Knowledge Fight - #771: Formulaic Objections Part 15

Episode Date: January 27, 2023

Today, Dan and Jordan revisit the man who made them fall in love with depositions to begin with, Corporate Representative Extraordinaire Rob Dew.  In this installment, Dew reveals his love of long pauses, not answering questions, and suggesting that he still thinks Adam Lanza did not act alone.

I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys saying we are the bad guys knowledge fight. Dan and George knowledge fight need money. Andy and Kansas, stop it. Andy and Kansas, it's time to pray. Andy and Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding. Hello, Alex and I'm a huge fan. I love your work. Knowledge fight. Knowledge fight dot com. I love you. Hey, everybody. Welcome back to Knowledge Fight. I'm Dan. I'm Jordan. We're a couple dudes like to sit around, worship at the altar of Celine and talk a little bit about Alex Jones. Oh, indeed. We are Dan Jordan. Jordan. I have a quick question for you tonight. Yes. What's your price spot today? We are recording a little bit. It is a little bit late in the evening. It's not

night. It gets dark in Chicago. I'm pushing 40. So maybe five o'clock is night. I don't know. But my bright spot, I have dual bright spots. You got dual. Well, one is just looping back to one of yours, which was the fire emblem engagement. I've had a chance to play a bit of it. And I'm hype. Hype? You're hype again. I'm fully hyped. It's fun. It's fun. It is fun. It's such a high bar that three houses set though. You know, like it's very difficult to assess like how much am I actually enjoying this? Do I miss those characters? But yeah, it's when you brought it up, I hadn't really had a chance to break into much of it and I've been able to and I enjoy it. But my real bright spot is when this comes out, it's going to be Friday. Okay. And the day after that is Saturday. That's

true. And that's the day of the Royal Rumble. That is the day of the Royal Rumble. I often maybe people think that this is inaccurate, but I often say I'm not really that into wrestling. You do often say that. And I, I stand by it. I respect that. Despite how erroneous it seems based on a lot of the things I bring up and things I know a lot about, but I'm not that into it, but I am super into a Royal Rumble. Of course. It is the greatest of all wrestling paper views. It is the, it's just so fun. It's chaos. There's people come back random, random appearances and drop ins. Sometimes you get a Drew Carey showing up. That's right. That's right. But yeah, it's just fun. Anything can happen. I mean, I know that

that's not entirely true, but yeah, there's a lot of fun. No, I've watched three Royal Rumbles, all of which were in association with the game that the Hanson brothers used to play where they would have. You're talking about Mbop, Hanson Brothers, not quite Mbop, Hanson Brothers, but the comedians. Yeah, Jeff and Ed. And they had this game where you'd have to try and guess everybody put money on who is coming out when, what's the dumbest one, who goes out the fastest, you know, all of those things. And you're like, that is why you watch this because look at all the dumb shit that's going to happen. Yeah. Yeah. I will be watching it with friends. Marty and Sarah, Marty and Sarah love wrestling. As will I. And yeah,

maybe I'll put together a betting pool. Maybe I'll do some dumb shit like that. I think that would be fun. Yeah. I think, I mean, we'll be there. Yeah. So gambling. Let's do it. I'm sorry. I'm very hyped for that as well. That sounds great. And pretty well. It will be a pitch black match. I'm going to tell you something. I'm a little bit pitch black. I'm a little bit worried about Uncle Howdy. I would be too. You know, we'll be worried about him. Right. That would be a smart move. Anyway, what's your bright spot? My bright spot is last night, my wife and I stayed up real late watching a documentary on the Pez outlaw, who is a guy. Wait, wait, wait. You talk about the protocols, the elders, the Zion or the candy, the literal candy. Okay. This guy in the, in the

like seventies and eighties or whatever. He was smuggled European Pez dispensers into the United States because the United States Pez company wouldn't allow the European Pez in here. What's the difference? Exactly. The European Pez company was able to sell all over the world and they made all kinds of fun like Willy Wonka style Pez dispensers. So there were a higher variety of designs. Tons of better flavors. Maybe what's not the candy. It's all about the design. Okay. It's all about the designs for all the collectors. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All the collectors want that. And in America, you couldn't get it because there was some asshole executive in the American one who's like, I don't like those. So you can't have them. Right. Well, I think there's probably also a

disconnect between like, who the fuck is this? Yes, exactly. This European celebrity Americans aren't going to buy this. Why, why do you have a hundred different Gerard de Pardus? So fun. So fun. But yeah. And he did it and he made tons of money. And he's like, it's illegal and shit. And he was smuggling things across borders. And he's got a plane and they hired people to follow him around. Wow. All of this about the Pez dispensers. That's a fascinating. That's a great. That sounds like a great documentary. Fantastic documentary. I do love a candy smuggler. Yeah. I know that like when I was younger, me and my friends loved Kinder eggs. You know, those were illegal because they were toys inside them. Yeah. They'll kill you. Yeah.

Those are murder weapons, essentially. But we had a couple of places we knew we could get bootleg Kinder eggs. That was always so fun. It's just so funny, whatever you have to have bootlegs of the dumbest possible thing. You know, that's the best. Yeah, for sure. Oh man. And about halfway through the documentary, this will not surprise you after they've described his exploits in great detail. He goes and then later on I was diagnosed as bipolar. I was like, buddy, you know it. I you are. I've been there, man. I called it before you did. You got to find it in illegal candy and get the bootlegger, man. You're telling me your destiny and he's got a full ZZ top beer. Incredible. That's God among men. So Jordan, today we have an episode to go over. Indeed. We're

going to be talking about something and that thing is well. Okay. So I teased that I had Rob do depositions. You did. I can't sit on that for a while. Okay. I can't sit on that for even a week. Nope. So we're doing some deposition. Here we are. We're doing do positions. Absolutely. So that debatably is where the formulaic objection series all really started. I don't think it was the first one. No. I think Alex was was the first one. And then Rob was on an one that we did also with Paul Joseph Watson, I believe. Right. But it was the one that crystallized. This was a ridiculous. Yes. He's wearing his Kangl hat. Yep. He's the depth. He's the corporate representative doesn't know what the fuck is going on. Yep. So this, that one, the Kangl hat depot is we're going to call

it. Yeah. That was from November 26, 2019. Okay. These two depositions that we're going to be listening to today are when Rob was the corporate representative. Oh no. For info wars LLC. Oh no. And the second one is free speech systems on March 15, 2019. Okay. So we're five months. Okay. This is before. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah. My bad. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I got it. I got the month, the months go in the other direction instead of the backwards. I went so forwards. Yeah. Now I got you. So this is when we heard him be such a shitty corporate representative, that was the second volley. Wow. This predates that. So I don't know what to expect. Yeah. I know. Well, actually, this did get them sanctioned. I will say that I expect. Yeah. I do

know what do you expect in a certain sense. We can, we can say that ahead of time. This got them sanctioned and then in response to that, they decided to send Rob do again and that got us the Kangl hat depot. Let's send them out one more time. So that's pretty interesting strategically. I, I, it was a shock whenever we were talking about that one because it is the corporate representative. You're right. That's what started the real, why do we do a depositions? Because these corporate representatives have no idea what's going on. Right. You know, and it's just, it's, it's not just a like, you know, I think, I think like a deposition where people answer questions sincerely is not really that entertaining, but when it's complete liars

who are unprepared and are shady as hell and working across purposes, there's something fascinating about that. It's, it is, it is a little bit like you, it feels like you're watching children from a, from a glass dome and like, you know, that they've been cheating somebody and stealing cookies all over the place, but they're trying to argue their way out of it. And you're like, what are we doing guys? This is insane. Yeah. And the kid's lawyer is Barnes. Exactly. Yeah. So I also need to make a little correction and that is on the Rob Jacobson deposition that we talked about. I said that was in 2018. I believe it was actually in 2019. Okay. Because I, as, as, as I can tell, these are, uh, these March 15th, 2019, uh, due depositions are, uh, around the

same time as the Jacobson watch. I apologize. I, I got that year wrong. Okay. So this is going to be a mess, uh, and we'll get into it. But first, let's say hello to some new ones. Oh, it's a great idea. So first, a veritable tsunami of cantankerous badgers. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next. I just want to scribble. Thank you so much. You're now a policy. Wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much out. Next. Alex Jones is guest frog also known as Paco. Thank you so much. You're now a policy wonk. I'm a policy. Wonk. Thank you very much. Next proud, gripple, people of old. Thank you so much. You are now a policy. Wonk. I'm a policy. Wonk. Thank you very much. Next help. My diamond

gusset jeans don't fit. Thank you so much. You are now a policy. Wonk. I'm a policy. Wonk. Thank you very much. Impossible. I think that one was from three years ago. That's how long we've we've had a backlog. Yeah, a backlog. Next. Todd in Tennessee. Thank you so much. You're now a policy wonk. I'm a policy. Wonk. Thank you very much. And we have technocrat in the mixture. So a bucket of poop sent me a sodomite. Thank you so much. You are now a technocrat. I'm a policy wonk. Four stars. Go home to your mother and tell her you're brilliant. Someone someone's sodomite sent me a bucket of poop. Daddy shark. Jar Jar Binks has a Caribbean black accent. He's a loser, little little kitty baby. I don't want to hate black people. I renounce Jesus Christ. Thank you.

So we're going to listen to these two depositions. Do deposition to do our to do list. T. W. O. D. W. So here's the thing. The first one is he's the corporate representative for in stop. I tried to I was going along. I'm sorry. You got me. I'm sorry. You got me with that one. Okay. Go for it. So the first one is the Info Wars LLC corporate rep deposition. And there's not that much really to say about that. There was never going to be much gold in those hills. And the reason for that is that Info Wars LLC is essentially a non existent company that primarily exists to hold the property to info wars dot com. And so there's not a whole lot that anyone knows about it because it doesn't. It's not a business that does transactions

necessarily. It's not they don't hold meetings or free speech systems is essentially the real company of all these companies. If there is a real company. Info Wars LLC exists on paper and within the minds of the people who like to pretend it's something but it is not anything. Right. And so for Rob to answer any questions about that is tough and to know exactly where the questions would need to go is kind of tough because I think at this phase in even the the plaintiff's attorneys sort of figuring out where the case is. I don't know if they fully understood the extent to which like a lot of these companies only exist to either like take in a payment right or right right right a holding company for sure this intellectual property or whatever. Right.

So this is Bill Ogden. I don't know if he has gummy bears or gummy worms but there are a couple occasions where you can hear him eating something very probably aggressively. He's got it. And here we'll jump in. Here's the beginning of the the Info Wars LLC corporate representative testimony of Rob do Sons Kangl hat. Please say your name. Rob do what is your employment status with Info Wars LLC. As far as I know there is no employment status. Okay. What is your understanding as to why you are here today. To give a deposition. Sure. About what? About well a couple things I guess. The

We can put your mic on. Just click it here. Sure lapel or button. Good. I don't touch other people's equipment. Sure. Yeah. He's a man of principle. So yeah he doesn't seem very prepared. Right. He is as bewildered as one might be. Yep. In this circumstance once again we have come to the ultimate in pass with an Info Wars employee. What do you do? Who do you work for and why are you here are all unanswerable questions. But in this case like with Info Wars LLC like he doesn't work for them. He's never worked for them. So I can understand a little more confusion but also maybe prepare a little bit. So. Well at least we know on the second crack at it he's going to do a much better job.

Well yes. And it does also put that hangle deposition into a bit of a different context in that we now like you realize that like that was the that was the second time. Oh I got some mistakes to fix. I got it. Didn't do anything. Nope. Anyway as is tradition and depositions the bill asks you know what did you do to prepare. So Rob's a little befuddled. Yep. Exhibit one is in front of you. It is the notice of deposition. I assume prior to today you'd seen that before. Okay. On page two there are six topics listed. Do you see those. Yes. Okay. Topic number one says the organizational structure business purpose and method of generating revenue for Info Wars LLC. What did you and none of my questions today are going

are going to be eliciting answers that you've had conversations with either of your attorneys. But what did you do to prepare yourself for topic number one. Oh my god. We just make it as far as I know Info Wars LLC does not have any of this. This does not pertain to the Wars LLC. As far as you're aware as far as what steps did you take to become aware or unaware of that. And you didn't go look for it and try to figure it out. No. I don't think there's any information is what I'm saying.

Did you look for it. I would not know where to look for this. So that's a no. Just you can already sort of get the sense of this. Get ready for some pauses because we're up for better or worse. I mean like I think if you were a more thoughtful person and maybe a little bit less of a dumb dumb yeah long pauses could be an indication of trying to get your thoughts together trying to answer concisely coherently for Rob. I think he's confused and trying to figure out what is being said to me and also what do I say to not implicate myself or anybody else in anything. What's the slipperiest answer I can give here. Yes. And there are a couple of points where it is who if you think like pauses on Alex's show or long

like some of these are it does feel like he is being interrogated in like a Spanish prison and he doesn't understand what any of the questions are. So he's just like I didn't do it. I didn't. Me didn't do it. I don't I don't know how to say I didn't do it more. I don't know how to conjugate verbs in saying people talk. So he didn't prepare. No. Of course not. But he's reviewed some documents. Okay. So as far as do you know what an interrogatory is. What are you. Can you explain it for your purpose. Of course I do. But could you explain it for the audience. Opponents in a lawsuit and they answer those questions and then they swear to them. You understand that. Okay. Okay. Did you review the interrogatories that were submitted in this

case by Info Wars LLC. I did. Okay. That would be considered a document. So when I asked you know the last few questions I've asked did you review any documents. Now that we know you didn't review the interrogatories was there anything else that you reviewed. No. I believe the interrogatories were the only thing. Okay. You didn't see any requests for production or any documents that were produced. No. Are you prepared to testify on as to answers to request for production or any documents that have been produced by Info Wars LLC in this case. Here. Are you prepared to testify today as to documents that have been produced by Info Wars LLC in this case. I'm not sure what test what testimony I could provide with relationship to Info Wars LLC.

I'm specifically speaking to the documents that have been produced. Do you know what documents have been produced by Info Wars LLC. I've looked at a lot of documents and I'm not sure that now looks the same. Okay. All right. Sure. Okay. The documents all look the same. I've looked at a lot of documents in my day. There's white papers and they have little scribbles on them. They are all the same. Yeah. They all look just like that. Yeah. We're not good territory. I feel like there is a fundamental tension in that there isn't much that Rob can say. Right. But he doesn't know how to articulate that in an appropriate way. Right. That would answer the questions that are being asked. He's unprepared to answer correctly

things that he would be able to express like that this is not really a right right right company that does business or anything. He can't tell the truth or he doesn't know. Well I mean he did no preparation to know. Right. Right. Right. But I mean in his mind here's a good shot of what I would assume that Rob do is thinking about Info Wars LLC. He's thinking that's a dummy company that in his mind you know I don't know if that's true or not. Right. I don't know anything about it but in his mind that's my guess. It doesn't do anything and I'm important to it somehow. So in that case he can't just be like hey if you wanted to look further into our finances I wouldn't look here. It's a lie. You know. I think that there's a possibility that he knows

that it's kind of a dummy company but that like that's the extent of his knowledge and if he knew more maybe he would know something that people would want to know about. Right. Exactly. Yeah. I could see that. Yeah. I would love to tell you the truth but honestly I don't know anything and they told me never to find out. It's in my best interest not to know all that much. It's so good to not know. So we know from the Kangal Hat Depot that Rob didn't understand the corporate representative thing. What that meant that he was testifying as the company. He does not understand that he is not testifying as Rob do. He is testifying to what the company itself is supposed to know. Yes. Yeah. And he's still no I mean this is before that so

it doesn't really know that either. It's almost like an origin story. This is the beginning of not understanding what a corporate representative is. Yeah. And then in this clip we get an appearance from noted asshole attorney Enoch. Oh boy. He jumps in and Bill yells at him. This is intense. When was InfoWars LLC registered? I believe in 2008. How do you know that? It was on one of these documents. Okay. And who registered it? That I don't know. Okay. Okay. Do you know any of the original officers that were listed on the LLC registration through the Secretary of State of Texas? I believe there's only one. Why do you believe that?

Because it's listed as there's one listed. Okay. Who is that? It's Alex Jones. Okay. What has InfoWars LLC ever had any other officers? Not to my knowledge. When you say your knowledge you're sitting here as InfoWars LLC you understand that correct? I've been asked to sit here as a representative of InfoWars LLC. And as a representative you are sitting in the chair as the company. Do you realize that? No. I'm not sure. Right. You're not here as Rob do. You're here as InfoWars LLC. Has anybody explained that to you? I've been with the... Time out. Time out. You cannot make hand gestures, Mr. Ynok.

I just saw you go... And the witness looked directly at you. You asked a question... I did. Would you please not interrupt me? Sir, I haven't interrupted you. You asked a question that was so raw that it would encompass only fine communications. That's a great opinion for you to have. Are you defending this deposition? We had this yesterday and unfortunately Mr. Bankston's the nice one of us. So I'm not going to put up with it. You can leave if you're going to do that. If you're going to be an obstruction in this deposition, leave. Now, otherwise sit there quietly and don't make gestures

and don't share your opinions with anybody but whispering into Mr. Barnes' ear because he is defending this deposition. I can appreciate your opinion. Please continue the deposition, Mr. Ynok. Ugly, ugly, ugly. So yeah, apparently he's making... Ynok's making hand gestures at Rob do. God damn. And that is not good. He's shading assholes. They just can't. They just can't not. They have to be assholes. It would be just as easy conceivably to whisper to Barnes and have Barnes say, objection, I don't answer that question or whatever. It would be, but you would have to have respect for the people that you are working against. Pretty nuts just to be like... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

I just picture Ynok like pulling on his collar. He's got like a little noose. Yeah. Yeah. Oh boy. So yeah, that's one of a couple of outbursts that happened throughout both of these depositions. Love it. There's a little bit of noncivility that happens. I just... You can only push people so far. You just can. You can only push people so far. I hear you. And honestly, I'm surprised these don't end up turning into fights, like actual fist fights. Well, that's why at the trial we almost had an actual fist fight. Right. I mean, it's... What do you do at a certain point if people are obfuscating so hard and being such dicks? I know. It's like... I don't know at what point we graduate from

adults to... We're fine. We're on the playground. Fine. Yeah, we're throwing hands. That's what we're doing. Fine. Well, I think it's a testament to the patience that you need to have to be a lawyer. And particularly a lawyer in this kind of a situation. You have to be able to put that personal desire to throw hands aside. But I would say that it would suggest to me that it's coming handy for Enoch. I'm sure that you pulling this bullshit has been useful to him. It almost feels like someone like him is... That's the job of someone who's an older brother. Who's really good at pushing those buttons and getting a younger brother to do something that gets them in trouble. You're not wrong. You know, it has that vibe. He's trolling a little.

Yeah, he does poke. He does like to poke. He knows damn well that what he's doing is inappropriate. And then when Bill is telling him you can stop this or you can leave, the response of like, I think you should get back to your deposition is that's the poke. That's another poke. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I wasn't touching you. I didn't touch him. I didn't touch anybody. Yeah, I'm just waving my hands. It's some shit. Yeah. So when a Rob gets back to some questions and it turns out he doesn't know why Info Wars LLC even exists. Yeah, that's what I thought. The business purpose of Info Wars LLC, what is it? I don't know. Okay. Why was it created? And by it, why was Info Wars LLC created?

I don't know. Man, fuck if I know. Wow. Okay. All right. Rob, I'm sure that I'll only have to explain this to you one time. As the corporate represent, imagine the building we're supposed to be here as it's imagine an anthropomorphic building with all the knowledge of Info Wars business practices. That is what you are. A business can't speak for itself. And as such, in order to get questions about the business itself, we need somebody to be able to take on the accumulated awareness and knowledge of the business. And that is you right now. Yeah, that is your job. We gave you time to do it. This business is in a crisis of identity apparently does not know why it exists. I don't know who I

am. I don't know what I'm meant to do. I mean, look, I definitely have periods where I'm like, why did my parents have me? Sure. It's existential angst that I get sometimes, but what is Info Wars for? I didn't ask it to be born. You know, I don't know. So Bill produces a bit of the terms of service for info wars.com's website. Sure. And in it, the we whenever it says we, the agreement that the user is entering into the person that they're entering into it with is info wars LLC. Aha. So it does exist as a business, right? Now this becomes a little bit of a conflict because Rob is saying that it's an inactive business. And then this is brought up and it's like, well, the they're keeping cookies and all this stuff. Like, is that inactivity?

And then it's just, I mean, I'm not doing anything. So it is inactivity in my mind. Yeah, right. It's just a mess. It is absolutely bizarre. I believe info wars LLC is an inactive entity. You said inactive earlier. What do you mean inactive? That it doesn't play that it would not be actively involved in any with reference to what you're asking here. It doesn't it doesn't have anything to do with creation, licensing and marketing, staffing, programming, management, development. You skipped over distribution. Have you read the terms and conditions that info wars LLC lists as the controlling entity

for the terms and conditions for info wars.com? I'm not sure I understand that question. Have you read it? Can you read? Can you read? Can you read? The terms of use for info wars.com. What are they? Excuse me. What do they do? Are you referring to these? Those are just some of the definitions. 48 pages. I'll save a little bit of paper just to show you that in the terms of use, when it's an agreement with anyone saying we, which is used throughout the entire terms and conditions, they're referred, they're defined as info wars LLC, not free speech systems. You understand that? Well, I see a comma between info wars and LLC. So I'm not sure that that is correct.

If you look at the notice and any filings of any business entities, formally named, you'll realize that the comma is always there. Okay, good, good, good stuff. Good stuff. Your honor, there is a comma there. I arrest my case. It's so cool that he's sitting there and he's trying to find ways to wiggle out. So you need to tell me that this means that you're entering into a terms of service agreement with info wars and something called LLC. Okay, great. Or is that or is it like the LLC who you're addressing? You know, it's info wars comma, right LLC. You know what I'm saying? Right. Isn't that Chris Gather's house band? You're entering into the Chris Gather show house band and info wars run the terms of service for info wars.com. You understand of

all things of all things for a corporate representative to not know that there comes a comma before LLC always seems high on the list. Yeah, you should just know that. Yeah, you're the corporate representative. Yeah, you should know the standards of just regular just business. Yeah. So they talk a little bit here about inactivity. What it means to be an inactive business according to Robin. Take a little nap. That leads to Barnes getting all up in Bill's business. Let's figure out what inactive means. If info wars LLC is listed as the entity that is in agreement with all users of info wars.com for things like using cookies and log files to create profiles for other users. That wouldn't necessarily make them inactive, correct? Objections to form.

What's the what's the form? In other words, it basically calls for a legal conclusion. Which legal conclusion? In other words, defining what constitutes an active or inactive entity. I'm using inactive that he I had him define it. Right. That's why. So we're using his definition. What's the legal conclusion? He's not you mystery not. No, this is just my voice when someone's obstructing a deposition that they shouldn't be talking it. And I'm asking you not to speak any further though. We can be civil with each other. I'm not raising it. Mr. Barnes, Mr. Barnes, have I raised my voice towards him? I guess there's a mistake here, but I'm just saying that in terms of what is incorrectly listed

the in the terms of service. Mr. Barnes, hold on. What do you mean it's incorrectly listed? I should say free speech systems. I'm sorry. Any of that a legal objection during a deposition? And how are you not kind of coaching the witness right now? No, I'm just trying to answer your question. That's it. In other words, the I interpreted your question is calling for a legal conclusion, whether this designation constituted ownership of the site and an admission of ownership of the site. But that wasn't my question. That's how I interpreted the question is calling for that legal conclusion. But I asked him what is his understanding of the of the word that he used and then I had to define. I know, but those followed up by a question that presumed and was

I took is asking for a legal conclusion about whether this statement means X. What was my question? My recollection is this statement means would do you agree that this statement means that info wars own something or is active? And I was saying that that would call for a legal conclusion. Okay, well, I will make sure that in no way will my will my questions be interpreted to be asking that. Okay, thank you. Sitting here today. Are you aware that info wars LLC is listed in the terms and services on info wars.com as the controlling entity? I'm seeing it here listed on the terms of services the first time I've seen it. Now that you're seeing it, and let's presume that it's still there right now.

When you said inactive earlier and you told me what you meant by inactive, do you still believe it's an active? Um, yes. What would a company have to be active? Careful. I'm not sure I understand your question. Worth the wait. What a fucking punchline that was.

Come on. So one of the things that like is a little bit about this deposition itself is that like a lot of it is just Rob not knowing shit and like not being able to answer any questions and Barnes being a shithead. Yeah, I mean, yeah, you know that's kind of a lot of this whereas where Rob shines is when he accidentally says stuff that like is implicated. Yeah, that's the and we'll get to that more in the free speech systems deposition. Okay, good. But yeah, this is just sort of like he he's just a hopeless man for hopeless man sitting there being asked questions, seeing if he can run out the clock.

I just feel like he's waiting there just like, will they forget they asked me the question if I just stay silent? I feel like I've done that in school before. Okay, I saw Jurassic Park last night. What was it about lawyers? If you don't move, they can't see you. That's what it was. I swear.

Look, the bell is gonna ring at 245. They have to let me leave. Let me go. They can't detain me. Yeah. Yeah. So there's another thing that comes up that is a bit of an issue. And that is that Alex is not the only person who's ever been listed as a controlling manager of Info Wars LLC.

Why would I expect the question that he answered to have been the correct answer? Of course it wasn't. Well, he said to the best of his knowledge, Alex was the only one. But again, he's the company and you'd think you'd know if there were other officers. That's the rule. And it turns out prior, the controlling officer was Magnolia Holdings. And we know that Magnolia Holdings was the company that was based off of Alex's dad's bank account that he made so he would have a business line of credit.

Exactly. And that is where a lot of these businesses were able to be created and housed in a way that allowed him to probably get credit in a way that other people wouldn't have access to. Real, real shortcut kind of shit. Hold himself up by the bootstraps with those bootstraps gilded by his daddy. And his dad's dental practice. Yeah, exactly. So it turns out that is the prior controlling interest in Info Wars LLC.

Right. But there's another wrinkle to this. Of course there is. That is mind blowing. Who is Magnolia Holdings' limited partnership? I've heard that name at the time. I believe they're involved with free speech systems in some way. Okay.

How did you come across that name? I don't recall exactly because I've been there for so long. So a lot of things just kind of run together. But I couldn't tell you exactly when. But I think I saw the name at some point. You have any idea who it is? I don't have a definitive answer for you. But I'm imagining Alex Jones has something to do with Magnolia.

Were you aware that the original manager of Info Wars LLC was Magnolia Holdings LP? Was I aware of what? Were you aware that the original manager of Info Wars LLC was Magnolia Holdings LP? I was not aware. What's the address at Info Wars? Is this a trick question? Where are you working? That would be free speech systems.

Free speech, excuse me. I say Info Wars. I was encompassing them all. Okay. What's the address of free speech systems? The physical or the mailing address? We can start with physical. Oh my god.

The physical address of free speech systems is 3019 Alvin DeVayne Suite. There's a couple suites. The direct mailing address is Suite 230. Okay. But same street number and street name. Yeah, there's different suite numbers. Okay. Have you ever been to 100 Congress Avenue on the 22nd floor?

No. But are we here at 100 Congress Avenue? Okay. I know where this building is, but on the 18th floor? No. Okay. The 22nd floor is that what you're asking? Yeah.

No. Were you aware that Magnolia Holdings is four floors above us right now? No. No, I was not aware of that. It's an extremely long pause. Thank god he said it. That is too long for that answer. That is too long.

Extremely long pause. Extremely long pause. Yeah. So it turns out four floors above them in the building that they're having this deposition in is where the address of Magnolia Holdings Limited Partnership is. Of course. And I don't know if that even means anything. I don't think it means anything.

It's a fun little reveal. Yeah. It's great. It threw me for a loop. So it was a long, long pause. Yes. And Rob explains why he had such pause. It was an extremely long pause.

Well, I'll tell you why. Would you like it? Please, go ahead. Yeah. There's a lot of, I guess, people put a lot of stuff out on the internet. And sometimes it's different who runs Alex Jones type stuff. Okay. And it goes into, you know, this company was formed here.

So I have seen, and that's where I'm thinking I saw the name Magnolia Holdings. When somebody did an expose, hang on us. Documents. But I was not aware it was on this, in this building. Yeah. So Rob was worried because a lot of people put a lot of stuff online and they say who controls Alex. So maybe he heard the name because somebody had accurately reported that it was a company

that Enforce was associated with early on. I feel like, I feel like Rob should just answer every question with like, hey man, okay. You ever see that scene in the wire where Stringer Bell was like, are you writing notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy? Imagine that's all of our paperwork. Of course I don't know any of it. It's against the law. Right.

But there is a certain delicious irony of Rob being like, yeah, there's a lot of bullshit online. A lot of people say a lot of shit. Hey man, a lot of people out there, they'll lie about you. They'll even try and ruin your life. Don't even, don't even mess with that stuff. I tell you the internet scary place. Yeah. So we have one last clip here and it's a discussion of whether or not Rob knows if

Info Wars LLC has an office. Info Wars LLC have an office. Not to my knowledge. Okay. And in the corporate documents, it lists the governing authority as Alex Jones is the manager and has it a 100 Congress Avenue 22nd floor. Is there an office there? I don't know.

I've never been to the 22nd floor. Did you ask anyone preparing for this deposition whether or not Info Wars LLC had an office? I don't believe I did. Yeah, no shit. Why would you? No shit. So yeah, that's the same address. I cannot be happier with, because again,

I mean, I'm trying to visualize this in my mind as an actual corporate representative, you know, like I'm trying to anthropomorphize the company itself. And so the idea of you asking a company like, do you have an office? And then the company going, not that I know, like what, what are you talking about? And then they just disappear into thin air. Yeah. So the reason that some of this is relevant, even if it is kind of like,

blah, is that there is a clear indication that no effort has gone into making sure that these businesses are legally distinct from each other or legally distinct from Alex Jones himself. The fact that Info Wars LLC has the same address apparently as Magnolia partnership, and they were originally in charge of it. Now, Alex is in charge of Info Wars LLC. It's all just like, okay, this might as well all just be the same shit. Yeah. It's all, and it is.

Yeah. It is. Yeah. I mean, it's almost kind of funny that to me, what I'm seeing in my mind is these people being like, we're not going to open a LLC in Delaware like the rest of everybody who wants to cheat. Not until years later. We're going to do it in Texas. Yeah, exactly.

We're going to do it when it's too late. Alex is proud of Texas. He's the Texas. Exactly. It's what Trump called him. It's his both greatest attribute and apparently his downfall. Alamo. So we go to the free speech systems, corporate representative testimony,

deposition, and this is from the same day. And so you take a little break, come back. And Rob has a different hat on. There's no hats, but this is fun. Where does the majority of revenue come from? Supplements or products or does it come from ad buys? I would say it's listener supported. So I would say most of that is coming from people either donating or buying products.

Okay. And speaking of, are you on any of the products from InfoWars right now? Am I on them? Have you taken any of them? Supplements or anything like that? Ever or today? Oh, today. I have not taken any today.

Do you regularly take any of them? I would say there's a turmeric product I take. Okay. So there's two things that are really fun here. The first is that like it's almost as if like, are you impaired? Yes. Yeah. Totally.

Are you, are you, have you taken any drugs or alcohol today? Or InfoWars or something. Yeah. Or InfoWars or something. It's just fun. Yeah. That's always great. The second thing is that like, hey, if all of the claims about like how you need this to the

fight off the 5G and the, all the stuff in the food, it's the good halogen. You need the iodine or else your IQ will be lowered. You think you'll be taking it, not just some turmeric. You'd think you'd be crammed to the gills with that crap. Right. Apparently not. Apparently the people who are on the inside kind of get it and know that it's all bullshit. I could not be happier with the length of time necessary to understand whether or not

you take a product regularly. Well, he's kind of, he's probably thinking about like, should I tell him that my wife won't let me take Superman? No, like you remember that time that my wife was like, you're fucking hard. You're too hard. Too hard. Can't take that super mail anymore. Stop it.

So they get, they talk about the coverage of Sandy Hook and the day of Rob, it, it admits that they were talking about it as a situation where people were going to take guns because of this shooting. That's wise. Which is whew. What's the first video or article that was produced on info wars.com regarding Sandy Hook and it being a hoax and or false flag? Where's that Wikipedia printout when you need it?

Can you explain what you mean by hoax? Do you know what the word hoax means? I know what the word hoax means. What does it mean? Something that was, I know, a hoax is an event or a, Oh boy. A hoax is meant to fool people. Oh boy, Bill.

What is the factual basis that free speech systems have relied on? When it first reported Sandy Hook elementary might be a hoax. I believe most of our reporting was involved with looking at how this event will be used to take people's second amendment rights. When did that conversation start? I believe that conversation started the day of the event. Why would you, what made free speech systems start having that conversation? Because we have seen past events where a gun is used and when a gun is used

the gun becomes the cause and then they look at gun owners as being people that need to be stripped of their rights and gun ownership. This is, I mean, even hearing him explain this, which you obviously already know, this is what he thinks. Yeah. He sounds dumb. He's not able to articulate this in a way that like sounds compelling. And like this would not be necessarily a great thing to be expressing.

There's a mass shooting where a bunch of children were murdered at a school and your first thought is, won't you think of the guns? That's really bizarre to be like, that's your headspace. You're testifying that that's your headspace. This is where we're at. This is our priorities, very consistent and it's strange. Yeah. I saw all those victims and heroes tragically murdered, gun down, mode down.

And I was like, man, I hope that gun's okay. It probably fired a little too much for my taste. Even like putting it on a more realistic framing. It's like, how am I going to be defensive about this? And that's weird. It is weird. It's almost deflated. It's like, he's realized that no matter what answer he gives,

I think he's already, after the first morning deposition, I think he's realized that he's not going to get anything right. Maybe. And so all he's doing is trying to think of the right thing to say to get out of it. Well, see, I'm trying to put myself in the position of this like gun, lovin, lovin's too weak of a word. Yeah, I am. This sort of mindset.

And like, I think that having that kind of a response of like, they're going to use this tragedy to push gun legislation. That would make sense in opposition to gun legislation. Right. So let's say like two months after Sandy Hook, there's a bill that is being introduced and, you know, expressing something to the effect of my heart goes out as much as it possibly can to the victims and the surviving family members. But we can't allow sentimentality or over emotion to erode our freedoms or something like that.

Right. In the context of discussing a bill, the actual bill that is being introduced, that makes sense to see a shooting and then immediately imagine a future bill and then get defensive about it, get defensive about something that doesn't exist. It seems fucked up. It seems like it seems like a them problem. It is. I mean, but that's what happens whenever you don't see other people as people.

True. They're not humans. Why would you bother? Who cares about whether or not they introduced the bill now or a hundred years from now? I know they're evil. Yeah, it's silly. Yeah. Anyway, so there needs to be a factual basis for his belief,

or at least the question is what's your fact there doesn't need to be. And it turns out it's Operation Northwood. Oh, God. But Rob doesn't seem to even understand this. The day of the Sandy Hook shooting, Mr. Jones went on his show and suggested that this was all staged by the government. Correct? You'd have to show me the video.

I'm asking you, what's the factual basis for Mr. Jones's theory? The day of, as it relates to number four, listed in the piece of paper in front of you. What was the factual basis for him saying the government staged this? I think the factual basis goes back to a document that was declassified in the late 1990s, and it was called Operation Northwoods. And in that, it describes situations where the government would create events in stage, one of which was bombing airlines, also staging mass shootings. They say in theaters, I believe schools is also listed in that.

I haven't looked at that document in a while, but that maybe you should declassified. And it was signed by the heads of the of the military and given to President Kennedy. Okay, so because that document was declassified in the 90s, every single mass shooting, immediately Mr. Jones goes on infowars.com and on his radio show and suggests that this is staged. I just want to make sure that I have my factual basis clear. Well, we can say it like that. I think what we do is... Not what you do, what you did.

What we did. We remind people. I'm sorry? Are we reminded people? And I'm not even sure if he mentioned Northwoods that day or not. It's, but I'm sure that was in his mind, although I can't speak for him. Okay, so we remind people of this. Wow.

Which is that is the, how's that different? That's bizarre. Well, I say it this way and it doesn't sound like I said it a different way. It's such a good way that Bill put it. They be like, because of this document that was declassified in the 90s, every mass shooting is reported as possibly being fake or likely being fake. Is that correct? And then Rob do has to be like, well, yes, but I don't want to say it because when you

say it like that, it sounds fucking stupid. So what I'm saying is we reminded people of the document. It sounds almost as if we have a very weak basis for the kind of reporting that we do. I've never thought of it that way, but when you put it like that, I am going to shut down and stay silent for a while. Yeah, shit. Long pause. Yeah.

So one of the hallmarks, I think you could say, of these particularly like the top tier depositions of Info Wars figures is Unforced Errors. Daria is the queen of Unforced Errors. I mean, raise a hand up. Here Rob makes a play for the crown. Sitting here on behalf of Free Speech Systems, did the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary happen to the way that it was reported by the overwhelmingly majority of the media?

Objection is to perform. You can answer. I still have doubts that Adam Lanza was the only person involved. Okay. But I just believe children were killed at Sandy Hook. And I don't remember ever saying that children did not die at Sandy Hook. Okay. So you think this is some sort of hoax that Adam Lanza wasn't alone

and someone else shot up a bunch of children in Sandy Hook Elementary School? Sitting here as the corporate representative for Free Speech Systems. Are you saying right now or then? Is that true? Right now. Sitting here right now. Just say no. Just say no.

Just say no. Just say no. I think things have evolved over time. I think the government and the law enforcement in Connecticut by their obfuscation helped make this, turn this into what it is today. And I do not believe they helped the situation. You don't believe they helped?

I don't believe they helped the situation in answering people's questions. Okay. Do you have any idea what question I asked before you said all those words? You said do I think Adam Lanza acted alone? Does Free Speech Systems believe Adam Lanza acted alone or that someone else came in and shot up a bunch of children at Sandy Hook Elementary? That was my question. I think we agree with the findings that came out in January of 2018.

Wow. I mean, it's just the mind. The mind that you're getting a glimpse into here is... I feel like I can hear the squeaking. He needs some oil on those gears. That is unprompted, unnecessarily throwing out... I am here as the corporate representative for Free Speech Systems and I am offering unprompted conspiracy theories.

Oh man, what an idiot. As the physical manifestation of a business, I too agree that shooting was a hoax. Yeah, that's in the pantheon of things you don't need to say. That is up there. That is in the conversation. They can't not do the thing that they do. They try so hard not to answer questions. And then they're like, yeah, but I got to get my thing out there.

I got to get my little piece out there. I got to say it. I'm combative. And it kind of leads you to suspect, I think, that Rob, I mean, does believe that. Yeah. You know, like there's a lot of people who probably are maybe more cynical and more maybe opportunistic. Feels like Rob, his silences and his contemplating is like,

I don't want to lie and say that I don't believe this. Exactly. Are they going to bust me for lying about not believing this? That's the other thing that I love about this is that it does seem like he is both committed to not lying, but also committed to not telling them anything. Right. And so he's trying to reword all of the things that they say. It's, it's delightful.

It is delightful. Well, I would choose a different word, maybe the opposite of that. But yes. So he mentioned a agreement with a report from 2018. Yes. And so Bill wants to know why do you agree with that report? How is it different than other reports that have come out in the past? Not good.

The, this report that was released by the Connecticut State Police in January of 2018. How was it different from the original Connecticut report of the, the Newtown report that came out December of 2013? Well, from what I remember, the report that was initially released was, was redacted and did not have, it was, I believe it was critical of certain aspects of what happened that day. And this new report seemed to be not as critical of the law enforcement response, the second report.

That's the, that's the only difference? That's what I can recall comparing it to the initial report. Let me, let me back up that, what you just testified to that information was what changed free speech systems position on whether or not. Oh, right. I'm supposed to be the business check. Correct. I think there's a lot of different things that happen over time.

Sure. With these events. Okay. Amazing. Was info wars wrong in its initial? At the time we reported anything, we're not putting out information that we believe to be untrue. So if we put it out at that time, at that time, we believed it to be true.

Sure. But if one person at the top is vetting all the information and he just says, well, I think it's true, you can throw up anything, right? Correct. I don't agree with that statement. If Alex Jones wants something to go on the air, he can put it up and nobody can stop him at free speech systems. Correct?

Alex is the boss. Yes. So if Mr. Jones believes something, then free speech systems can just hide behind the veil of, well, we thought it was true at the time that we put out the wrong information. Is that true? Injection is to form. It's the little size. What are you doing?

I don't believe we're hiding behind anything. Comes off sincere. Yeah, really. After a long pause, some size and we're not hiding behind anything. Nope, nothing to hide behind here. I buy it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Do not look in these bushes where I am.

Yeah. But Bill's making a good point that Rob really can't answer. And that is the like, okay, so if you believed it was right at the time, you have no responsibility for anything. And if one person basically is in charge of deciding what you believe at the time. All right. Seems like you're hiding behind that as a rationale for why you never did anything wrong and you never have.

If you don't check on things and you just report things willy nilly, right? And then later you're wrong, but yet a quote unquote good faith belief in it at the time. Sure. Seems like you just are chaotic. All right. Now I know what you're saying, but how about this? The things that I say sound better and make more sense when they are being yelled.

And I think you don't understand me because we're talking so quietly. So let me try it this way. They did it, Rob. You see, that makes more sense. Now you agree with me. Insert long pause. Could you repeat the question? So the issue of how big comes up and there's a question of whether or not

Wolfgang Halbig reached out to info wars or the other way around. Yeah, that is a good question. And so this question comes up and then Rob do gives a bizarre non sequitur. Let's talk about Wolfgang Halbig. Did info wars reach out to him? I believe he reached out to us at some point saying he was a school safety expert. And looking back in hindsight, does free speech systems believe that was a good idea to start communicating and having him on the shows?

I believe one of the first things he said was that he had given money to the victims. What does that mean? Well, that he believed it was a real event. And then after from what he was doing and asking questions, he was not getting answers to his questions. That is bewildering. Rob, Rob, Rob, where are you right now? Where did you just go?

You left us. You're somewhere else, man. I think that the intent of that information is to say it seemed like a good idea to talk to him because he clearly believed that it was a real event. Yeah. But that also undercuts the path that their relationship took and how encouraging they were of him believing the opposite of that. Right, right.

And it's not like it's not like he believed that at the time. He gave money to the families is part of Wolfgang's backstory in as much as it's given credibility to his claims that it's a hoax. Yeah, that's why I believed it. And then it was a big come to Jesus moment for me. Exactly. Yes, it's a it's bullshit. It's essentially a part of his his pro law.

Yeah, his myth. 01:10:26,840 --> 01:10:27,320 Yeah. Yeah. 01:10:27,640 --> 01:10:31,320 And it's very bizarre for Rob to be pulling that out. It does. It does feel like he's he's like, no, no, no, no, you don't you don't understand.

He said that he gave money to the families at the time. So we thought he was a good guy, right? Because we weren't going to do that shit. It's it's strange. Yeah. So Badandi comes up and here's here's some thoughts about that. You're aware of the Mr. Badani free speech systems is where Mr. Badandi went to Connecticut in June 2015.

I'm aware. I couldn't give you the exact date. OK, you watched the footage though from yesterday. That was the first time you'd ever seen it. No, I'd seen it before. OK, what is free speech systems stance on on that footage? Um, no notes. Love it.

I believe it was. I would say it was reasons like that is why we didn't. He was not hired. He was no longer working for us. At the time he was, though. Well, when you put it that way. Uh, now I see what you're asking. Oh, yes.

But he was a contract person instead of a full time. Completely different. Oh, boy. Wow. So do brings up an email that definitely exists. OK. Where he told Badandi. Right now, now, now, and I'm going to throw this out there.

I'm just going to see if I can guess where this might be going. Do you realize that as the corporate representative, you are supposed to produce those documents directly to us? Well, you're you're on the right track because it turns out this email has not been turned. What a surprise. Now, it definitely exists. Totally. But also maybe it was a text.

I believe that it exists. But hey. But after June of 2015, that's when free speech systems was company-wide said we are no longer going to be associated with this guy. I don't know if it was June or not, but there's definitely an email that I believe I sent to him or yeah, that I sent to him and said he's no longer representing or not to represent free speech systems.

OK. And that wasn't anything to do with like a journalist source that was just you telling somebody to stop saying he's associated with you. Correct. OK. Where's that email? I didn't think you were going to ask that. I assume you have it.

No, I've never seen that email. I'd love to. What a shot. Any idea what it could be? What? Let's back up. Did you give it to anybody? Did you give it to Mr. Bankston?

Did you send it to Mr. Bankston? I don't know if I sent any documents to Mr. Bankston. Did you send it to Mr. Enoch? I don't believe I sent any documents to Mr. Enoch. You just sent it to Mr. Barnes. There's a lot of attorneys working on the case, and so it went to another attorney, I imagine. OK. But I'm not thinking back.

It may have been a text, but I would have to look through everything again. So you have a texting relationship with Mr. Vedanti? Not generally. But you have— What? There were text messages that were found, I guess, if you're bringing them up, correct? There might be one or two or something, depending on— We generally like to do things in email.

OK. Especially if it's don't— we don't want you representing us anymore. Like this thing, like this thing, yeah. OK, so, so, so in this circumstance— You'd really think it would be an email. Yeah. Yeah, so then we get on the another lap. Basically, that's how you restart this entire cycle of conversation that goes nowhere.

I do really appreciate, though, that there's a certainty that there's an email. And then as they're like, oh, I don't have that email. No one has ever produced that email. Maybe it's a text. How do I wiggle out of this? My certainty has gone away. Yep. I just love the stab at the— the stab at the— like, you guys have it?

Like, the hope, the hope. I assume. That's the other thing. That's the other thing about these depositions that's always there. The hope that maybe they got out of it this time. Right. And presuming that he did turn it over to lawyers, the fact that they don't have it, means that the lawyers are not producing things.

So now you're getting other people— You're revealing all the wrong things. Yeah. So we've— we've touched on how big. Yeah. Touched on Badandi. Sure. Now let's talk Fetzer.

Let's do it. And actually Rob is correct about this, which is bizarre. Jim Fetzer. What— what do you know about Jim Fetzer? That he's an author and I don't know if he's a talk show host, but he's been on a lot of talk shows. Okay. He's— I think to this day, he still holds that Sandy Hooks was a hoax.

You agree? I believe that is his view. Yes. What was your relationship with Mr. Fetzer? He was a guest, but not that frequently. Okay. Why did he start becoming a guest? I believe he was a guest long before Sandy Hook.

And I don't even— he may have come on once after Sandy Hook, but I don't even know if that is accurate. But he was not a frequent guest. So prior to Sandy Hook, he was just another believer in conspiracy theories, right? I don't know what his beliefs are, but I imagine he's— I don't know what his beliefs are in terms of what you just said, conspiracy theories. So I'm baffled, but Rob is correct. I mean, Fetzer would have been on more in the past because he had like JFK conspiracies and like

someone who Alex did have on before. I'm not even positive that he ever came on after Sandy Hook. And I think the reason is because he's so clearly unwell. I've seen interviews with him on Project Camelot, and he is somebody who is so obviously not credible as a witness that I don't think that Alex would ever want to have him on in that era, in that time. But there's a lot of information that traces back to him that was easy to launder. And there were things that were written that don't come off as immediately unhinged

as seeing him rant and rave would have been. And so I think whether or not Rob understands these dynamics or not, he's correct. I don't know if Fetzer ever did come on afterwards, but he was a longstanding guest back into like the early 2000s, late 90s even maybe. I found stuff on like archived pages of Alex's site of interviews with him from way back. Here's a piece of advice for anybody in any kind of interrogation, circumstance, or the like. If on some questions you have extremely long pauses that are noticed by the questioner, and on other questions you answer immediately and with confidence,

then perhaps that says something about the varying degrees of truthfulness between those two answers. It's possible. Yeah. So yeah, you might notice also there's a little bit of, it's not that it's surface level, but there's not as much depth to this. And that is because these depositions are being done on a pretty tight schedule. So a lot of the other ones, like later they got taken to go on for hours and hours. This was on a, I believe it was basically one hour for the Enforcers LLC and two hours for this one. Wow. So it's, there's not enough time to really drill into a ton of the, some of the substance that we see in some of the other depositions.

So you just have kind of like who's Jim Fetzer, who's... Think of the broad side that they must have had if they thought that the depositions were going to regularly be one or two hours. And then to have that jumped up to full day long. Who knows what their expectations were. Heartbreaking. So Rob struggles in this next clip when asked if Alex ever called the Sandy Hook family's actors. Good question. Because he did. Yes, he definitely did. We know. And so did Rob. Yep. But he gives it a shot. Between December 2012 and today, is Mr. Jones ever referred to parents as actors? And by parents, I mean the parents of the children that died at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

I believe you have, if you look at the footage, there's even law enforcement personnel referring to people as actors. Not my question in any shape, form, or fashion. Has Mr. Jones ever reported that the parents of the dead children from Sandy Hook Elementary School were faking and were actors about this situation? I do not believe he was referring to parents as... How we doing here? I believe when he says acting, he's talking about coaching from the mainstream media and the way they paraded those poor people in front of the camera day after day after day to talk about taking people to church. So the answer is yes then. I've got one, two follow-up questions. As far as free speech is concerned, has anyone else at

free speech said that parents were actors? There's people who believed all kinds of things during that. Sure. There's some people that believed everything that was coming out of the... Like you? From the media. It was true and there are some people that did not believe that. So there were... And we have open debates about those things. Right. Because we believe that's the best place to have them is in the open. And by opening it on the show. Correct. So for instance, when you went on the show and you said, I know Robbie Parker is an actor, I'm an actor, I have a degree in theater. Does that sound like a question? Or are you making a statement? I was referring to him preparing right before he began speaking. Sure. I asked a question of, does that sound

like a question or a statement, Mr. Dew? That sounds like a statement and that was based on experience. And that experience, we're doing that as an employee for free speech systems, correct? I believe we are allowed to make statements. Correct. And you were doing it on a show that is owned and produced by free speech systems. Correct. I made that statement. Congrats. And you did it on the show owned by free speech systems. And I believed at the time, when I was looking at what I was seeing, that Robbie Parker was going through some sort of actor training. Not my question. I don't know how, I don't know how more we can do this, sir. I'm asking you a

question to which I want the answer, right? Well, I mean, that's one way to approach... I'm just going to scat the rest of the time. I think he might be more successful. If it pleases the court, I will speak in beeps and boops. And it is exemplary of what they're good at. They're good at, if somebody asks them a question, being like, I think cops also said they were actors. That's what they're good at. They can do that instantly. Pull it off the back of their backs. I imagine that's true in as much as somebody might say that people are actors in terms of like performing actions. I'm a competent actor or something like that. I could see somebody referring to somebody as an actor in that sense,

but not in the sense that they're talking about. I mean, they are, you know, the same letters. It's like him being so childish. It's like, oh, well, the cop said it. Why can't I say it? Like, no, just answer the fucking question. I don't care what you feel. Right. It's obfuscation and misdirection. They're very good at that. That's what they're doing. Yeah. That's 90% of the business model. Actually answering questions, true or false. Not good. Not good at it. No. And here comes another one. Okay. Hot and ready. Fresh across the plate. Here comes a meatball. There's a question about

a bit of reporting that Rob did himself. And that was that they had sealed the death certificates of the children. Okay. And why did you report that? Good question. In that programming in February 12, 2015, you personally were on a free speech systems program and said that they sealed all the death certificates. You remember that? What was the date? February 12, 2015. I believe at the time that is what I believed that they had blocked those because they felt they weren't releasing them to the public. What did you do to try and get it?

Did you fill out a FOIA request? I did not. Okay. What did you do to learn that they weren't giving them to the public? I did internet searches, hoping for those. I don't know if I did it that day, but I had done searches in the past looking for those because people were saying they're not providing the death certificates of these kids. Yeah, but you're a journalist. You're supposed to vet that information before you put it out onto the internet, right? Objection is 2-4. I'll back up. Are you a journalist? I provide information. Are you a journalist? Do you consider yourself a journalist?

I think I wear a lot of hats. Do you wear a journalist hat? I believe I do. Okay. Nice hat. Wow. Pulling fucking teeth. Yeah, yeah. Are you pulling teeth? Do you consider yourself a journalist? I wear many hats. Do you wear a journalist hat? Yes. You know, I sing the songs of the journalists from time to time. I have tripped the light Fantastique. Oh, God. What are we doing? Just say yes or no. Look, I heard on a bullshit message board that the death certificates were sealed and I decided to repeat that shit. I don't give a fuck. I'm not checking into any of this stuff. Absolutely not. But here's how we're going to save that. How are we going to do it? We're going to say it's common knowledge. Get the

fuck out. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Wow. It's pretty solid stuff. So you got this information from some Google searches. Did you ever attempt to get a death certificate? I did not. Okay. Because I read that they were not, they were sealing them. They would not release them. Where were you reading this? I couldn't give you the exact article. A journalist never reveals the source. I think it was common knowledge that they weren't releasing death certificates. When you say common knowledge, please tell us who that group of people would possibly think that was common knowledge. You're right. I hang out with weirdos, don't I? Huh. Uh oh. Well, one doesn't come to mind.

Bad answer. This needs the wonder year style level of voiceover for his thoughts because they would be so funny. It's, it's, what, I mean, yeah, what group am I going to come up with? Right. And he's, he's going through the barola decks, tossing them. Wait, is that a good idea? No, that one makes me look dumb. No, I don't like that one. The vets. No, that doesn't work. Unhinged Sandy Hook truthers. Yeah, that one does work, but that makes me look real bad. I can't say that. Shit. You know what? I can't think of one. One does not come to mind. Balls in your court now, sir. Punt. So, uh, not only was Rob saying that they'd sealed these death certificates, common knowledge, common knowledge that he cannot come up with. Yes. He went a step

further. Uh huh. And in this clip we learned he might have just made this shit up. So you can't think of a single group of people who would think common knowledge was at the death certificates were being withheld and were sealed. Now that we've established that you went on to say in that same program on February 12th of 2015 that it was a felony to get those death certificates. Remember saying that? No, I don't have to see the video. I talk so much shit, of course I don't. I would believe that it was a felony to get, to order, to do a FOIA request and pay the 15 or 20 dollars to get a death certificate. I might have been, I had to look at the video, but I was probably conflating several things together. One of which was a, uh, I believe it was the head of the state police who

came out and said, we're going to go after people who ask questions. And I believe there's video of that somewhere. Right. And that makes it a felony? Or did you just make that up? I don't believe I made that up. Okay. So you would have found a law somewhere that would have made it a felony? Well, we're talking about something that was secret law five years ago, six years ago. So you would have been able to just go on the internet back then and find a law that made it a felony, correct? Let me back up. I'll make this a lot easier. Other than the police officer saying he's going to go after people for asking questions that you claim. He said prosecute, I believe. Prosecute. Other than that, what could have led

you to believe that doing a FOIA request for death certificates would have been a felony? I think at the time, uh, and that might have been information from a number of guests who were trying to get this information and were unable to. Okay. So you just took a bunch of information from everyone else, did zero vetting and threw it out there as true. Correct? Objection is two, four. Yeah, I'd object to that too, probably. Yeah. The form is the troubling part for sure. That's the troubling. So what you did is Wolfgang, how big made up some shit? And you just reported that. Yeah. Cool. I follow up. I thought we were doing a deposition and now I feel like I'm in the principal's office. So that's, that makes me feel small. Well, you deserve a trip

to the principal's office. Did you make up that this is a felony? I think it was a lot of sources and the guests. Oh, so they made it up. Cool. Great. Um, so the, the, the thing that appears to be a factual basis there is Rob alleging that there was a cop who said that they were going to prosecute people who were asking questions. Right. And this leads to the unfortunate realization that I think that Rob, and maybe all of infowars ultimately believe that asking questions and spreading misinformation are synonymous. Yeah, they do. They think it's the same thing more or less. Yeah. So this comes up and then Enoch shows back up. Of course. Now's the time for that rescue. Yep. Also, you said that the state police was, said he was coming after

anybody that was asking questions, correct? That's what you just said earlier. I believe they said putting out false information, what they considered false. Spreading misinformation. Misinformation. Okay. I just wanted to clear that up. Sure. Because it wasn't people that were asking questions. It was people that were intentionally and willfully spreading misinformation. Correct. And it was that statement that made us go, this is interesting. Now, why would they have a problem with people asking questions? Wow. Because you could say asking a question is spreading misinformation. No. When you say we were questioning things, and then it comes out and said,

this is as fake as a $3 bill, you and I already agreed. That's not a question. That's a statement that is spreading a statement of misinformation, correct? But you're taking statements that are made over. I'm asking a question. Correct? Don't interrupt the deposition, Mr. Enoch. Please let the witness finish his question. What is the answer? Would you do that? Please, Mr. Ogden. If Mr. Barnes would like to do it, as he's defending this deposition and you're sitting over there, I'm happy to entertain anything Mr. Barnes has to say. Because he's the one that is allowed to talk in this. Do you agree? Actually, can we, I'm going to pause this from the time. Stay on the record. Yeah. Do you agree that only one attorney in Texas gets to defend a deposition

and speak? Mr. Ogden. No, I'm asking a question. Do you? Please don't interrupt me again. I haven't interrupted you. You've just interrupted my deposition. I suggest you continue your deposition. I'm asking you, do you agree with me that only in the pursuit of the rules one attorney is allowed to defend a deposition? Would you please continue your deposition? Are we just going to ignore the Texas rules and simple procedure? Is that what we're doing? I want to know why you keep interrupting. And what's the basis for that? I keep hearing you say those words, but I'm going to, are you just not going to answer? You're just going to keep interrupting and being an obstructionist? I think you ought to go ahead and ask the questions to the witness and take your deposition, sir.

Okay. But before I go forward, I just want you to know everything you're saying is his job. If he's not doing it, talk to him and he can do his job. But your team decided he was defending these depositions, not you. Where were we? Yep. You get the sense. I mean, because this is two different depositions. Yeah, you get the sense that you not just shouldn't be allowed in the room. He shouldn't. He clearly can't control himself. But it's a choice. Exactly. You don't get to the position in life of being a pretty high up at a law firm with that kind of impulse control issue. It's a decision that he's making to be obstructionist in this. He's trying to derail things and his behavior is such that you just shouldn't be allowed in the room.

Yeah. I mean, he's doing his best to, I mean, both influence the client as well as the lawyers. Yeah, trying to provoke. Yeah. He's trying to do all this. And then just as I suggest you cut, fuck you. Are you in the mafia? I suggest you continue your deposition. I suggest Barnes do something. Yeah. He's the one who's supposed to be doing it. Give me money for his job. So it's not a felony to look for these death certificates. What? Yeah, it turns out. And it turns out that though Rob apparently only learned, as we're going to find out in this clip, that he could get those death certificates if he wanted to very easily, right? Turns out he learned that in 2018. But someone tweeted him about it years earlier. So I'm asking you,

when did you learn that you can order the death certificates online? Say maybe sometime during 2018. Okay. Were you, because there's not something we covered every day. Are you still on Twitter? I am still on Twitter. Is it dues, news, dues with an S, news with a Z? Correct. Do you get multiple tweets from a person named CWA that was telling you that you can order the death certificates online back in November of 2016? I don't, I may have. I just because somebody sends you something on Twitter doesn't mean read it. Okay. Did I respond to him? Do you know who CWA is? Oh boy. No. You do not know who CWA is. I don't, I don't know. Is that a Twitter name?

Or is that a somebody's name? That is C at CWA's with an S and CWA is the name. The name of the person you were testifying under oath penalty of perjury that you don't know CWA is. Are you asking if I met him in person? Do you know who that is? Sitting here right now, I do not know who that is. Do you have a picture of me with him? That's my question. That's the question ahead. Okay. So CWA is a pseudonym that was used by somebody who was a volunteer at the honor network and they did a lot of correcting Sandy Hook misinformation online. So this is somebody that very much would have been sparring a bit with info wars around this time. It's understandable, I guess, that maybe Rob wouldn't recognize the

name, but it also is probable that they've complained about CWA in the past. So it is interesting to nail that down. So if I understand correctly, Rob, the reason that you didn't follow up on these tweets is because you don't just trust things people put on the internet. Well, there's that or presumably he's like deluged with messages from people. Well, just do news. You know, there's a lot of a lot of people hitting them up. Sure, tips. Naturally, of course. So he doesn't know who CWA it is, but it turns out Rob also doesn't know who another person is. Jonathan Reich or Reich or Reich? Do you know who that is? No. R E I C H. That name doesn't ring a bell. I think I've heard the name, but I don't know if

I've had any communication with a Jonathan or Reich. Do you have any understanding of who that is? I imagine he's involved in this somehow. But according to free speech systems, after reviewing all of the produced documents that are listed in topic number 10, you don't have any other information on him. Is that what you're testifying to? I imagine he is some ancillary person that you're going to try to entrap me with some sort of gotcha moment. Definitely not trying to do that. I'm just curious as to what you know. The name if you prepared and reviewed the documents that were produced in this case, so that we can talk about that name because it comes up hundreds of times in dozens,

if not hundreds of documents. Are you prepared to talk about who that is or do you just think you may have heard the name once or twice before? I don't recall hearing the name in any major capacity at all. I may have heard the name, but I can't recall it this time. Did you review any documents that had his name in it, preparing for this deposition specifically? I don't recall Jonathan Reich being a... I looked at a lot of documents, and I've been looking at a lot of documents, and I don't recall his name jumping out in any substantial capacity. Jonathan Reich is somebody who harassed a bunch of people, including the medical examiner in New Town. And yeah, so he is somebody who factors heavily into a lot of the documents that Rob should

have presumably reviewed. You think? Clearly didn't. No, he's read a lot of documents, and he read a lot of documents. They all look the same. Here's the thing about documents and words. Rob doesn't know how to read. That's my new theory. That's the only thing I've got. This is not possible. He's so averse to it. Yeah, exactly. Perhaps he's allergic. Yeah, it could be allergic. It could be some sort of actual allergy. It could be like Cactus Tony. He's allergic to paper. He's allergic to paper. Exactly. And he can't afford an iPad. He only makes $400,000 a year assumption. We don't know Rob's salary, I don't think. But, you know, his preparation should have involved these documents that would have led him to know, or at least

be familiar with the name, Jonathan Reich. You'd think. But he didn't, and whatever. But also at least we know that when he gets another shot at it, he's really going to be on top of this. He's going to crush it. The second time around, that's what he needed. He just needed a mulligan. Yeah. Part of his preparation for this apparently was watching some videos. Okay. And that's a problem for reasons that will be discussed. Okay. And lead to Barnes getting involved. Of course. And starting a fight. Of course. I couldn't give you a exact number of, are you looking for eight hour day segments or total? If you want to give it to me in hours, you can give it to me in days, you can give it to me in minutes. Just curious of how much time

you spent preparing for right now. Because it seems like you're slightly not prepared to talk about some names that are literally mentioned hundreds of times in the documents, in the little documents we've gotten. Seems like you reviewed some documents. We haven't gotten. It does seem like that. Who's trying to figure out how much time? Over under the length of total pauses. How much time did you spend preparing? I'd say maybe six total days, but spread out. Okay. Those are eight hour days. If you were, yes. So you've spent 40 hours reviewing documents. No, I did a lot of reviewing video and finding video. Okay.

What were you having to find? The request just says what's been produced. Your lawyer's produced it. We know exactly what videos or no videos have been produced, right? Yeah. What videos were you reviewing? Oh boy. They didn't produce into videos, right? Yeah. What videos were you producing? What are you reviewing? Objection is to form and mistating facts on the record. Okay. The videos were produced and you have them in voluminous quality, which you previously misled the court on. We'll get to that at a later date. Let's back up. You can, let me say for the record, all of the demonstrative laughing

over the top reactions of Mr. Bankstein is highly unprofessional, completely unnecessary. I would greatly appreciate it if it was not contained. There doesn't need to be demonstrative, childlike behavior responding to a witness. Just do it professional, please. After yesterday, that's where we're going to go with this, Mr. Bankstein. After yesterday, after the outrageous behavior yesterday of Mr. Bankstein, who was in YouTube laughing together repeatedly, joking with each other repeatedly. You guys are dumb. That's what we're talking about.

There's going to be no, no, it's on the witness. I mean, now that that's the kind of nonsense we're dealing with. All I'm asking is not to behave with ha ha ha, you know, talking with each other, laughing, trying to look at the witness and laugh. It's unprofessional. This is, this is not brain surgery. Are you saying that's what Texas standards are? Texas standards are behaving at the lowest possible ethical level in a way that makes lawyers look like a caricature? I'm so confused right now, Mr. Barnes, as to what we're talking about. Are you in a mirror?

I'm requesting, Mr. Banks, quit laughing and behaving in a demonstrative way toward the witness repeatedly. That's all I'm asking. Okay. Thank you. Well, we understand all those words. It's not an unreasonable request. It would be. I'm not going to make a comment on the reasonableness of what you just did. But we will talk about number 10. Actually, let's back up because you just made a

representation and just want this on the record. Or is your position that any of the defendants in this case have produced videos to us? Yes. Okay. Every video that we have, we had to find ourselves. So this becomes a little bit of a thing at the end of the deposition. Barnes and Mark both put some stuff on the record and hashed this out. Okay. And it turns out that Barnes's position is that they've turned over literally everything.

And that is because... Everything's online? Well, no. Mark and Bill and the folks at the law firm have gone and found a bunch of videos on their own. And it's not the Infowars obligation to create duplicates for them of stuff that they've already found. So that's one thing. And then the second thing is that they have directed them to tv.infowars.com and said, Hey, here's all of the videos. We've turned over all of the videos because we gave you this link. Right.

And that is all bullshit. Yeah. But that's Barnes's position of the voluminous quality. We've turned over literally every video. Barnes complaining about another lawyer turning lawyers into a caricature. Right. Bananas Town. Yeah.

A delight. Yeah. This is just... Of course you think that, Barnes. He's engaged in denial and delusion. Oh my God. I'm doing my best Barnes impression with the two words that start with the same letter. So yeah, Barnes sucks.

So we have a couple more clips here and it's basically the way things wrap up with a discussion of whether or not people should be held responsible for things. Right. Just a general, does responsibility matter in the world we inhabit? Sure. That's sort of where we begin. Gotcha. Do you agree with me that people should be held responsible if they spread misinformation?

Do you agree with that statement? If they're knowingly spreading misinformation. So as long as they stay ignorant and don't verify that it's false, it should be okay for somebody to spread misinformation. Is that your story? Objection is to inform. I'm just trying to get your understanding. Is that your understanding?

I don't believe we intentionally spread misinformation. I didn't just ask that. I said as long as someone doesn't verify that something's false and spreads that information, should they be responsible for spreading misinformation? Objection is to inform. Okay. Long pause. Close your question again.

I think the answer to your question is I'm a good little boy. I think that's a hard question to answer. But I maintain that we never intentionally spread misinformation or tried to hurt any parents. Right. So as long as you're reckless and not intentional, that's where your line starts to get a little murky? No, I'm not saying that.

Okay. That's what you're saying. Okay. If you don't verify information and you start spreading it and it is false, should that person be responsible for spreading misinformation? It's all I'm asking. Objection is to inform. I think you're making the assumption that there's only one source of verification,

and I'm maintaining that sometimes there are multiple sources of verification. I'm not even saying either of those. I didn't say any of it. I think what Rob is saying is, hey, there's multiple realities. Yes. That's what he's saying. He's saying, listen, you can believe in your reality and I'll believe in mine, and there's no way possible for some sort of objective reality to exist.

I verified all this in Crazy Town. Yeah, I'm the mayor there. They love me. Why would I come to your house? You suck. You're a meanie making me feel bad about believing nonsense. I will listen to weirdos like Fetzer and Halbig. You can listen to the Clinton News Network if you like.

All right, man. Oh, man. Now I'm just hearing Kevin Meany. So that's not right. There's no responsibility that you're going to get here, really. Even if you try to approach it from the abstract position, Rob's not going to give you a satisfactory answer. And then when you ask free speech systems, y'all responsible?

It's also not going to go great. Yeah. Does free speech systems do they accept responsibility for spreading misinformation about anything Sandy Hook related? Sitting here today, not at the time. Sitting here right now, looking back. What I think we were doing was seeing how this is being used politically. And it's a shame that people's parents or parents of dead kids were being used

to push a political narrative. But I think we had a duty to point that out that that was being done. My question was looking back, the information that was spread that is now we can agree wrong. Does info wars or does free speech systems accept responsibility for? At this point, I will accept responsibility for defending the first and second amendment. Damn. God, these people are fucking insane. Right.

But I 100% think that that is a line that he thought is going to be totally give me liberty or give me death. That's 100% his like this is a quotable moment. Yeah. This is when I stand up and I say, fuck you to power. Alex is going to say Thomas Jefferson said that in his deposition. Alex is going to get a tattoo of that. And then it says Jefferson underneath.

And I get a raise. Yeah. And he's going to pat me on the head. I'm going to be a good boy. Instead, it sounds monstrous. Yeah, really. It's the only thing I think I'll take responsibility or take ownership of is that I stood up for the second amendment.

Right. Damn. Ryan, you're disconnected at all from the conversation that is going on. So in retrospect, looking back, now that you know you hit that person with a car, all right, are you going to take responsibility for that murder? I will say that I made a great stance for the sixth amendment and third. And the 20, which one's the one about prohibition? I would say that's the 13th.

No, 15th, maybe. I don't know. Which one undoes prohibition? Because that's the one I was standing up for. That's the one right after it. There's two amendments that are directly back to back. Maybe no booze. Yes, please booze.

That's the one I was standing up for when I hit the guy with the car because I was drunk. That sounds right. So yeah, this is what we got. 21st amendment. 21st amendment. Wow. This is later than you thought. I was.

I assumed that we had gotten that one knocked out pretty early. So do. And actually the 18th was the one that did prohibition. So it wasn't the next one. Oh, damn. I'm way off. It took some time. What was the amendments in between?

I don't know. Look, here's the deal. Rob do sucks. Yes, he does. But it's shocking to hear this and then know that the next time wasn't better. Yeah. There wasn't any more preparation. It's a rank disrespect.

Just one instance like this is pretty disrespectful and bad. But then to know that like you just think like, well, we can do that again is. I mean, yeah, that cannot be, you know, like that's deliberate. Barnes is aware of what's going on. He's even made points in this deposition where he probably shouldn't be talking. In the same way that Enoch knows what he's doing by disrupting. 01:53:40,840 --> 01:53:46,200 Barnes knows what he's doing by allowing Rob to show up completely unprepared.

Right. As the corporate representative, there is. And that's why this led to large fines and ultimately down the road was a large portion of the contributing to a default judgment. You know, like it's it is it's they're cognizant of the way that this is playing out in a legal procedure. Yeah. And it's very much it's it's almost hypocritical, you might say for there to be a three strikes

laws for people who are under the law, but people who work there. Oh, sure. We'll do another deposition. Ah, we'll do. Okay. Six more depositions. And we're going to think you guys need a default judgment. Fool me 30 times.

Exactly. So, I mean, we reinforce the awareness that we have that Enoch sucks. Yep. We get some great do content. The pause is amazing. The testifying on behalf of free speech systems that Lanza may not have acted alone. Oh, great. Not knowing what Infowars is or why Infowars LLC exists or that there's a comma before

LLC in all LLCs. Pretty wild. Yeah. All a good time and another trip to deposition corner. That should it's so insane. It's I can't get my head around that. That's not the it's like that. That's not like the first boy.

Wild. Anyway, we'll be back Jordan. But until then we have a website. We do. It's knowledge right.com. Yep. We're also on Twitter. We are on Twitter.

It's at knowledge underscore fights. Yep. We'll be back. But until then I'm Neo. I'm Leo. I'm DZX Clark. I'm also Dan, but I've run out of times that Alex said Dan to have clips. So I'm going to have to go hunting for more.

And now here comes the sex robots. Andy and Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding. Hello, Alex. I'm a first time caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. I love you.