Parler VS Amazon Web Services PT3

The PopulistCast

Thomas Talleyrand 0:02
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. We're heading into episode number 11. We are moving right along. We're going to get back into parlor verse Amazon. We are going to also discuss some other information that is broken rich recently pastor coats in Canada has been set up to be fried. I don't know if he's free yet but I believe he is. The button administration and salts China, China hits back at the Biden administration. One of the dumbest, idiotic, I mean, you know, what do you expect when you hire a bunch of Obama retreads? Okay, so getting back into the parlor versus Amazon lawsuit, we're on page 20 chapter 59. This termination by AWS could not have come at a worse time for parlour a time when the company was surging with the potential of even more explosive growth in the next few days. Worse than the timing was the result. parlor tried to find alternative companies to host it and they repeatedly are unable to do so often because of the public defamation by AWS. This delayed parlours ability to get back online by over a month. That delay meant that many past parlor users have had to move on to other platforms. telegram past 500 million users as people seek Facebook and Twitter alternatives. And that is in the Kevin Shively parlor CEO john mattes responded angrily after jack Dorsey endorsed Apple's removal of a social network favored by conservatives, Business Insider. I mean, why he would even say something publicly when he knows that he's got antitrust lawsuits coming against him. parlor rival social media apps that are alternatives to Facebook and Twitter are experiencing experiencing record growth on parler was not available both current users and prospective users turn to alternatives, including but not limited to Twitter, or Facebook. And once those user users have begun to use another platform, they may not switch or return to parlor after parlor was offline for over a month 61 by silencing parlor, AWS silences the millions of parlor users who do not feel comfortable using Twitter or other social media apps to express their views because among other things, these other companies take advantage of users personal data for advertising and other revenue sources. What is more by pulling the plug on parlour but leaving Twitter alone despite the posting of massive amounts of troublesome content on Twitter and Amazon itself, AWS has revealed that it's expressed reasons for suspending parlor service are but pretext. Because AWS declared we cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others. AWS NATS the pending termination of parlor services. But AWS knew that its allegations against parlor was specious. Okay, little analysis here. parlor was doing everything and actually being more responsive than Twitter, Amazon itself, Facebook and other companies that Amazon does business with. Amazon accepts advertising from facebook, facebook, except that accepts advertising from parlour. They're all incestuous. They all work together. They at least have a business relationship if not a monopoly monopolistic relationship. So this is very, very worrisome if you are a consumer because of the way that they are crushing speech. And it goes into what China had to say about the United States with the government using social media platforms to censor speech just like China does. However, we are supposed to be above it all we're not supposed to act like China. Instead, we're acting worse, China at least tries to look out for some of its citizens. If parlour were a newspaper, AWS would try to portray the content it flagged as appearing in on the front page but as the facts above show

Thomas Talleyrand 4:41
the minimal amount of problematic material that AWS flag combined with the fact that much of us buried could not be easily shared, meant it was hardly noticed. Those of parlour was a newspaper the problematic content was buried at the bottom right column on page d 17. And small type the reason that they are go through such links to explain the this stuff in terminology that someone who's not internet friendly or internet savvy can understand is because what they ran into what this judge who should, you know, have retired A long time ago a woman has no business. Being a federal judge in high tech case, especially Making matters worse, Chapter 65 or paragraph 65 AWS leaked this termination email to the press knowing that it's allegations of email, claiming that parlor was unable to find and remove content that encouraged encouraged violence for false. So AWS in a parlours opinion. The reason that they defined parlor was not only to lie and break the contract, but in their opinion, it was to library contract and put parler out of business so that they couldn't compete against data against AWS is number one client or one of their biggest clients, Twitter. Getting you know, they go into all of their AWS brought attention AWS to define parlor nonetheless. And because of AWS as false claims parlor, not only lost current and future customers, but for weeks parler was unable to find an alternative West web hosting company. Also because people think that now parlor is going to have to go through extreme measures. For instance, if you tried to post something on one of their in one of your accounts, you can tell it's being pre screened before it's posted. that people don't trust parlor parlors lost a lot of trust, because what they've had to do is probably implement this AI prior to it being ready to roll. And so it is not as transparent as they had hoped. And therefore, you alienate some customers, you're already seeing how Twitter and other companies once they've gotten to a certain point, they're started to abuse their customers. Moreover, although AWS claims its terminated parlor, because parlor was used to incite, organize and coordinate the January 6 attack on the capital, that claim is a pretext that is not backed by evidence. AWS has identified no evidence that writers used parlour to format or coordinate the attack at this time of its termination email, and it still has no such evidence. By contrast, there's increasing evidence that Twitter and Facebook parlors much larger competitors were used to format to format and coordinate the riot. For instance, Ashley Babbitt, the woman killed by law enforcement when she forced her way into the Capitol Building did have a parlor account, but it has not been used since November. Instead, she had a Twitter account that was in use that very day of the riot. Further, the federal government has indicated that the attack was coordinated in at least part on Twitter. See, Michael Balsamo and Eric Tucker. FBI says it was warned about prospective violence ahead of the US Capitol Riot that's in the Navy times. Facebook and and as already noted, Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube are the top social media sites found in charging documents for rested writers. Not parler also an Tifa a NTIF. A. They are supposedly anti fascist they are actually very fascist. And they are anti first amendment their anti American values, uses Twitter and is promoted to use twitter twitter often does nothing every once in a while they'll purge a few people. Andy no is allowed to be harassed racial comments are hurled at him I believe in he knows also gay and they use homophobic slurs against Andy on Twitter. Twitter does absolutely nothing about it because Andy now is conservative. You know, he's Asian, he's gay. So he's a minority he's gay but Twitter hates him. So Twitter Lindsey and Tifa talk to him anyway they want to they were somebody talking yesterday after Andy knows was beat up in a earlier riot. And a

Thomas Talleyrand 9:26
ascitic milkshake was dawned on him that had quick drawing, see Matt and it. Somebody said, Well, I wish they'd let that semen dry so it breaks them bones. Twitter does nothing about it. Finally, the Add injury to injury after AWS shut off all services to parlor, AWS left open route 53 highly scalable domain system, which directed hackers to parlors backup data centers and cause the hackers to initiate a sizable DNS account. Excuse me attack. In other words, AWS essentially illuminated a large neon arrow directing hackers to parlours backup data centers. And the hackers got the message, launching an extremely large attack one to 250 times larger and 12 to 24 times longer than the average and distributed denial of service or a DDoS attack. Later, AWS would terminate the route 53 link but the damage was already done. And this AWS facilitated attack was a threat by at AWS to future data centers that they were to host parlor they too would be attacked by unprecedented attacks. This is one of the the criminal behavior by parlor, or excuse me about Amazon here is amazing people should probably go to jail, but under the current environment, that's not going to happen. Finally, such termination AWS Amazon has been secretly selling parlours, user data, including images and video to whomever has an Amazon s3 account and is willing to pay to download data that's intentionally interfering with parlors contracts with its current users. Amazon is sharing parlour user data in violation of AWS is on contract with parlor and profiting to boot. This is direct evidence of tortious interference with partners contracts with its current parlor users. This AWS enabled black market for parlor user data also enables others to access this data and then engage in Max and mass doxxing. And harassment of parlor users, these AWS enabled activities will hamper parlors ability to get new users and cause it to lose existing users who will be wary of parlors ability to protect their privacy. All right, so that ends the facts. Underneath this now we're gonna get into the claims. I don't know how deep I'm gonna go into the claims of this county and play it by ear. But if the facts if they can back up the facts, especially the the allegation that the parlor was sent a or saw a screenshot of some potentially violent or bad behavior. And that screenshot was sent. And that they have determined that somebody that was employed by Amazon posted the parlor, the parlay, and took the screenshot of it. That's a problem. They're gonna if they can prove that and they can prove these last few things that I just discussed, power up parlors, data being sold, and parlors, dd OS account being left wide open, so that it could be hacked. And if they can really if they can find any emails or any chat and the way that these left-wing wokesters use chat. That's all backed up because of Sarbanes Oxley. I think it's gonna be kind of interesting to see if they can just get the frickin discovery without going broke. In what do I mean by Sarbanes Oxley? So, Sarbanes Oxley, and the Dodd bill that supposedly cleaned up banking says that anybody that is listed on the stock exchange, especially any public company, in any company over a certain amount of employees, or a certain amount of revenue, possibly, you have to keep all internal communications that are written for a certain amount of time, we're certainly within that. I believe it's seven years, it could be a different amount of time. But it's so that investigators, lawsuits, disk discovery, can go back and look to see what was being said, between people.
Thomas Talleyrand 14:08
So that was the thing that salesforce.com did, where they act, forget the name of the product. But you could have it for up to 5000 users for free, if you have just one account with them have a certain level. And you could put all your users on it. So everybody could say, you know, if you had two salespeople that were using Salesforce, and then of course you got three users, but you could use this chat function to it was kind of like Twitter, that you could put everybody on, you could and you could use that to send back and forth. Let's say you've got let's say that you're a furniture distribution company. And so you import furniture, you have a couple of sales managers, that handles your independent contractors. And you also have, you know, three or 4000 Lazy Boy stores or rooms to go stores that need to be able to communicate with you to make orders you can put them on this system they can go back and forth with you they can send you your orders they can upload them that way you can run them through a couple of other options that they have but basically you can use it for customer service and you can use it for communication within the whole company and so that internal instant communication block which you can set up groups with and you can give different user permissions to all is to provide compliance with sarbanes oxley and so you know i've seen stuff on these chat things that are even on salesforce dot coms chat stuff not through them but through other companies that used it that that we consulted with and you're just pulling your hair out why would someone say you know this customer is a bunch of cheap b fo b's or this particular customer i mean i don't even know why we do business with them all they do is complain and you know and i saw another deal in a sexual harassment lawsuit where the core for two guys we're talking about a receptionist and they're you know writing whether she's you know doable or not i mean it is absolutely insane the stuff people will put on there even though they know this is going to be kept up and usually it's because of lacks management not coming down on them not monitoring what they're supposed to do and i have a feeling that amazon has extremely lacks management from reading some of their articles the you know they they treat the people in their warehouses like slaves but the white collar workers they are treated like royalty because they don't want them getting stolen you know some game operator comes in and wants to do the next that competitor to dune can steal somebody that's a programmer and pay him more money and have them do more fun work so you know it's pretty highly competitive and that leads to really bending over backwards to make these people happy alright we are into section four causes of actions causes of action a pre termination and termination of the contract count one washington consumer protection act before the termination in connection with the termination aws engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices injuring parlor this is i mean i don't see how aws gets around this parlor it seems this is their side of the story has got aws in at the very least right like bottom line i mean it's it's just if their stuff proves out that's that's what they're alleging so parlour restates and alleges this is a legal thing you have to do number 71 that paragraph 71 they point out the washington consumer act provides that unfair deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce commerce are unlawful under the act any person who has entered who is injured in his or her business or property by a violation of the act may bring a civil suit for injunctive relief so you know they meet that

Thomas Talleyrand 18:39
the plaintiff must prove an unfair deceptive act or practice or practice occurring in trade or commerce affecting the public interest injury to a person's business or property and five causation you know so they've got they've got to solve all five of those i believe i don't think they can just i don't think it's like a three prong thing where one thing outweighs more than the others aws engaged in them so now they're going to try to go through and say what they did they engaged in unfair and deceptive series of acts and practices in bad faith and caused injury the customer agreement is a contract of adhesion this is paragraph 74 which aws forces each customer to accept without negotiation in order to use aws services upon information and belief many of aws customers are a captive audience who do not have ready access to an effective and affordable alternative to aws services aws is fully aware that aws customer agreement is a contract of adhesion which is exemplified by the fact that the agreement itself provides that aws may unilaterally modify the agreement at any time with or without notice to its customers AWS may modify the agreement including any policies at any time. But posting a revised version on AWS is SIPE, by continuing to use the service offerings. After the effective date of any modification to this agreement, you agree to be bound by the modified terms, it is your responsibility to check the AWS site regularly for modification that almost makes their contract invalid. If I'm sitting on a jury. And I de point that out, I'm going to invalidate their rights under their contract, I'm going to rule in total favor of anybody else. But there's no way as a juror if I was a juror, and I probably will never get to be one now that I've got this podcast again. But as a juror, I would just that would be yet I'd be done. You know, I don't do these contracts of adhesion, UCC code, Bs contracts, they have to be ruled on. And I believe this is also the legal theory and responsibility of the judge to do, but they have to be looked at, and the most negative light possible. If you are ever serving on a jury. And you run into one of these cases, you have to the company that makes the contract that says something that crazy, you have to just assume that they are working from a position of bad faith, because otherwise why would they put that they would say, Hey, you got 30 days to change this contract or give us notice and you as soon as the your contracts up, you're leaving to another one, the new terms don't apply to you. But you can not have a one way contract like this, and be thought to be a good actor. AWS unilaterally drafted the AWS customer agreement in a manner that unfairly deceptively and unconsciously advantages AWS and harms its customers. I mean, that's kind of what I just said. But that's paragraph 75. By way of example, only AWS knows that customers will use services to provide a platform for third party end users to post content. AWS is aware that it is not possible to completely prevent those third party end users from posting objectionable content that violates AWS policies. Nevertheless, AWS contends that a customer breaches this contract of adhesion if any third party end user does not posts or excuse me, does post such object, objectionable content, irrespective of whether the customer has adopted or is working to adopt appropriate measures to block or remove such content and effect by AWS, his own interpretation, which interpretation parlor disputes, AWS has knowingly drafted its contract of adhesion in a manner that will force its customers to breach the contract in mass. In turn, AWS contends that it has the right to terminate the contract for the contract for the contract for cause in the event of such a break, with no notice.

Thomas Talleyrand 23:14
To and meaningful remedy for any of its customers, AWS has done so despite having full knowledge that its customers rely upon the continuation of AWS services for the very survival of their business. I'm going to break into another company that I've exchanged emails on just kind of asking them, they out of the blue kind of I think I might have looked at something on their website, started contacting me about setting up a sales presentation. During this talk, I also knew someone who was possibly willing to sign up with them. And I told the past customer said let me make sure that these people are going to not act like Twitter, Facebook and Facebook are doing. I got into an email exchange, which I'm thinking about publishing with one of these act on sales reps, cheese and mechanics act trying to get things over to a real account exact, she's just kind of weeds through the sales leads. And I was shocked at what she had to say, you know, and basically she was pretty bigoted. You know, she hates people who believe in God. She said that, you know, just find somebody that's in a Bible thumping state and do business with them. Instead, Trump's a loser. Put that in an email. Like I said, there's going to be some good discovery in this. So in effect, AWS is back into the the into the posting, or into the lawsuit. As AWS knows that customers will use AWS services to provide a platform for third party end users to post content. AWS is aware that it is not possible to completely prevent those third party end users from posting objectionable content that violates AWS policies. Nevertheless, AWS contends that a customer breaches this contract of adhesion, if any third party end user does post such objectionable content, irrespective of whether the customer has adopted or is working to adopt appropriate measures to block or remove such content and effect by AWS, his own interpretation, which interpretation parlor disputes, AWS has knowingly drafted a contract of you know, they're going to repeat this over and over again. When AWS and parler entered into the AWS agreement for cloud computing services that parlor needs for its apps and websites to function on the internet. They knew that this was going to be impossible they keep restating that. parlor performed under the contract in good faith by mothers by among other things paying for AWS service. AWS repeatedly made representations to partial to parlor, which were designed to and then give parlor, the assurance that AWS did not view posting of allegedly objectionable user content on parlours platform as a breach of the party's contract. Especially in the light of parlours efforts to remediate such content, by way of example, only on January 7 2021, AWS assured parlor that a prior complaint regarding objectionable content on parlor had been resolved. At the same time, AWS has solicited additional business from parlor parlor worked with AWS to expand the scope of the products and services that it purchased from AWS based in part on the assurances it received from AWS, in other words, partners stating that they had been doing business with Amazon for so long, and they had been doing business in such a comfortable way that they were both working together to make the contract work, to make the services as good as possible for parlour to for parlour to on its end to come to make Amazon comfortable with the way that they were dealing with content that they felt like that not only was parlor waiving large portions of its contract, but that it should be stopped from ever enforcing those portions again, because of the way we're in a stopple role. They don't come out and say that, but that's exactly what I think they're getting at.

Thomas Talleyrand 27:44
The big thing is, and we're going to, let's see, we're going to go down to the true reason why AWS decided to this is 82 decided to suspend and or terminate its contract with parler was not because of an alleged breach of contract contact. But because AWS did not want parler to be able to provide a new platform to conservative voices, including Donald Trump, or to compete effectively with other macroblock blogging platforms such as Twitter. On the same day that AWS terminated its contract with parlor and also publicized false information about parlor to the media. AWS a series of acts and practices deceptive and unfair. AWS is jeopardy. Paragraph 85 AWS is unfair and deceptive acts and practices impact the public interest. AWS not only made deceptive statements to partner directly, but also made deceptive statements about parler to the public at large at large count to there's more to this but count to defamation they kind of restate some of the stuff we just went over I think that if you read through that you'll do some do yourself some good and understanding this. They're down to paragraph 111 gets into count three breach of contract, which is also you know, we've kind of already went over so I don't see any need to beat you to death rating this kind of stuff. The get into the fallacy of the immediately suspend and then the terminate without cause and determinate with cause and how you can't count how one of those forms outweighs the other one. This is really good stuff they get they really lawyer down on some terminology in here. Brief count for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. I'm just gonna read out the counts here. And if anyone wants me to go back, count five torture interference with the contractor business expectancy. Count six the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Count seven Because they restate so much stuff. The Washington Consumer Protection Act AWS unfairly and falsely criticized parlours moderation system as a way to preserve its market share in the global cloud services infrastructure market after AWS as decided to eject parler from system to go back and look at the claim up here. AWS unfairly used parlors dependence on AWS before it terminated the contract to thwart parlours expansion of its share of the global internet advertising Mark market, in which AWS its AWS itself was competing. Camp eight the Seattle fair contracting practices organizing ordinance AWS Amazon violated ordinance by discriminating against parlor in its contracting decisions on the basis of parlors proceed political ideology and the political content published on parler system.

Thomas Talleyrand 31:02
I want to read this because this is just awesome. Paragraph one at the City of Seattle has an act in a fair contracting practices ordinance that declares it to be an unfair contracting practice for any business enterprise to demonstrate to discriminate against any person with respect to to conditions terms price or performance standards or other provisions of a contract Seattle use municipal code 14 dash 10 dash excuse me 14 dot 10.0 30 subparagraph A under the ordinance parlor is a person and AWS and Amazon our business amot Enterprises. Under the ordinance to discriminate means any act whether by itself or as part of a practice the effect of which is to adversely affect or differentiate between or among individuals or groups or of individuals by reason of political ideology. The political ideology means any idea or belief or coordinated body of ideas or belief relating to the purpose conduct, organization, function or basis of government, and related institutions and activities, whether or not characteristic of any political, party or group. This term includes membership in a political party or group that includes conduct reasonably reasonably related to political ideology, which does not interfere with job performance. And parlours contract with AWS was a contract as defined in Seattle's fair contracting practices ordinance. AWS only raised concerns about parlour after it looked like then President Trump would join parlor and bring millions of conservative Twitter users with him. Twitter would be almost a ghost town right now. You would have a left wing echo Twitter. That's it. AWS only raised concerns about parlor after it looked like then President Trump would join parlor like I said while ago, Twitter users would you know it would be pretty bland over there. And the representative who was represented repeatedly inquiring into whether Trump was going to come to parlor was by her Twitter account, a rabid Joe Biden fan I can't wait till we get to watch the deposition for her. Further Amazon employees pressured Amazon and AWS to drop parlor claiming credit for the move. See Ashley Stewart and Eugene Kim some Amazon employees are taking credit for parlors ban Business Insider January 20 2021. Additionally, some AWS employees who have speculated The decision was driven by a combination of employee unrest and major customers complaining to company to company leadership. The largest customers have executive sponsors so they can call directly in many cases, and jassie, co CEO of AWS himself. One former senior AWS employee said the decision to boot parlor broke new ground in terms of the company's enforcement actions. One of AWS is major customers is Twitter. Not only did Twitter CEO tweet his approval for AWS his action actions against parler. But President Biden was the clear favorite of Twitter employees when it came to campaign donations during the 2020 election. And Twitter employee donations to Democrats versus republicans was 98% to 2% split. That's from a board on Twitter employees heavily favored Biden over Trump ahead of priceless man, Fox News. Big tech employees landed top post in the Biden Harris transition team with at least nine different button transition team members or advisors having previously held positions at Facebook, Google or Twitter. Several transition team members work in Obama adminer straight administration before joining one of the tech giants and then later re entering politics as part of the biden team in other words they work for obama twitter hire twitter amazon google facebook one of those hired them overpaid them for work that they probably weren't qualified to do for work that today doesn't help to build value for the stockholders and probably possibly breaks the fiduciary responsibility except for the fact that now they're back in government where they can give favorable treatment to those same companies talk about quid pro quo i'm sorry

Thomas Talleyrand 35:42
that's just plain corruption ethically and morally if not legally 185 and it wasn't just twitter donors and political action committees affiliated with amazon coming.com inc and other big tech companies through their money behind former vice president joe biden's presidential campaign that's from s&p in fact employees are google's parent alphabet and microsoft car corp amazon inc apple inc and facebook inc are the five largest sources of money for by mr biden's campaign and joint fundraising committees among those identifying and corporate employers along with according to a wall street journal analysis of campaign finance reports how boring is that to read all that stuff huh thank you for doing that though it is not surprising then that the news emergent efforts by big tech to stop trump for example twitter and facebook decided to neither den president a platform to put out his message it's just more re explanation of facts already that have been presented and now we're down to be post contract termination content count nine breach of contract contract aws violated section 3.1 3.2 of the contract by selling parlors user data user data to third parties we've discussed that tortious interference with contract or business expectancy by selling parlors user data after terminated the contract aws intentionally interfered with parlors contracts with current and future users that's interesting rating right there we're down to 214 count 11 washington consumer protection act after determination aws engaged in additional deceptive and unfair unfair trade practices in drink parlor count 12 negligence by negligence negligently directing hackers to parlors backup databases after it terminated the parlor contract aws caused massive financial and reputational harm to parlour that's true it did cause harm to parlor we'll see if that is actionable or not count 13 tortious interference with a contract or business expectancy by directing hackers parlors backup databases after terminating the parlor contract aws intentionally and maliciously maliciously interfered with park parlors expected future contracts with other service contractors count 14 washington consumer protection act aws unfairly used park parlors dependence on aws after terminated the contract i think we're starting to get a little thin the girls a little thin here the washington consumer protection act aws some fairly compromised partners reputation after its termination as a way to preserve its market share and the global cloud services infrastructure market once aws decided to eject parler from it systems and that is prayer for relief and instead of asking for some crazy amount of money because this is a real lawsuit parlour praise for judgment against aws this fall of provide a jury trial on any issue trial level by right missouri grant parlor damages including trebled and exemplary down damages and amount to be determined at trial and three grant parlors attorney fees and cost for grant parlor other such relief as a court deems just improper i don't know what's legal for them to grant but i would have to look at the total valuation of aws and amazon and if i was a juror i'm just talking about an f my opinion if i was a juror and parlor can actually prove all of this stuff i would grant actual damages of it little least $3 billion i would probably grant punitive damages in some amount above the actual valid value of amazon itself that's just where i'm at the

Thomas Talleyrand 40:19
behavior here is so absolutely horrendous that these employees deserve to lose their jobs and to do that i would bankrupt parlor that would be my goal is your excuse me i would bankrupt amazon that's my opinion and that's if they could prove this stuff now listen i'm gonna listen to what amazon has to say i don't see there's any way that i wouldn't rule in favor of parlor just from what i know publicly and from reading parlors excuse me reading amazon's own statements so just reading amazon's own statements reading the portion of the contract that's been disclosed unless i see something else in the contract or they have some emails going back and forth showing that that is not a contract of adhesion then i'm going to probably at least award the valuation of of parlor at that time that they were talking i think that the valuation will go up i think i would probably be looking somewhere around the evaluation of what twitter is or the 27 billion that salesforce just paid for a company a few days ago or a week or two ago so you know you're talking about a lot of money parler was probably worth the 27 billion in that 10 to $20 billion range and i don't care what a judge has to tell me i'm gonna go by what the jury says you know if the jury gets to do this and i think probably they do in the state of washington you know so amazon's got a tough road to hoe they really probably need to settle this account by need to probably right parlor a couple of checks and i believe because i have not seen any follow up coverage on this i think amazon realizes they're good goose was cooked and they're probably in settlement negotiations now the other thing that i would do as a juror i would make amazon host parlour for the next 10 years at their expense i would make i would make amazon and i'd make amazon set up somebody within their company that they would have to pay to make sure that they were getting the right treatment or a special master i would be pretty creative and i would bring down the hammer on amazon from you know because some of its gonna get cut back in appeal and you got to think about that but i think you have a responsibility as a juror in one of these types of cases to stop the bad behavior that's the reason that we have these cases more than anything else not only do we want to reimburse may call the company or the party that was damaged to begin with we want to make sure they pull company start to pull it put in drains that can't that will keep somebody from getting sucked down on the bottom and drowned that was a huge 100 million dollar lawsuit that was settled out or they won i can't remember which but you know now when you build a pool you have safe drains because no one wants to be exposed now you know you can go the other way though kind of like the black mold case happened where you know you can't get insurance in the state of texas that covers mold now or at least it's pretty hard to i haven't looked at my latest policy but they used to always have a rider on them for standing water so they would cover a leak but they wouldn't cope if you you had a certain time to report the leak if you didn't report the leak and you had mold they were out they were free from from covering it because a jury gave somebody $300 million because they got mad about the way the insurance company treated them now because i promised you something at the end i want to talk to you about this little deal in china excuse me in alaska i'll link to this too this is the spectator when biden a diplomatic disaster in alaska basically what happened was bunch of woke people who don't understand what it's like to deal with real people guy named jake sullivan and anthony blinken who should have never been confirmed they were obama retreads They are woke stirs. They're not serious people thought that before they started off in negotiations with China that they would blast them about the jaegers and civil rights this and that, but they didn't even you know, get into the Coronavirus. They.

Thomas Talleyrand 45:19
They were shocked. And you can tell by watching the video I will link to the article. They were shocked that China stood up for themselves and China pointed out that hey, you know, the Obama administration is using Twitter and, and Amazon and Facebook and Google to go after its political enemies. It's censorship, you got the overreaction to this the terrible thing on the six but it's nothing compared to what an Tifa has done. You got an idiotic, this idiotic judge who says that the difference between the thing that makes the thing terrorism is what happened during the daytime, the antivirus stuff happened during the day time t. And it doesn't matter what time of day, whether it's meant to impact the use violence to impact the political narrative. The Case for the January 6 is all starting to fall apart on the federal government. There's no weapons that have been found the few things that were supposedly brought there, the plastic handcuffs, the zip ties were actually located in, they have filmed with the guy picking them up off of the desk inside the inside the Congress. So no one brought anything no one brought weapons, you got a an Tifa guy that kind of started everything. And so they are running out of options. You got one of the most corrupt FBI directors in the history of the FBI, the guy that drummed up the fake wittmer kidnapping, and you got a situation where I think you're gonna end up with more insiders, more undercover operatives than not undercover operatives. And, and Tifa people being involved with getting this whole thing going. And you know, I've already had a podcast where I talked about the idiocy of Q, and how sad it is that people want to do something. But you know, they're praying that whoever ran to Q is preying on the people who feel frustrated, they feel like they have lost power. They look around, and they see that the only thing that got people to do anything or to act was the an Tifa and BLM riots. And so they want to make their voices heard. They want to fight back. It's been proven that the BLM rights, especially when you read that Time magazine article affected the election. So if you know if that's what it's going to take to effect an election, you have a few people who are going to do something stupid. And think that they're doing the right thing. And you know, I think that you my lesson to you if you're reading this or listening to this, three years from now, his question everything, investigate everything, always go to source documents. There's no secret codes, there's no everybody's a white hat, gray hat, black hat. There's only what you can actually prove you've got to think for yourself. And violence is never going to be the way for us to keep our country in tact. You know, the using violence to offset an election or to get somebody to do what you want to do is not the right way to go about it. Vote, get out and run for office. Sign up for Viva fray and Robert Barnes is local page. I'm going to have a URL, I have a locals page. You're welcome to follow me there. I don't post that much stuff there. I'm about to start on some other alternative media websites. I am on Twitter. And of course we have all of the podcasts places that we want to be. I think my next podcast is going to be a book report. We're going to look at a Arthur that is I think he's kind of a populist, but he's also a historian. And he really likes looking at the fall of Rome and putting it into science fiction. And so I think in the next couple of podcasts, I'm reading one of his books right now and I want to go over it It is a expose on the media. And it is timely. He wrote it prior to the election, and but it does have a lot of stuff in it that probably, we should think about what these false flag operations that,

Thomas Talleyrand 50:20
you know, when I say false flag operations, I don't mean that the god dylann roof really wasn't a bad guy. What I mean here, what I mean is, is they put out public information that drives people to do bad things. And whether that's dylann roof who was just frustrated and wanted to hurt somebody, or it's the guy that attacked the the, the congressional baseball game, or baseball softball practice, and shot skull as it works both ways. You know, my recommended websites, YouTube channels are Rick, Rick ADA, they are Viva Frey. And his family's website also is really good. I don't know what the name of it is off the top of my brain here. But when I link to Viva in the transcript, it'll be he'll be he'll have it listed there. And also anything to do with Robert Barnes. The People's pundit daily is another great YouTube channel. And I suggest that you support them on locals also. And I guess until then, wear a mask if you want to, it's only wear in 95. Don't touch them, put them on, right. If you wear them in one place, don't wear them into another, they cost about $1 apiece, so no, they're kind of expensive. But that's just the cost of wearing a mask if you want it to actually work. use your best judgment on the injections. You know, my thing is, I'm probably going to get a get the shot. I'm not going to get one of the ones that has some parts in it that I don't approve of because I don't approve of using aborted baby fetuses. However, if you're going to allow that kind of thing, and like I told you in my first podcast, I am somewhat pro choice. At least something good comes down but that's something that the mother needs to consent to you and I don't believe mother's consent to that right now. In most states, so let's just see what's going on. Use common sense, is the number one thing and don't do anything violent. Thank you. I love you. God bless you.