Rich Dad Radio Speaks to Robert Barnes on Freedom

Today, Rich Dad Radio talks with Robert Barnes, high profile trial attorney, on the subject of our freedoms, and offers legal facts to help clarify what private citizens are really up against. Barnes says he is fighting for citizens who have lost their access to free speech and basic, constitutional rights.

What’s the big picture regarding our freedom of speech?

Barnes says we are really in a defining time, maybe the most defining since the 17th and 18th centuries. Prior to the establishment of the Bill of Rights and The First Amendment, American became the guardian and light bearer for freedom of speech and freedom of thought around the world.

These freedoms are now at greater risk, in part because they’re privatizing it, and in part because they’re delegating it to private entities to control and censor and suppress speech.

Over the last year, Barnes says, we saw the consequences of this, not only in terms of impacting elections, but also in terms of censoring critical stories about whether COVID was man-made or natural made, and it’s impact and issues related to lockdowns and whether the interventions were going to be publicly beneficial or detrimental.

We are seeing this right now regarding the vaccine; the CDC and the WHO are now acknowledging there may be unique health risks for certain groups of people. These are discussions that could have and should have occurred, but for the censorship and the suppression taking place by Big Tech.

“We’re increasingly finding that it’s (censorship and suppression) being done at the behest and [on] the behalf of governmental entities.”—Robert Barnes

We face an unprecedented, unparalleled challenge, he says, in the modern age, to have free speech, free thought and free debate in the world.

Why do these people want to censor us? Barnes says, deep down, he thinks it is because they are morally and/or factually wrong. There’s no reason to suppress or censor if you are ‘in the right’. This is also behind the push to stop the election audits across the country, he believes. Former President Trump asked Barnes to get involved on behalf of the election cases, and Barnes argued to the officials in Georgia that being transparent and allowing the audits would gain everyone’s confidence.

“They had the state come back and say, ‘Don’t worry, everything’s fine.’ And now of course, we’re finding in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, that there were a lot of anomalies that were not properly discovered and discussed and disclosed. That is only going to undermine confidence in elections over the long-term, but they cared more about the outcome of the election than the public confidence and integrity of the outcome.”

What are they covering up?

There’s a bifurcated phenomenon going on, Barnes says. One, they know their positions are unpopular, not just factually or morally wrong. They know the world wouldn’t accept their positions if they were open and transparent about them. If you went out to the world and said,

“We really want to be able to chip you. And in that chip…that’s where your currency is. That’s going to be where your medical records are. Maybe we can even have remote access to release vaccines through that…”.

They knew that most Americans, most people around the world would be like, “no, thank you.” So, instead, they have to sell it a different way.

“[The idea was] to make life so miserable by using public health interventions that we have never used in the history of the world. We've never employed the lockdowns as a method of dealing with an airborne virus. We've never told people to stay indoors as a response to an airborne virus that mostly dies in the sunshine and outdoors. There's a bunch of things we've never done before. And the goal wasn't to stop the virus, the goal was to condition people to be ready to say, please, please government, give me a vaccine. Give me some experimental drug that hasn't even met regular FDA vaccine testing, which usually takes several years. For a coronavirus that's never had a successful vaccine over time in its history, for a virus that's not even that lethal to most populations.”

The Vaccine Passport; what is legal and what is not?

“In my view, none of it is legal under the Nuremberg Code of 1947, which almost all Western and all countries around the world adopted. Because we went through this before, where we trusted a bunch of white lab coats to run the world and it led to the County, Buck decision in the US Supreme Court. Morally horrendous, one of the worst decisions ever that said forced sterilizations was okay. It was relied on a prior decision called Jacobson which said forced vaccinations could under certain circumstances be okay. And then that ultimately led to Komatsu. I call it the trilogy of infamy, the Jacobson, the Buck, and the Komatsu decisions where the government said, we can do whatever we want to whomever we want, whenever we want under some fear pretext. We have since said those decisions were horrendous, particularly the latter two.”

The Nuremberg Code of 1947 and those three decisions was supposed to stop all of that. It said no more experimentation on human beings, period, in the name of medicine or science. States have no right to do so, Barnes says. States must have informed consent. This code is explicitly incorporated into our emergency use authorization statue under federal law; you cannot mandate this vaccine while it is simply an emergency use authorized vaccine.

Barnes goes on to detail cases such as experimental vaccine on soldiers back in 2001 and 2002, regarding anthrax, for soldiers going into the Iraqi war theater. That backfired. The swine flu vaccine as well.

“Last time we rushed a vaccine to deal with an epidemic, the vaccine became the epidemic. The vaccine became the real problem.”

“This is about people's right to choose. What I tell people is I'm not arguing for the vaccine or against the vaccine. I'm arguing for ordinary every day people's right to choose for themselves what is good for them. For parents to choose for their children, not schools, not governments, not politicians, for everybody to choose for themselves because that's what the Nuremberg Code of 1947 was all about. It was never again. And in my view, in fact, federal courts have enforced the Nuremberg Code. I believe it's part of the constitution in part, the right to privacy includes the right to bodily integrity.”

“And so in my view, it's not constitutional. The Nuremberg Code is enforceable. The statute doesn't permit it. There's also issues with employers doing it under the ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act. So there's issues with government requiring public disclosure of it under HIPAA. So I think there's a range of issues that legally are going to be litigated by me and Bobby Kennedy on these cases to the degree they actually start mandating it.”—Robert Barnes

On Robert Kennedy Jr.

Barnes discusses the merits of Robert Kennedy Jr., and his Children’s Health Defense organization. This organization has been leading, particularly on the left side, as one of the only organizations that has been willing to say these lockdowns are wrong.

He (R. Kennedy Jr.) has brought major lawsuits against Facebook, he says, for colluding with the state to suppress his organization. He would cite government reports, scientific studies, not theories. He is doing critical work at Children’s Health Defense, Barnes says, and puts out a publication called The Defender. For anybody with a vaccine issue or any other issue related to COVID for a child under 18, Children’s Health Defense is going to take the lead in bringing legal action and petitions and lawsuits all around the world.

“For people over 18, I and some other lawyers will be taking a leap,” he says.

On Barnes’ own website, he is making updates in regards to the Federal lawsuits and COVID lawsuits. The legal ethics boards, he says, do not allow him to give free legal advice, or certain kinds of legal advice. So, Barnes tells us, at some point, a letter will be available on this site, and this letter will be a letter that ANYONE can copy and paste and use as they want so the ethics boards can’t complain. The letter basically outlines the various legal objections that Barnes has expressed, put into colloquial language, accessible language. It looks like it was written by someone who knows what they are talking about, but not necessarily a lawyer. Many people have used it all across the country, he says, and a good number of them have had good results. For example, an employer that thinks about mandating the vaccine might reconsider that position if they know they could be on the hook if something goes wrong with the vaccine.

It’s a useful letter, Barnes says, and it’s up on his Locals board where people can find it, along with other stuff that could be useful.

Taking on 800 Nerds (The Fed)

George Gammon has been crowdfunding to appoint Barnes to take on the Fed. Barnes finds it amazing that the Fed has somewhat dodged this forever; some days they are public, some days they are private, depending on who is asking. Whether they are a government entity or not, whether they are obligated by transparency or not, when they want the power, they claim they are a governmental agency. When they don’t want people asking questions, they claim they are a private entity.

FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act is really powerful, and people should look into this. The Fauci emails that are coming out now are because judicial watch and other people did a lot of FOIA requests. The same with Hillary Clinton’s email scandal…all because people kept asking for FOIA requests.

In order to audit the Fed, we have to FOIA the Fed

Then, ultimately, Barnes says, we’ll have to sue the Fed. Barnes says he intends to FOIA ‘the dickens’ out of the Fed for the next six months to ‘get behind the curtain’ and see what is really going on. He believes there will be a lot of things in writing and interesting cash transactions.

“So we're going to request all kinds of things from all the different reserve, all the different divisions of the bank, not only DC, but all the New York, Atlanta, St. Louis, et cetera. And we're going to be asking for records that go all the way back to 1913. Because, I'm curious about what they really said their power was over time. Did they recognize limits on their authority that they're clearly now way, way past? These various special vehicles that they're doing now, where exactly does that come from in the legal authority? Who exactly did they have conversations with? All of those conversations and discussions internally, the memorandums, the rest and all the internal books. We're going to use FOIA. We're going to FOIA the Fed to audit the Fed and if necessary sue the Fed. And if things really get too crazy, I'll always blame George [Gammon]. It was George's idea.”

Barnes says, their goal is to have a one centralized taxation system. That's really about one centralized currency system. That's not the dollar as a reserve currency, but as a digital currency, because it's ultimate control. If they can control whether you can pay your rent, buy your food or hop on a bus, then they run your life. And the global tax system is the first step to a global currency system because they can't right now administer the global tax system effectively. But due to lack of information, due to lack of control of the underlying capital property or currency, global currency system is what they will use the inability to effectively collect the global tax as one of their pretexts to say they need a global digital currency. In order to raise the revenue, we just really need this centralized mechanism that's very easy to know where everybody's at all the time and to be able to collect whatever money we want.

To find more information about Robert Barnes and some of the topics discussed here, visit his website at barneslawllp.com