1:00:43 I'll continue with your calls, start of the next hour, those that are holding, you're gracious enough to hold, love to talk to you about the out of control escalation into thermonuclear war that even mainline analysts say we're on the very edge of. But I want to get Nick Riccato on because I've seen some of his reports, he's a very popular online commentator, he's also a lawyer. And I know that Robert Barnes thinks very, very highly of him and I think highly of Robert Barnes. Nick Riccato is our guest and he's riccatolaw.locals.com, Riccato Law on Rumble and YouTube. And he's here with us to discuss the waterfront. You know, you've got PayPal and its social credit score they pushed last week, $2,500 fines. Actually, Robert Barnes broke that last week. I didn't even know that, but I saw that later in the news. They've now backed off of that.
1:01:28 He was, Reketa has been banned for calling out transgender activists who claim to provide hormone replacement therapy drugs to minors without their parents' knowledge or consent. Faced 45 ethics complaints to the Lawyer Ethics Board of Minnesota. He's talking about free speech, big tech, tyranny of the courts, COVID, and the test run for government to control the populace through fear. But also just up front, it's not about my case. It's about the Democrats, the deep state admitting defaulting me when we gave them all the discovery, then not letting me defend myself in these show trials is the model they're admitting on MSNBC and CNN they're going to use because everybody else. So the cherry on top of tyranny with the surveillance and the open borders and all of it
1:02:10 and the forced injections and the intimidation of lockdowns is now completely weaponized judiciary. And he's been a defender of info wars, even though he doesn't agree with all of our topics and points, and he's been censored and attacked for that. So that's a feather in his cap. So Nick Riccato, thank you so much for joining us. Hey, what's up, Alex? Nice to be here, man. It's nice to have you here. We're on a bunch of radio stations, so we have like 14 minutes of break an hour. I apologize, but I just want to give you the floor. You're a smart guy to roll with any of the topics first you want to hit. Well, Alex, I mean, first, I hate what they've been doing to you in court. Like, I just want to say that straight out the gate. I think that you have an extremely important case, which was an interesting exchange you had with the plaintiff's attorney.
1:02:57 in your Connecticut case, is this case important? Of course it is. The problem is the important part of the case is the part that we missed. We just went ahead and defaulted you and skipped over the question of was there any defamatory statements? So much so that there's nothing in the record about what you actually said that we can link to any sort of tangible damages. And that I think is just an affront to the First Amendment. I think it's an affront to your due process. And I think that that's just absolute garbage. So I'd kind of like to start there if you're willing to talk about it. Please do, you're a well-known successful lawyer and people want to get your take on this. I mean, even Barnes a few months ago looked at her.
1:03:38 Limity's I'm not a lawyer but but but the pretrial stuff we were allowed to say and people didn't believe Barnes when he said that I can't say these 12 things then she said on the stand three times can't say I'm innocent can't say I'm bankrupt can't say I never said their names I still did that so she said I'm gonna arrest you the next time you did so I didn't show back up. Right, and it was crazy that the whole idea that you're supposed to defend yourself without being able to speak about any of the aspects of what's going on with you with this case is ludicrous. And I was watching your examination and I was really looking forward to the cross examination. But once the judge said, frankly, straight to your attorney, look,
1:04:25 You got mad about how I treated the plaintiff's attorney. So next time when you're up, I'm gonna do it whole differently and have zero tolerance. So she basically said, yeah, when you get up on the stand, you and your attorney are likely to be held in contempt of court, but the other guy gets to do it scot-free. It was a complete imbalance. There's no impartiality. And I said from the get go, the moment your case got removed from federal court to Connecticut under extremely bogus circumstances, might I add, Once that happened, I said, there's no way Alex gets a fair trial in Connecticut. It's not possible. It's not gonna happen. I didn't think you'd get that fair of a trial in federal court, but at least you'd have a little bit of diversity between you and the other parties. Well, exactly. Listeners got mad that I declared bankruptcy. I'm out of money. And from what I've seen, at least the federal court won't be completely out of control, hopefully, because everything they're saying is a lie.
1:05:18 Right, and the reality of bankruptcy is when you're out of money, you're out of money. It doesn't matter what else is going on. But yeah, what do you make of them asking for 8.25 billion? That's official. Even law.com confirms it, that that's what they want. 550 million per plaintiff, 15 plaintiffs. Absolutely absurd. You know, one of the things that came out, I think you said during the trial was people are blaming you for for the kids being shot more than they're blaming the actual shooter. Which seems to be 100% true. You've become the scarecrow, the scapegoat, the punching bag for these parents. And frankly, that's not a healthy way to deal with things, to be mad at someone who gave an opinion you don't like as if they're the cause of your child's unfortunate death.
1:06:10 And that was the three plus weeks of testimony. It was all about their kids being shot, but then they don't, they talk about me. They would never even say Lanza's name. They talk about their kid not coming over to school and then talk about me for an hour. Right. As if, as if you would have had anything to do with it. And 550 million is obviously a ridiculous number. I mean, frankly, I thought the Texas judgment was, was a ridiculous number as well. The big problem I have with this is I didn't see them tangibly link what their damages actually would be. Even assuming there was some sort of guilt there, I didn't see some evidence that they had. Explain that in layman's terms. No proof I sent anybody to harass people didn't. All, one person I said the name, one plaintiff I said his name, and said, yeah, that video looks suspicious. I mean, I literally hardly ever covered it.
1:07:00 Right, and it's like you got punished for the opinions of other people is what happened. And then of course projections upon you about what you might think. But what I was talking about is there's no link to what has happened to these people. And I'm frankly unclear on what exactly has happened to them in the first place. There's no link to how what you have said has caused directly that thing. It seems like you're consistently being held liable for the actions of others, which as an online commentator with a decent size audience, that's extremely concerning. Because if I say something, I express an opinion about a case or about a subject, and then someone else takes that and runs with it and does something that I never asked anybody to do.
1:07:44 That's not my fault. There's nothing I can do about that. And I think everybody who talks about this needs to be really examining where they fall down on this. And I agree. What about the FBI agent? I never knew his name till he sued me. Never talked about him. We never talked about him. Didn't even know who he was. He wants 550 million. I don't even know the guy is. Right, I can't figure out what damages that guy suffered. First of all, the biggest damage is I saw that guy's picture. I mean, I think that was more damaging to him than anything else. It's a sad state for an FBI agent. Yeah, he looks like a little kid dressed up for army. He really does. It was kind of embarrassing, if you ask me. But no, the whole thing is just a huge blow to free speech.
1:08:28 And it's a pulse check on our country. We have this constitution that says, no, we get to speak freely. We get to voice opinions, even if other people don't like them. Those opinions can be popular or unpopular. They can be dangerous. They can be safe. And we have to protect all of them. And we also get to put on a defense, which I was barred. Even the local news said Jones is barred from defending himself. That was in the newspaper. Right, which is again that whole Fifth Amendment due process comes in. Where was it? Where do we get our rights if they're recognized by the Constitution but they're just snuffed out by a judge with an agenda? All right, well-known lawyer Nick Riccato giving us an analysis of the waterfront. Key information straight ahead. Nick, what's the best website for folks to visit to find all your great material?
1:09:12 RicadaLaw.Locals.com is the centralized hub, but you can find a ton of it on YouTube. I've been doing this for five years talking about anything and everything. All right, stay right there. Popular online commentator and lawyer, Nick Ricada is our guest for the rest of the hour. Then your phone call's coming up. But let me put bookends on what we were just talking about, then we're going to shift gears to other big serious topics. If I saw another talk show host being railroaded, not allowed to defend themselves, I would be just as upset as I am about what's happening to me. But one thing that's hurt us that I didn't think of is listeners see this big judgment in Texas for $50 million, it's really $5 billion capped, and they see these other $8 billion things. People say, sorry you're going out of business, sorry you're going to close. No, no, no, no, we're going to appeal it for years. If there's any country left, it's going to be overturned. A lot of mainline judges have said that. I mean, this is crazy what they've done.