Arrest warrant issued for Jeffrey Epstein Mansion hairspray.

epstain

I just received an email from Ryan Burgoon. Evidently, a warrant has been issued for my arrest in the state of Florida. The email reads:

Good afternoon Roderick,

I checked with the State Attorney’s office and they did grant a warrant for your arrest with a the charge of Criminal Mischief (Less Than $200) F.S.S 806.13 1A B1.  This warrant is for Palm Beach County pick-up only and you can turn yourself in at Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, located at 3228 Gun Club Rd, West Palm Beach FL, 33406.  You can also contact PBSO warrants division at 561-688-3930 to obtain additional information. Email me if you have any questions.

Detective Ryan Burgoon rburgoon@palmbeachpolice.com

Donations for my legal fund are much appreciated!

https://www.gofundme.com/f/baselvandal

 

Corporate media is not your friend

 

no truth web

I hear/ see a lot of things “the media” should be doing. Corporate media should be explaining to the public that they are largely paid to manufacture the consent of the people for whichever candidate or candidates are most in line with their financial interests. However, doing so would be an admission that they are paid propagandists. Admitting such a thing would obviously be contrary to their mission.

This unfortunate reality, in combination with a public awareness that the truth is being manipulated has caused the public, (on the whole), hesitation to speak to independent media. Unfortunately, as independent media is the only hope to convey the truth to the people, this has caused corporate media to grow even more powerful. They’ve created a Chinese finger-trap. The harder we struggle to escape. The tighter their grip becomes.

The opinions of those who make it into corporate TV, are the opinions of those with a desire to be on TV. As such, they are either the real opinions of useful idiots with thoughts in line with the corporate agenda, or they are people who are savvy enough to parrot what needs to be parroted to get on TV, in order to further their own interests.

In the words of Noam Chomsky, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

We are given the illusion of a free and democratic society, but as is easily illustrated by simply showing up to political events to challenge politicians, those with dissenting opinion are watched like hawks by public police officers imbued with the power of the state, but hired by the politicians to do their bidding. Quite frequently, those who dare to speak the truth are lead out in handcuffs. And in order to get any justice, must spend thousands of dollars and hours pursuing a civil suit. By the time truth gets out, it is long past the point of being able to inform the public which will allow them to make the decisions which are best for them in choosing a “leader.” Besides that, the corporate media rarely publishes what they have to say— and if they do, they portray them as crazy people who are trying to damage your way of life.

Politicians are not leaders, nor are they representatives of the people. They are puppets paid to enrich their masters.

The sooner the public starts paying attention to the public, instead of corporate media, the sooner they will be free.

Good luck, Super Tuesday.

 

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.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR CRIMINAL MISCHIEF

CAMPBELL v STATE

J.R.S. v STATE

SANCHEZ v STATE

FL STATUTES

VISUAL ARTISTS RIGHTS ACT

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.”

arrest

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.

DORE

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!

Trump’s “deadly force” law challenged in New Hampshire

 

20CC4844-1A3C-4296-92B5-0D2558AE6C84

Chris Balch and I just took on the first of two laws stemming from New Hampshire’s draconian and deadly “decorum” laws. Today’s hearing was about how “security” is defined. Soon, with Chris’ help, we will tackle the law NH which the Trump campaign cites which says “deadly force” can be used to maintain decorum. Also, I told everyone in the room, I could legally kill them– and they should thank me for not doing so.

Many, many thanks to Chris for making this happen!

 

Flowers For War

flowers for war

Let’s face it. Peace hasn’t worked out. Instead of passing out “flowers for peace,” it’s time to start passing out “flowers for war.”

.
Since New Hampshire law permits unlicensed security personnel as part of Presidential entourages to use lethal force, I am actively seeking individuals who would be interested in joining my campaign as security, so that we can start eliminating the competition. Don’t worry— it is 100% legal, and I believe that this is really the only way going forward.

.
No pay, but I guarantee it will look good on your resume. DM for info. Serious inquiries only.
.

Here are the laws: RSA 106-F:4, XIII allows unlicensed yahoos from out of state, traveling with national candidates to legally be called “security.” Coupled with RSA 627:5, III, such a person can use “Deadly force when he reasonably believes such to be necessary.”

.
Thanks,
Rod

Flowers For Peace (Trailer) from Rod “BannedFromYouTube” Webber on Vimeo.

Webber v. Trump assault case to proceed

deck in keene

The judge has ordered my case against Trump and his minions to move forward.

Fun fact: I’ve been arrested eight times since the 2016 election. But, this is the case that’s taken the longest. Here’s the backstory:

On Oct. 12th, 2015, Vermin and I attended the “No Labels Problem Solvers Convention,” a multi-candidate event comprised of Democrats and Republicans ranging from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump. It was a rowdy event geared toward college-aged kids, featuring “Problem Solver Man,” in green spandex played by Zach Fox of Fat Camp Films.

After Donald Trump briefly took to the stage, there were some issues with the sound system for the Q&A, so I took the opportunity to politely stand and ask Trump a question. I was in the front row and reminded Trump he was roughed up at a Trump rally in Rochester the week before. At that rally, Trump had called on me to recite my favorite bible verse. I replied, “First Timothy 3, 1-7. It is noble to seek the office of overseer, but he who does, should be above reproach, sober-minded, not quarrelsome, married only once and not a great lover of money.” In Rochester, Trump replied, “oh boy, am I in trouble, am I in trouble.” As I was trying to leave Rochester, I received many kidney punches, and had my camera swatted to the floor, ruining most of the footage— but I was able to salvage some, proving it had indeed happened.

Rod Webber’s No Label’s arrest from Rod “BannedFromYouTube” Webber on Vimeo.

At No Labels, Trump responded, “you look healthy to me,” at which point they were plugging in the PA, making Trump’s response inaudible from where I was. At this time, Eddie Deck Junior, (who had attacked Efrain Galicia in New York City the month before), tapped me on the shoulder and told me if I went to the back of the room to go to the mic I could ask my question. Suspecting I was being deceived, I nonetheless followed through with the political theater, and went to the back of the room. Of course, there was no mic, and when I turned around there were a wall of Trump staff stopping me from going back. I reminded them it wasn’t a Trump rally. A Trump staffer, Fred Doucette told me, “you want the mic, you’re not getting the mic.” The situation escalated, with Eddie when I challenged his jurisdiction, reminding him that he had no authority there. I asked his name, and Eddie responded, “you wanna know my name— you’re about to see my name all over your face.” This was a clear threat. Eddie and other staffers began signaling to off-duty police which were hired by No Labels as security, and “Officer” James Pittman grabbed me from behind without warning, as Eddie joined in. The two of them worked in tandem, throwing me over a table, ala WWE Wrestling.

I was again thrown to the ground and roughed up some more by Deck. He was taken outside by the rent-a-cops who briefly detained him, then released him. When off of the property, I spoke to Sgt. Alan Aldenberg, and asked to press charges against Deck and his officers. Aldenberg walked back to his men, then came back and arrested me. This is what is known as a retaliatory arrest. Since the officers were in uniform, Deck was liable under color of law, 42 USC section 1983. Through respondeat superior, this makes Trump and the Campaign responsible for the actions of its employees. No Labels is also responsible for it’s employees, (the off-duty cops).

I spent a good chunk of 2016 proving my own innocence, and by 2018, I put forward a civil case, naming No Labels, the Manchester Police, Trump, Deck and all of their shell companies. On Jan 2nd, 2020, the court denying claims against the Radisson Hotel.

The good news is that as Vermin and I were arriving last night for Vermin’s appearance speaking to the New Hampshire Libertarian Party, I received an ORDER from the Judge saying that the core case against Eddie Deck and his shell company XMark was valid, and would move forward. Deck is being represented by Trump’s lawyers— and I’ve been holding off about a dozen of them since 2018, through 153 lengthy motions. In their defense, Trump’s lawyers cited a series of laws, which jointly claim a security guard for a presidential candidate can use lethal force to maintain decorum if they feel it is necessary.RSA 106-F:4, XIII allows unlicensed yahoos from out of state, traveling with national candidates to legally be called “security.” Coupled with RSA 627:5, III, such a person can use “Deadly force when he reasonably believes such to be necessary.” I guess I should be glad that Trump’s goons merely went WWE on me.

I approached State Representative Chris Balch about this troubling law, and Balch is working to get the law changed.

Though a number of my claims have been dismissed, they have been dismissed improperly. In the footnotes of pages 2-3 of the Judge’s order, (likely written by a court clerk), the court opines, “The appendices are comprised of information provided by Webber about some of the defendants and his communications with them.” The continue, “Webber did not provide copies of emails, videos, photos, articles, or documents. Therefore, the items referred to in the appendices do not provide evidence that can be considered by the court.”

Unfortunately, this incorrect statement by the court has been used as the basis to dismiss the vast majority of claims which have been dropped. We can simply look to document 75 in the case to the appendices section to see that all of the email correspondences between No Labels and the Manchester Police have been submitted in full. Moreover, links to videos were included, since physical DVDs or other media cannot be submitted to the court.

The Standard of Review in a civil case only requires that the Plaintiff allege facts. It is up to the jury to decide whether the facts presented by the Plaintiff are true. As stated by the Judge on page 2 of her order, “In considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court accepts the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and construes reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor,” citing Breiding v.Eversource Energy, 939 F.3d 47, 49 (1st Cir. 2019). The ORDER continues, “A claim is facially plausible ‘when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,’” citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

While this case might not seem like much in contrast to Trump’s impeachment, or his highly questionable assassination of an Iranian General on a diplomatic mission— if only the corporate media was paying attention to the case, they might have noticed that Trump was using it to say he can kill anyone anywhere— and for all we know, Mr. Trump is already working on stealing Vermin’s platform promise to execute all Americans. Only time will tell.

Read motions 1-153:

Flowers For Peace (Trailer) from Rod “BannedFromYouTube” Webber on Vimeo.