The Epstein-Banana Court hearing is Nonsense. Gallerie Perrotin is in the wrong.

five points

I am saddened that Gallerie Perrotin, nor David Datuna nor Basel have responded to my messages. Sadder still, it is likely that Perrotin destroyed my work of art “Reduced to Memes” which I created on their wall in December. According to the Visual Artists Rights Act, Perrotin is the one in the wrong, and the destruction or loss of my piece is legally actionable. Refer to the Five Points Case if you are unfamiliar.

Let’s get to the law. I didn’t break it. We’ll be switching person.

Florida statute 806.13 for Criminal mischief section (1)(a):
“A person commits the offense of criminal mischief if he or she willfully and maliciously injures or damages by any means any real or personal property belonging to another, including, but not limited to, the placement of graffiti thereon or other acts of vandalism thereto.”
As many are aware, Gallery Perrotin held an exhibit at Art Basel where the artist Maurizio Cattelan taped a banana to the wall, and dubbing it a piece of art. This work of art called “Comedian,” was priced at $120,000. On December 7th, 2019, David Datuna walked up to the wall where the banana was taped, and ate it. Perrotin chose not to press charges, and their representative, Lucien Terras even went so far as to say of Datuna, “He did not destroy the art work. The banana is the idea.”

By virtue of the gallery allowing David Datuna to create a new piece of art through destroying an old one, they created a situation in which an artist like Rod Webber, (or anyone else), might reasonably believe that he or she could behave in a similar way, by creating a new art piece, just as Datuna had. Any such person attempting to create a new work could not be seen as *willfully and maliciously* damaging property, even if damage was done. One might even conclude that Perrotin was inviting the public to join in on the performance. Webber’s act was not malicious— it was motivated by Webber’s desire to create art, just like the guy who just ate the art off of the wall. Also, let’s not forget the first amendment.

Accordingly, Mr. Webber’s marks on the gallery wall cannot be considered criminal mischief.
Perrotin Gallery seemed to agree with this premise, since they said they wouldn’t press charges against David Datuna, and they wouldn’t press charges against Rod Webber. Remember, in the words of the gallery, David Datuna, “did not destroy the art work. The banana is the idea.”

So, if the banana is the art, and the art is the idea, then the jury must conclude that Rod Webber too was creating a work of art when he scrawled “Epstien Didn’t Kill Himself” in red lipstick on the wall of the Perrotin Gallery. The only way the jury can find Rod Webber guilty is if the jury concludes that Webber’s actions were not art, because his actions for some reason were an invalid idea.

There was no willful malice. And in “the land of the free” there should be no idea so strange that it should be considered invalid. To begin branding ideas as invalid would require forming “thought police,” and doing so would be to step one step further down the path to George Orwell’s 1984 dystopia.

Lastly, there was no victim. If there is no victim, there is no crime.

The court hearing is at 9AM in Miami Beach.

Feel free to get up to speed on your jurisprudence.







I expect that this will result in a hung jury— unlike Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump Org re: Why video should be tossed: “Judges can’t be mind readers.”


So Peter Cowan and the other lawyers for the Trump Organizations have come up with a new reason as to why the Court should dismiss my video: “Judges cannot be expected to be mind readers.” Yikes. That’s *why* there’s video.

Here’s their argument, (from document 161.)

“The Court did not commit a manifest error of law by excluding information in appendixes.

Webber’s argument that the Court should have considered all of the material listed in his 31-pages of Appendixes fails. Webber bore the burden to make a prima facie showing that the Court had jurisdiction over the Trump Organization Defendants. Sawtelle v. Farrell, 70 F.3d 1381, 1387 (1st Cir. 1995). That burden required him to identify specific facts to support the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction—he could not rest solely on his pleadings. Forest-Miller, Inc. v. Babcock & Wilcox Canada, 46 F.3d 138, 145 (1st Cir. 1995). Webber’s assertion that the Court should have sifted through numerous vague descriptions of internet sources, news articles, and YouTube videos, without explicitly identifying the sources with dates, authors, or hyperlinks ignores this burden.

The First Circuit has repeatedly observed that “[o]verburdened trial judges cannot be expected to be mind readers.” McCoy v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d 13, 22 (1st Cir. 1991). If Webber could make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction, he should have done so by explicitly identifying those facts in objection to the motion to dismiss. He did not. Accordingly, the Court did not make a manifest error of law, and Webber’s Motion should be denied.”

Obviously, in the complaint, the facts were identified, detailed descriptions were given, and the author was identified. They complained and complained that my complaint was too long. And then when I point to facts, they say that I didn’t provide enough detail. This is our legal system.

Here are the most recent filings in the case:

155 Judge’s Order

156 Judge’s Order

157  Reconsider Order

158 Reconsider Order

159 Objection by No Labels

160 Objection by Donald J. Trump

161 Objection by Trump Organizations

Tulsi, if CNN smoked more weed with Jimmy Dore… They’d make better life-choices.

Tulsi Gabbard and Jimmy Dore hosted a “Rethinking Marijuana Roundtable” at NHTI last night. I asked Tulsi, “if CNN smoked more weed with Jimmy Dore…?” She responded, “they’d make better life choices.” I added, “and let you on the debate stage.”

tulsi weed

I also had an interesting conversation with Jimmy about the time he interviewed me about being raided by the FBI. Obviously, it didn’t make much of an impression on him… But, considering the FBI went out of their way to lie about it on TV, I figured that the targeting of journalists, (which included warrantless entry and guns out), would be quite the scoop. But Jimmy, (or TYT) decided not to publish the interview. I tried not to bust his balls too hard– because at the end of the day, I know he’s a comedian, and he has weed-smoking to get back to! He was nice enough to chat a little bit afterward, and I got plenty of interviews with Tulsi’s staff and supporters regarding CNN’s keeping Tulsi out of the debate.

Here’s a photo snapped by Jason Lowenthal.


Many thanks to David T. Grophear for filming/ producing last night, and I wish both Tulsi and Jimmy many days of smoking weed, if they so choose it!