380: Importance of Protecting Liberty with Robert Barnes

This show is produced by the Hartman Media Company. For more information and links to all our great podcasts, visit hartmanmedia.com.

Welcome to the AIPIS Show. For accredited income property investment specialists and those who aspire to be if you're a real estate, mortgage or financial professional, this is the place for you. We'll explore innovative investment analysis, sales, marketing and income generating strategies for the most historically proven wealth creator income property. Learn from the experts as they show you how to build a better business and a better life.

Welcome to the show. This is Jason Hartman, your host and every 10th episode we do something kind.

Of special, kind of different.

What we do is we go off topic. So regardless of which show it is on the Hartman Media Network, whether it be one of the financial shows, economics, real estate, investing, travel, longevity, all of the other topics that we have, every 10th episode we go off topic and we explore something of general interest. So something of general life, success, value. And so many of our listeners around the world in 164 countries have absolutely loved our 10th episode shows. So that's what we're going to do today and let's go ahead and get to our guest with a special 10th episode show. And of course on the next episode.

We'Ll be back to our regular programming. Here we go. It is my pleasure to welcome Robert Barnes. He is founder of Barnes Law. He is a champion of the underdog, a crusader for the Constitution and an equalizer of odds. I love everything about that because if you've been listening to me for any length of time, you'll know how well aligned we are and really looking forward to having him on the show. Robert, welcome. How are you?

Glad to be here.

Yep. It's good to have you. So I know you through our mutual friend George Gammon. Why don't we start with that and talk about the case against the just a minor little defendant. No big deal. Probably nobody's ever heard of them. The Federal Reserve of the United States of America, our central bank. Tell us about that one.

Sure. So the idea is how do we audit the Fed? There's been a lot of efforts over the years to audit the Feds. It hasn't been able to come about and my view is that we could FOIA the Fed in order to audit the Fed. Now that probably means you need to FOIA the Fed, then sue the Fed in order to be able to audit the fed. But about 10 years ago, the courts found that the Freedom of Information Acts does in fact govern the Federal Reserve and governs the various boards and Various, each of the chapter banks of the Federal Reserve.

And let me just. Before you go too deep into that, let me just kind of tee up the context there a little bit. So most people know Ron Paul was on a big campaign years ago to audit the Fed. He's been on the show before. FOIA is the Freedom of Information Act. And as soon as I heard you were doing this, I instantly thought, Bob, that the Fed would argue that, well, we're not part of the government, so we're not subject to foia. Freedom of Information only applies to the government. And, you know, the Fed is sort of in this really murky area of government, or not, you know, it's a private corporation. But then again. Go ahead. So take off from there. Go ahead.

Exactly. So that has long been their defense, but basically they started losing in court on this issue because what the court said is if you're exercising a governmental function or you're claiming the government gave you certain authority, then anything you do in that capacity is governed by the Freedom of Information act, even if you don't think your organizational charter makes you a governmental or institutional entity. And so once they did that, it created a great opportunity for this suit because the Fed has to admit one of two things. They either have to produce the documents and information that they're using in the name of the government's power, or they have to admit and concede that what they're doing has not been authorized by law, not been in their governmental action. And the goal is to force them into that position because either way it sets up a subsequent suit against the Fed.

I think it's less interesting, but all the same, it just makes me want to ask you, well, how would this play out if it were against Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or these other kind of government sponsored entities, the GSEs, is there some connection there? I mean, not that we get some great information from them like we would from the Fed, but you know, still interesting.

I think it's applicable in a wide range of context to any of these hybrid private public entities. Because a lot of the same legal principles apply at your local level, city, county and state level. Whether you have sunshine laws that are open records laws that are like FOIA laws. The goal is to use this case as a template both for people to ultimately sort of copycat against the Fed. We want them to wait for us to go through first so then they can know how to use it effectively, but also against their local institutions or other federal institutions that need to be audited.

Right. That need to be audited. I love that. They definitely do. Tell us where you began. You had like a Kickstarter Indiegogo campaign or something. Right. How much did you raise? Where are you in the case now? And where's this gonna end up? Is it gonna end up at the Supreme Court?

Potentially. I mean, so basically it was George's idea. George said, how is there a way to audit the Fed? And so we came up with, we looked at it. Yeah, we think we could FOIA the Fed in order to audit the Fed, probably have to sue them somewhere along the way because they'll likely fight it and contest it. And he started it off as a fundraising effort. He put basically about two thirds of the fund ins himself and, and said he would match a whole bunch of funds. And he set up a GoFundMe and in, I think eight hours had raised the first round of funding. And what it is, is as we get progress, as we get good outcomes, and as the case accelerates and elevates in importance and consequence, we will go back into the public, keep them apprised, keep them involved, keep. Because we also want to use this as a crowdfunding template that other lawyers can utilize because the Fed should have been sued a long time ago. Why have they not? Because there's no money in it. There's just political harassment in it. And so we wanna show people, no, you can take out, go after these big enemies, because there's a whole bunch of people out there that could, through crowdsourcing, can kind of do what the redditors did to GameStop. You know, the same dynamic that we can crowdfund a political revolution and legal action. And we're also using it as a template in that context too.

Well, all I can say is that's wonderful and power to the people. And as much as I hate big tech, I'm glad the platform, I mean, these aren't really big tech, like in the big sense, but, you know, these platforms like Indiegogo or whatever, GoFundMe are out there. How much did you raise so far? Or how much did George put in? You know, like, give us a, an idea as to what you're looking at there.

So, yeah, the first fundraising was 100,000, and basically about 2/3 of that was from George, a third of that was from the public. And the anticipation is there'll probably be other rounds down the road, but only once we have shown success and progress.

Sure. And so where are you in the case now? I mean, are you getting discovery yet or what? Court level I mean, are you just like in federal court? I mean, you're in Los Angeles, where I grew up, Right?

A mixture. I have offices in la, Tennessee, in California, Tennessee and Wisconsin. I live in Las Vegas. Practiced everywhere, nationally, internationally, member of the US Supreme Court, etc. So the way the FOIA process works, the first parties, you start with the FOIA request. So we have a bank auditor and then a bunch of other people who are coming up with exactly what we want to look for. And within three weeks of us announcing the suit, the Fed came out and said they were changing their FOIA rules for the first time in six years. So, you know, whether it was connected or not, the coincidence is mighty interesting.

But how can the Fed change their own FOIA rules? I mean, if they're the government, don't the same rules apply across the board?

What they can do is they can create administrative hurdles. Yeah, so they can make it legally tricky. It's like an extended contract. They can make you go over here, then over here, then over here and over here, and you have to ask for it in this way and that way and the other way. So we're incorporating those rule provisions, using a bank auditor to put together our request that we'll be sending out our first round of requests this month, then another round of requests next month. They usually are supposed to respond within 20 days. My guess is that we're probably going to be in court by the fall in the reality of it. But we're going to have multiple rounds of these requests and multiple rounds to different people. So it could be as many as 25 lawsuits in the end concerning different requests.

Okay, so you've made requests, The Fed is stonewalling you right now.

Right.

Did you get anything yet?

At this stage, they still have within their timeframe to respond.

Okay.

So they have to start responding in July.

Okay, but it is a traditional lawsuit, right? Or has it. Is it not become a lawsuit yet? It's just a FOIA request.

It's just a FOIA request because you.

Don'T need a lawsuit for a FOIA request.

Exactly. And this is something. That's why ultimately, once we have all of the requests and then the different responses and the whole litigation, we're gonna be posting all of it so people can cut and paste and do their own. And the thought process down the road, you could have thousands of requests. Now, we didn't want people rushing in because they could end up. The Fed could pick off one of those people, create bad legal precedent that hurts the rest of us. So we want to establish the precedent, but basically sort of be Lewis and Clark as to how to audit the government, show the whole path, and then people can just follow along that path. And I anticipate down the road, the Fed is gonna have to face thousands of these kind of requests, and their ability to continue to hide information and not have open the transparency is gonna get harder and harder for them to pull off.

Interesting. Okay, so what else do you want to tell us about the Fed case.

That sums it up right there? When we're requesting, by the way, records going back over 100 years, we want all their records about internal legal authority, what they've said about the income tax, what they've said about the 16th Amendment, what they've said about their own power. How did they say they had one definition of their power in the 1990s? Totally different in 2008? Where are all these special vehicles that they're creating? What's the legal authority for that? Who are they really communicating with behind the scenes?

And by special vehicles, you mean special purpose vehicles to play games with the books, right?

Exactly, exactly. I mean, they basically have sort of how much of a Bernie Madoff have they done on their own financial system is kind of what we want to unravel and figure out what's their legal authority for this? Because, you know, their lawyers gave them advice, and my guess is a lot of their lawyers told them they don't even have legal authority to do a lot of these activities. So we want to get that incriminating information.

And what about just finding out who owns the Fed?

Oh, yes, it's all of that. And it's where money goes at every level and where information goes and what their understanding of their own authority is and sort of looking for that kind of information. And that's why we have a bank auditor involved, that's why we have associate lawyers involved, financial lawyers involved, and people that are in the political space. All three are coming together to create these FOIA requests, to make them as legally and politically effective as possible.

So at the end of the day, say this case goes just spectacularly well. What's the big thing that could be gained from it? What is the smoking gun piece of information? And then what would that mean? Would it force a change upon the Fed? Would it force a change upon the relationship, this unholy alliance between the government and the Fed? Like, what's the outcome here?

I see there's two different ones. One is the court of public opinion. The other is the court of law. What it could set up in the court of law is potential additional lawsuits if the Fed has been acting outside of its authority and its jurisdiction. Because if they've been doing things that are outside of their authority, they can be sued on that basis. Also, if they've been doing things outside of their authority, they're no longer shrouded in government immunity. They can be sued like a private actor for various ways of basically interfering in the marketplace, sort of unfair competition of a different kind of. So there's all of those potential remedies that may be out there for people that have been harmed by the Fed to take legal action in the courts of law. The other court is the court of public opinion. I have found that a lot of your ordinary people, a lot of this, you know, they get lost pretty quickly. I mean, even the words fiat currency, a lot of them. I start to glaze over your advertising.

It's not as bad as it used to be, though.

No, no, it's not. People are getting better and better.

People are a lot more aware, you know, Listen, Robert, I'll tell you something. I cannot believe how much it has changed. Because back in 2004, 2005, when I was doing conferences and Semin and talking about monetary policy, people's eyes would roll back in their head. You know, I was talking about fractional reserve banking and all that stuff back then. But you know, by about even 2008, 2010, the guy fixing that air conditioner, you know, just a guy, a blue collar guy that you wouldn't think would know any of this stuff was starting. And then I think the bitcoin and crypto space really popularized a lot. Like, I never heard the word fiat money before that. I used to say it, but nobody else did.

Precisely. I see it as though basically we had two big door openers over the last decade so. The 2008 financial crash and the rise of cryptocurrency were ways to open the door to people who otherwise wouldn't listen.

Or couldn't quite process awareness.

Yeah, exactly. And it triggered curiosity and it triggered interest. My view is the court of public opinion. Let's say some people said, hey, Barnes, the, you know, the Fed's just going to shut this down. The courts are corrupt. So, okay, let's say all that happens. It's far easier for me to start a conversation with someone who is not interested in this topic by saying, did you know that the Federal Reserve is hiding information? Won't turn over records, won't turn over information. Just that beginning of it that triggers a certain Curiosity. Why is this big institution that's kind of governmental and kind of private, why won't they answer the public's request? Why won't they provide information? Why won't they let us look at their books? Why won't they let us look at their records? What are they hiding? So I see it in the court of public opinion as even in the worst case scenario, we don't get anything. We don't get what we're looking for. That by itself is a door opener to a group of people that haven't yet opened that door into that conversation. Now, the best case scenario is we unveil and unmask that. They know they've been doing a lot of illicit activities for decades.

It might be hard even for people like my audience who are aware of this stuff, you know, it might be hard for them to understand, really kind of this next stage of it. How is the Fed hurting people? I'll just give you a little ammo for that, okay? I mean, just look at what's going on in the economy right now as we speak. The Fed, by basically creating what I'll call toxic interest rates, toxically low interest rates that are really toxic to the economy. They're irrational, they're not market driven, they're by fiat. And just look at the housing market. I mean, they're creating this massive shortage of inventory. They're causing prices to go up like crazy. And guess what that's doing. Everybody's talking about wealth inequality. Well, guess who creates it and guess who creates bubbles. You know, I interviewed that author that. I can't remember his name, but maybe it was like 2008. He published this very big article that made the rounds. It was in Rolling Stone magazine of all places, and about the Fed and Goldman Sachs and calling them the giant bubble machine. You know, they create these bubbles. They buy assets at the right time, then they run them up and then they exit them and leave them for all of the regular people to pick up and lose money on. And then they destroy their credit, then loan money to them at high interest rates because they've intentionally destroyed the credit of millions of people at the highest level. And this is not a conspiracy theory, folks. Just look around. It's a conspiracy fact, okay? It's. They've done it over and over again. But how's the Fed hurting people other than like those things?

I said, well, it's basically your local banker getting to the highest peak of power and getting to run the world. These are bankers run private bankers dictating everything. Related to economic life to some degree now in the world, not just the country, and ask yourself, whose interests are they going to be acting in and what moral objectives are they going to be centered towards? And so chances are it's not going to be towards you or me. They get to determine what the value of that dollar is in your wallet, whether it goes up or goes down, whether realistically, whether the value of your house goes up or goes down, whether you can afford access to a house or not in the first place. And that doesn't even get to their ultimate objective, which I believe one of the things we're going to be doing a FOIA request on is what internal discussions have taken place about having a digital governmental currency.

Yeah, that. That is the one. Listen close to this, okay? And I, I've said it before, but two components of this number one is the digital currency, the. The cryptocurrency that is a Fed coin. But the other is just a global fiat currency in general. It doesn't even have to be digital. But if it's digital, gives them way more control over us, us little peons when they have this. And Janet Yellen has been totally outspoken that the treasury and the government is going to coordinate with other governments to basically put the screws down on all of us, okay? So that there's no place you can go, there's no place you can escape, there's no voting with your feet. But a digital currency just could give them insane amounts of control. Tie that to social scoring, tie that to whether or not you've had a shot in your arm, tie that to any number of things, and, you know, your money could evaporate. They could create or diminish velocity in the economy by making the money expire or making it, you know, lose value on a published schedule even, and we'll have no spending privacy whatsoever. I mean, if you want to go to that adult store, you know, Jerome Powell is going to know, okay?

So, yeah, it's complete control. That's the goal is complete control. And if you integrate this into the possibilities of quantum tattoos and chips, that would have all of your medical records, all of your financial records, all of your access to medicine, all of your access to any kind of financial activity. I mean, basically your access to be able to travel, your ability to do any of this, you look at how they're using biometric identification in India, you incorporate that into currency and you add in these sort of vaccine chips that they're talking about. You do the three, and you have total control over A population, you know everything about them and you determine whether or not they're going to eat. You want to go to McDonald's and get a burger, well, all of a sudden they empty your account overnight. Now you can't get anything. You can't even eat. You can't pay your rent, you can't go with transport, you can't do anything.

So this is a very dystopian. I mean, this is worse than the world of 1984 or any of these books. I mean, this, this is the ultimate control.

It really is biblical. It's biblical. I mean, I mean, that's why, that's how I say it. As apocalyptic as you can get, but it's increasingly realistic unless there's a conscious and constant effort to fight back against it.

Okay, so any other points you want to make on how the head fed hurts people, like, you know, the smoking gun, you might find out and what the overall best case outcome of this is.

Exactly. I mean, the goal is to figure out what have they done and what do they plan on doing and what about it is problematic for the rest of us and to use this process, legal process, to achieve and accomplish that objective, both the court of law and court of public opinion. And we're optimistic as to both.

Good stuff. Well, I can't wait to hear more. Now, I think the FOIA laws came out in the 60s, right?

Early 70s, both. It was all a response to what I call it sort of the deep state counter revolution. In other words, the, you know, the assassination of both Kennedys, Martin Luther King. You had everything that happened with Nixon. And while that was happening is when we got Freedom of Information act laws, Privacy act laws, the Church Committee on Intelligence Activities, and all the bad stuff our government was up to. All that was that time period when the reformers, the white hats, had a moment in the sun. And this law is one of the best aspects of that.

So, you know, that begs the question with Ron Paul's audit, the Fed movement, you know, what, maybe 10, 15 years ago, Fed's been around over a hundred years now, and FOIA's been around for maybe, you know, 50 years, give or take. Didn't anyone think of doing it this way before?

They didn't. It's one of those things that's fascinating is that people just assume they can't do things. You know, the Fed took the position that they weren't subject to FOIA and people just accepted it. It's like most things with the Fed. They come out and declare something and you have A lot of the legal class and political class that says okay, they said so it's kind of like the Milgram experiment. We've lived through the last year. Somebody in a white lab coat comes out and says something. People are like, okay, I guess I'll be under house arrest for the next year.

But if eight or nine doctors come out in white lab coats and have a press conference in front of a hospital, it'll be completely censored from the Internet by big tech companies.

There are people who run emergency medical clinics, sit down and do a four hour interview. All of a sudden that gets banned from YouTube. The only honest science was the science that got banned over the last year.

Yeah, that doesn't fit the narrative, you know, so precisely. Absolutely, yeah. It's crazy. It's just amazing that no one ever thought of doing it this way.

You know, a lot of what our cases are, are just creative cases, but it's always straight. When George came to me with the idea, I hadn't thought about it until George came to me and I was like, you know, there's got to be a way to do this. And we used FOIA all the time and against the IRS especially because we have a lot of tax cases. And it's always amazing the intel they have. I mean, the IRS can't help themselves. They're always writing little notes and you find out all kinds of interesting little things. And you know that's going to be the case with the Fed. And thankfully it was actually Bloomberg that sued the fed back in 0809 because they wanted certain insider dealing records about who the Fed was bailing out and on what terms. And they were doing it for a small clientele, but it's what opened the door for the rest of us.

Very interesting. Well, I'll tell you, you may not like this one, but unfortunately bar associations and lawyers aren't subject to foia. And I think that's wrong because the bar associations are like these pseudo governmental entities too. You know, why aren't they subject to foia? But then again, I'm talking to a.

Lawyer, so I'm not a big fan of any of the bar associations or what, or what any of the courts are doing in terms of. It's a systemic flaw in our entire process is that, you know, the courts control the licensing of a lawyer, the enforcement of those licenses and adjudicate it. They're the jury, judge and executioner, the legislative branch, the executive branch of the judicial branch. My view is still the same. I don't believe Lawyers should be licensed. I think that you should just have honesty in advertising and people should be able to pick whomever they want. You shouldn't have to get a law degree or even go to law school because there's a lot of people who are good who I believe would make good lawyers who just aren't law school oriented, don't have the time for it, don't have the money for it. And that was Andrew Jackson's view. We used to have it in America.

And by the way, if you're listening to this and you think my guest is out of his mind, go read Milton Friedman's work on licensure and how that is a way to basically restrict opportunity. You have to have licenses for all sorts of funny things like that. Don't even some of them seem so illogical. And then there's a bunch of things, you don't have to have licenses for that. If you're going to have a license world, maybe you should.

Exactly. And that's why it should always be the people's choice. What licensures become is a way for the state to weaponize its control, like they're doing to Rudy Giuliani right now in New York, that it's a way for the system to politically control what you're allowed to say and not say. It's a very Soviet style, Stasi style kind of system that is foreign to America. And you look at how it's used. I mean, it's used to make access limited. I mean, and they're using it for things like, you know, whether you can cut somebody's hair, you have to have a license, et cetera. And again, you know, full honesty in advertising. You could say, I'm approved by this group, I'm approved by that group. Let the consumer decide what matters to them, not let the state have a monopoly over it.

Yeah. And because the problem is the state is allowed, sadly and scarily to selectively enforce their laws. And if they weren't allowed to selectively enforce against, say, Giuliani in your example, well, that's a bar. I don't know exactly what that is, but whatever. You get the idea, you know, then okay, maybe, but because it can be selective and if they just don't like you, they can just ruin your life or your career and they can't ruin the guy next door who's doing all kinds of bad things. You know, it's, it's just wrong. It really is. Tell us about some of the other cases you're working on or have worked on that people should know about or. Or maybe not even that. You know, maybe just another area of society or culture or government that someone should pursue. You know, maybe someone listening should start a GoFundMe campaign and support another kind of case. You know, just whatever you want.

I think the 2000s is going to be a defining decade for liberty. And whether liberty in the law prevails or doesn't, because the global reset agenda is real, the people pushing it and propagating it are real, and their power is equally real. And we just saw how real it was over the last year, where in the name of a virus that really wasn't that deadly to most healthy people, people were willing to completely forfeit every core freedom and liberty they had. Not go to church, not sing in church, not go out on holidays, not do a wedding, not go to a funeral, not even leave their home, lock up their own children, maybe even quarantine their own children for two weeks or three weeks because somebody nearby had a disease, even if the kid doesn't. I mean, we did things we have never done in our history. I'm working with Robert Kennedy's Children Health Defense to focus on people that are under 18. And then we're going to be doing the people over 18, which is all these mask mandates, these forced vaccines, this attempt to control your body, to unwind the Nuremberg Code of 1947. We want to fight all of it because it's right at the cutting edge. We have people who want to go back to the 1920s, who look at the human experimentation states were able to do because the Nazis took their ideas from the United States. They took it from, sadly, our own U.S. supreme Court 1924 Connie Buck decision when we had forced sterilizations in America. And I want to attack those morally horrendous, legally perilous, unconstitutional decisions and restore our constitutional freedoms by fighting on the issue of mask mandates, fighting on the issue of lockdowns wherever they occur if they pop back up again, and particularly fighting on the ability for you to have autonomy over your own body when it comes to an emergency experimental drug, which is what the COVID 19 vaccines currently legally are.

What about that shot in the arm? I mean, people want to be able to travel. They want to go places, especially to foreign countries. You know, none of this stuff applies when you're offshore. Well, I mean, you have done some international cases, I guess, but just any advice for people, I want to enforce.

And there's some international lawyers working together to enforce the Nuremberg Code of 1947 across the globe.

Tell us more about that. This was the post World War II. And probably in relating it was. Came out of the trials, Right, Exactly.

So we had the.

And the Nazis did all kinds of experimentation and things. Yeah, precisely.

And a lot of the experimentation they did, the Western governments had been doing prior to the war. And what it was, is people were so morally horrified by the sort of practical political consequence of what those were. They came together and said, we should never allow this ever again. And the doctor was informed consent. And it was put into the Nuremberg Code of 1947 that pretty much every government in the world has signed onto and said, we will never allow anyone to experiment or put anything. You have complete autonomy over your body, and the only time the state can put something into it is with your informed consent. And so under that, I mean, just imagine if people, in the abortion context, they say you have the right to terminate a life in the name of your autonomy. There's arguments about whether your autonomy goes that far. But how is it you could have a right to terminate life as part of bodily autonomy, but you don't even have a right to prevent them from sticking an experimental drug inside your body? That doesn't make sense to me.

But at least in the US you're not required to stick the drug inside your body. It's just that if you don't, they can limit your freedoms. You may not be able to have a job, as we've seen in Houston, Texas with the health care workers, and you certainly may not be able to get on an airplane and certainly cross a border that's going to be pretty easy for them to restrict. I think.

I think there's several ways to fight back against that. One is, I believe the Nuremberg Code of 1947 does prohibit anybody from doing it, including what they call unconstitutional conditions that no state actor can do it. And I don't think any employer can do it for a range of reasons, including certain public policy limitations on the at will employment doctrine. The ADA that prohibits using someone's health status or medical status as a basis of disability, determining the conditions or terms of their employment, which covers most employers. Also, I drafted a sort of a letter that people can use which reminds employers they can be legally liable for any of the consequences of a vaccine if they require people get it. There's plenty of employers that think, maybe I don't want to take that risk. But they're just unaware of it right now. So if they know that there's big plaintiffs lawyers like me and others who are going to be eager to sue them if they force a vaccine on somebody. And there's one of these consequences like these kids that are having these heart problems currently. So I think, though, there's a lot of ways to fight back. But the people are going to have to be creative at how they do it. They're going to have to be part underground, part in public at their levels of resistance if they're going to be able to protect their bodily integrity in this new global reset era.

Yeah, very interesting. Well, Robert, anything else you want to share with our audience before you wrap up?

Just that, you know, one of my favorite quotes is the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he did not exist. The greatest trick the system ever pulled was convincing you that you cannot resist. So no matter how many black pill events there may be out there, there's plenty of white pill and red pill events to keep the freedom train moving down the tracks.

Good stuff. And Robert, give out your website if you would.

Sure. There's two places people can find me. BarnesLaw LLP as in Peter.com or I post everything up, including that letter I was referencing@viva barneslaw.com.

Robert Barnes, thank you for joining us.

Glad to be here.

Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to subscribe so that you don't miss any episodes. Be sure to check out this show's specific website and our general website, hartmanmedia.com for appropriate disclaimers and terms of service. Remember that guest opinions are their own, and if you require specific legal or tax advice or advice in any other specialized area, please consult an appropriate professional. And we also very much appreciate you reviewing the show. Please go to itunes or Stitcher Radio or whatever platform you're using and write a review for the show. We would very much appreciate that. And be sure to make it official and subscribe so you do not miss any episodes. We look forward to seeing you on the next episode.