24:00] So he holds them in contempt in court or threatens to hold them in. I could hold you in contempt in court. Why is it? Why is there a threat of contempt? No, why? Why is that? You go try and pull the same crap. Don't come back with that.
[00:24:11] Let me say something. You think about that. You're talking about a guy, even these pretrial defendants, especially. They haven't even been convicted yet in a lot of cases. And now they're being denied medical care and for medical conditions that were preexisting.
[00:24:24] So if Trennis had a preexisting condition for anything prior to going in, he brings his medical records in, he turns himself, he self surrenders. He turns those in. That care by law is not supposed to stop. Prisoners, pretrial or detainees are not supposed to be denied
[00:24:43] the medical care that matches what they're getting prior. And if they have a medical issue, it's supposed to be immediately addressed. But look, we're talking about brown water, maggots in the food, subpar nutritional diets that are not supposed to be like that.
[00:24:57] They have a requirement for so many calories, quality of food, fruits and vegetables, the same things you'd be getting on the outside. I'm not talking talking about five star food. I'm talking about general nutritional obligations that any person needs.
[00:25:11] I mean, George, give me some comments on this, because, you know, this stuff infuriates you. I know it does. I know, Lance. I was just busy trying to fix this audio. The audio is tough because we're in a big auditorium.
[00:25:23] The media room and we got media people all around us. And that's part of the problem. So George keeps trying to tweak it. We apologize for the way it sounds. We're doing the best we can with what we have. But, you know, tell me how do we know?
[00:25:34] And my thing always is none of these people, the wardens aren't being held accountable, the guards are beating people up. That's never accountability on that side. Never again. They break every rule, every law, whatever. And then they expect you. Oh, you are have to pay for your crimes.
[00:25:50] You must be punished. The beatings will continue until morale improves. Yeah, exactly. Here's the problem with all this. This has been going on for so long, the corruption. And this is on both sides everywhere. The only reason now we know about is because of social media.
[00:26:04] That information is so easily attainable and put out. But I'm shocked how much it puts out. But they've been going for all these years without any consequences. And now, you know, bingo. So they're so used to it now. You're enabling them with no consequences,
[00:26:20] with a warden not being charged, with guards not being charged. I allow them to do it. Let me be clear. There's a good guy. The fact is the BOP is out of control. Let me just be clear with you.
[00:26:30] The guards steal the foods, the guards steal the stuff that's supposed to go to the inmates. They put it up on Craigslist. They put it up on eBay. Don't kid yourself. You think that's not you should see the waste in the recycling system where brand new computers,
[00:26:42] brand new cameras, they go to recycling. They take them apart, crush them and they sell the parts for aluminum, scrap metal, copper. These are brand new items. And that's the waste because if they don't get rid of it,
[00:26:53] if they don't give it to the recycling people or the GSA that's run through some of the prisons at the end of the day, what happens is that budget gets cut. So they want to go and go, oh, yeah, we don't have any computers.
[00:27:02] We don't have any cameras. We need it. We need it. We need them. Yeah, we need more. Where's your son? Is he here? Yeah, he's back there at the booth. Is this the first one he's been at? Yeah, this is his first reawaken.
[00:27:11] He's been to some other events with me. You should tell them about Sunday, man. I know. I know. I got to take that kid some food soon. You know what? You guys should have him on. Yeah, we will. I'd be happy to do that.
[00:27:21] I trust you too with my kid. His son was 13 when the FBI came to his house and put guns in front of his 13 year old kids face. No, they put red dots all over. Yeah, he's literally 17. Yeah, 13. So let's put some red dots. That's your FBI in action.
[00:27:39] Obviously, a violent 13 year old. You got to put the dots on his way to school. Yeah, I mean, on his way to school. You know those school kids, you got to put some red dots on them
[00:27:48] and let them know that you're going to light them up just in case. And that's the FBI, right? That's that's your federal Bureau of Investigation in full action. Those are your U.S. Marshals. They're usually there during the pre-arrest. Federal Bureau of Intimidation. Yeah, exactly.
[00:28:01] So, Trenis, before you go, I know you got to go feed your son. I know 17 year olds get cranky when they haven't eaten. I get cranky. I get cranky now, by the way. Hey, here's my question. Guys, we're going to take you back over to the reawakening court.
[00:28:13] Where can people do you have this up online? Can they read it on your ex account? I don't have it up there. I'll get it going. You know, I know where can they find you? You know, you know, you know who I usually call to get like
[00:28:24] my PDF scrolling stuff built, right? I just you you fucking guys. That's right. All right. Well, listen, it sounds like the big big team, meaning the big big team, George Ballantine, is going to be working to get the PDF for Trenis Evans.
[00:28:40] We're going to get this up so you guys can read it. Let me say, it's just a great piece of work, you guys. I really want to tell you, you want to read this and you want to support Trenis in every way you can.
[00:28:50] He's trying to help those J six political prisoners. He's doing everything he can. Tell him where to find you in the USA, guys. Listen, condemned USA dot com. C.O.N. D.E.M. Any D.U.S.A. dot com.
[00:29:07] That simple. Go there and take a look at what we're doing. Go and take a look at the helper issue. We're also helping the mothers. We're helping the children. We're helping people that need commissary in jail. But most importantly, we're taking on the heavy hitting legal fights
[00:29:22] on issues like change of venue. And believe me, I already wrote the winning effort on change of venue with I developed the idea and the theory. We pulled it together with a great team of people. A.J. Fisher, George Palace, John Mosley. And the list goes on.
[00:29:38] We already wrote the winner for that. Just like 1512 took eight judges to get in front of. That's going to take something similar to you. You have to get in front of more judges. They know it's a winner.
[00:29:49] They know the bad case law from Haldeman for the Nixon era. 50 stinkin stinky years old is already dead. They know we beat them. And that's why that judge issued that answer. Issued that response to denial with no opinion on a massive never before seen novel change of venue.
[00:30:12] No opinion. Zero. Yeah, that's that's that's your. What do you have a booth here? That's yeah, there's food over there. But they're all going to a booth. Oh, yeah, I got a booth back there. You guys come back and see the booth. Where's that?
[00:30:22] That's code word for we're full of shit. We can't beat you. Exactly. All right. Look, we're going to let Trinus go feed his son before his son goes. I'm going to switch us over. So hold on. Great. Appreciate it. Listen, Big Big Show.
[00:30:33] We'll be back soon with some more interviews. Tip of the spear. Liberty means anything. He's right to tell people what they do not want to hear on this show. Each and every episode doesn't matter where we're at anywhere in the nation.