Bird is the Word

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
We were talking about censorship and the case of Elizabeth Baxter,
the DOJ paralegal who was fired by Pambondi for flipping
the bird to National Guard and insulting them. And my
question is she you know, she didn't do it at work.
She did it outside on the street. She was not
identifiable as a DOJ employee. While you might find what

(00:20):
she did disgusting, which I do, is is that a
fireable offense? Is she being censored? Is she losing her
First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and action? And
we were speaking with Jan from New Hampshire just before
the break. Jan, I'm sorry we got cut off, and
you were saying you think that it's a case of
sexual harassment.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Yes, okay, please, because I've seen it happen. I mean,
it's vice versa, but I've seen it happen for a
guy doing it to a girl.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
So if you're saying, if Mss Baxter was a guy
and flipping off a woman, it's sexual harrass I don't
understand how sexual harassment comes into this. Yeah, you're not
explaining it. You just you just keep repeating it. You're
not actually explaining why it's sexual harassment.

Speaker 2 (01:10):
Well, we know what it means, right, yes to you. Yeah,
maybe she wants to get it on with him.

Speaker 1 (01:18):
Yeah, no, I think well, okay, but if in fact
she's flipping him off and insulting him simultaneously, which is
what she was doing, then I think you can safely
assume it's not sexual harassment. And by the way, it's
not her workplace, so she can hit on anybody she
wants to. To be honest with you, that's not sexual harassment.
It's sexual harassment if you keep it up and don't

(01:39):
walk away. But she just flipped in the bird and
insulted him and walked away. I find it disgusting. But
I don't think she's hitting on.

Speaker 2 (01:45):
Him, but I thought she did it in her workplace.

Speaker 1 (01:49):
Also, No, she did outside. She's on the street, She's
in public places when she did it, which is why,
which is why there's video of it, because you know
they have outside cameras and all these buildings downtown, in
downtown d C. And to be to be really honest,
she's stupid. I mean she's really stupid. Not only is

(02:10):
she is she doing that, which is just a jackass
move to begin with, for people who are just doing
their job have nothing to do with policy one and two.
You know, she's bragging about it to the to the
security guards in her workplace, and so her security guards
in her she's telling them what she's done, and they're

(02:30):
the ones who told Bondi what she's done. And so
then the DOJ, which of course is an arm of
the of the law, has people who can investigate things
and they have the ability to pull tapes from where
the security guards say this happened and she so they
were able to get, you know, physical evidence that she
did it. There's no doubt that she did it. That's

(02:51):
not an issue. The issue is should she be punished
for doing it?

Speaker 2 (02:57):
So then it goes down to a code of Pune.
And so everybody knows she works for the DOJ. Now
everybody knows they do now, so she represents the d
o J. So she represents the d o J. And
what she did was wrong.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
Well, everybody knows jan that she works for the DJ.
Now they didn't know when she was doing it. When
she was doing it, they had no idea who she was.
She's a paralegal in the back room of the environmental
section of the DJ. Nobody knew who she was.

Speaker 3 (03:30):
She's not a.

Speaker 2 (03:30):
Public figure, Okay, I guess it would go back to
who witnessed it and who you know, knew that she
was or wasn't.

Speaker 1 (03:44):
Nobody knew, could people around nobody knew, don't know that.
I do know that. I do know that nobody knew
who she was the only reason why she got her
butt pulled in was because she bragged about it to
to the to the security guards who were infuriated, rightly,
so I completely understand their fury and routed her out.

(04:05):
Rat It's probably the wrong term because the pejorative told
told Pam Bondi what she had done, and because she
didn't just do it once, she did it multiple times,
and each time she bragged about it, and each time
and so they were able to get physical evidence that
she had done it. But when she did it, she
was not representing the DOJ. She's not a publicly known person.
Nobody knew who she was or where she worked or

(04:25):
any of the above. She was just a real bleephole
for going out there, and I mean that's what she was,
But she was a nobody had any connection with her
in the DOJ. So should the DOJ be able to
fire her for that, especially since you know, they didn't
give her any kind of warning. They just said, you know, yeah,

(04:46):
you're out, as opposed to you know, saying we're going
to suspend you if you do it again. Stop it.
They didn't give her a chance to correct her behavior.
I'm not sure that she deserved one. That maybe that's
one of the questions. Did she deserve a chance to
correct her behave here? Did she deserve a stern talking
to first before they fired her? Or is going right
to firing uh the appropriate thing to do? What do

(05:07):
you think?

Speaker 2 (05:08):
But she's blagging about it another thing, you know, bragging
to whoever she was bragging to making it known. She
made it known. She did, she made it known, which
is why she's a representative of the b o J
going around flipping off whoever she made it. No, she

(05:31):
she she's the one that's the uh uh, the one
that sold herself out. She maybe maybe, but I mean
if she signed a document, now I don't know what
kind of document, but if she signs a document saying
that she's going to be you know, a decent person,
then she should be fired. If not corrective action the least.

Speaker 1 (05:57):
Okay, absolutely, that's a and I am finding that this
is a fifty to fifty proposition, especially with people on
the techt lines and people responding. I think most people
find her find her conduct reprehensible, but half people say,
you know, you can't fire somebody for doing something outside
their job that has nothing to do with their job,

(06:17):
and you know, unless it's breaking the law, which she
was not breaking the law, so she was just being,
you know, a jackass. But half the people agree with
you and half don't. It's a very interesting question. Thank
you for the colle Jean. I appreciate it. Yeah, it's
it's you know, I don't think anybody has thinks that
what she did was a good thing. I mean it was.

(06:40):
It was rude, it was disrespectful, and it was stupid.
I mean, she's not exactly a rocket scientist. I think
we can all agree that maybe the DOJ is better
off and could maybe find somebody who's a little has
a little more in the Intellect Department to help and
to give them an assist on the environmental affairs branch

(07:01):
of the DOJ. But still is this censorship with this
is Sandy Shack sitting in for Jeff Kooner. We're talking
about censorship, and in particular the case of Elizabeth Baxter,
the paralegal who was fired from the DOJ for flipping
the bird to some National Guard members just doing their job,
and she also insulted them verbally at the same time,

(07:22):
and not at the DOJ but on the street. But
Pam Bondi, as the age, said yeah, we don't want
you here, and she fired her after it was discovered
she had done that. And the only reason why we
know that she did that is because she bragged about
it to the wrong people. And my question is, she's
a jackass of world class proportions I wouldn't want to

(07:44):
work in for me. But did they do the right
thing in firing her. Doesn't she have the right to
be a jackass if that's what she wants to be.
The text line is seven zero four seven zero six
one seven says, unfortunately the National Guard member would have
been disciplined if he retaliated and called her an idiot. Yes,
he would have been, But you know what, and that's
just so patently unfair. But at the same time, the

(08:08):
other thing that I would say to you about that
is that he's in uniform, she is not, So you
know who he works for. You did not know who
she works for. Nobody knows who she worked for. She
was just a stupid, offensive woman on the street. And
don't even stupid offensive people have First Amendment rights to

(08:31):
free speech. I think they do. Another six one seven,
says Sandy PAMBONDI did the right thing. We all have
a code of conduct from their employer. Example, if I
worked at iHeart. Sorry, the text thing is just going
fast and furious, so it just whips right through, so
sometimes it's hard to keep up. But it says if

(08:55):
I worked at iHeart and went to the beach and
bad mouthed iHeart, I would be fired. No, I don't
think you would be. I get what you're saying, completely
understand what you're saying, But I don't think that's. First
of all, if I'm at the beach badmouthing my employer,

(09:18):
you don't know. First of all, they're my employer. But secondly,
I'm at the beach in a private space. Somebody may
overhear it, but that's still not a firing offense. And no,
iHeart would not fire me if that happened. And believe me,
it has happened, not with me, but with other people
publicly bad mouthing the company. They would be happy by it,
but they're not going to fire me over it. I
think that's a bad analogy. I think the issue is,

(09:39):
you know, do you have the right to be a
jackass and you or you're going to lose your job
over it? And does it make a difference that she
works for the Department of Justice because is she held
to a higher standard? Does that mean the people who
work for the government lose some of their First Amendment
rights by the very fact that they work for the government.

(09:59):
I agree that I wouldn't want to hire her. I
don't even want to talk to her. I think she's
a really unpleasant person. But did she have a right
to do what she did? Is she? Is that a
right protected by the First Amendment. Let's go to Tom
in framing him. Tom, welcome to WRKO, How are you, sir?

Speaker 3 (10:17):
Good? I think the government absolutely has the right to
fire her for doing that. First of all, she's by
doing this, she shows she's at cross purposes with the
President's agenda and the president the part of his agenda
was to back up the cops in DC to make
the streets safer. Secondly, I admire Pam Bondi, because this

(10:43):
isn't the only person she's been able to fire. She
fired twenty or so prosecutors J six prosecutors, people associated
with the J six case, and most of them are
career people. If this woman was a political appointee, the
question she could be fired because they serve at the
pleasure of the president.

Speaker 1 (11:04):
But she's not a political pointee. She is she supports staff.

Speaker 3 (11:07):
I know, that's fine.

Speaker 1 (11:10):
Is there a different well, my question, Tom hang on,
So my question is are there different rules for different people?
Do different people have different gradations of the First Amendment?

Speaker 3 (11:18):
Right?

Speaker 1 (11:19):
Is that what you're saying? Because because she because let
me finish, Because she's a you know, she's support staff,
been working for the DJ for a while. She's a paralegal.
She's not a prosecutor. She's not a frontline person. She's
not out there. I mean, does it demonstrate that she's
not at simpatico with the current administration? It sure does.
But doesn't she have a right to be Don't you

(11:40):
have a right? I mean not every government, not every
government job requires that you be a supporter of the
current administration. There is a massive group of people, most
of them who work for the federal government are not
political appointees, their career employees, meaning it doesn't matter who
the administration is, they're a political jobs. And she had
an a jobs. So you know, are you you're going

(12:02):
to hold her to the same level that you're going
to hold a Jay six prosecutor.

Speaker 3 (12:07):
And I'll tell you why. First of all, when Obama
left office, I don't know if you know this, you
probably don't, but he stuffed a lot of uh a
point point depositions into career billets. So a lot of
these So the Department DOJ and other departments are infected
with these viruses. And I remember hearing Bill Barr saying,

(12:32):
whining in front of Hillsdale saying, I don't have any
control over my on my department because there's all these
partisans below me. While this administration's taken different tact, they're
firing these people as they expose themselves. Now. I don't
know what the courts are going to do, but she's
been successful separating a lot of these viruses from especially

(12:57):
when Merrick Garland doubled the size of the Civil Rights Division,
she got rid of quite a few of these people too.
Anything anything she does, I think is uh justified. And
also this this person, this National Guide person, of these
people they're hired by they're hired by the president. Yeah, uh,

(13:19):
to enforce the president's policy. And she's going and she
and and you're saying you're making all these superfluous statements. Well,
no one knew, no one knew who she was, no one,
Well they do now.

Speaker 1 (13:32):
Well, my superfluous statements, Tom were in response to people saying, well,
she was representing the DJ, they weren't, you know, I
was an ad hoc making those statements. And my response
to that was, nobody knew she worked for the DJ
at that time. She was just somebody in the street
doing this. The only reason why we know she works
a the DJ now is because she was stupid and

(13:54):
she basically outed herself as to and bragged about what
she was doing, which says a lot about her care
her and who she is. And I don't want her
working for me. But if she already is working for me,
don't you have to have cause to fire somebody? Not
because they made a political statement to a National guardsman
across town.

Speaker 3 (14:11):
Teen gesture to a soldier who's been hired to.

Speaker 1 (14:16):
Offensive without a doubt it was incredibly offensive, But that
doesn't does that make it a firing offense? Offensive things
are covered by the First Amendment. You can be offensive.
It doesn't mean that you that you This is part
of the tolerance issue. You know, I don't like her.
I don't I don't like finding myself in a position

(14:37):
where I have to defend Elizabeth Baxter. To be honest
with you, But here's the thing. I found what she
did offensive. You found what she did offensive. There's some
people who don't find what she did offensive. How long
until somebody wants to fire you for something they think
that you did was offensive that you don't think was.
That's the problem with this. If you don't have freedom
of speech for everybody, even for the people who do

(15:01):
offensive things, then you don't have it for anybody. You
can't pick and choose only the people you like, only
the gestures you like, only the speech you agree with
as to be protected by the First Amendment. Even people
who are reprehensible have the right to free speech. That's
my point, Tom.

Speaker 3 (15:22):
She's exposed herself as what she is. She did was
working counter at cross purposes with the administration.

Speaker 1 (15:31):
Was she But she wasn't working at cross purposes. That
was her personal I mean, she didn't do this in
her workplace, not at all. This was a personal statement
that she made outside of the workplace that had nothing
to do with her job. That that's why it's not
superfluous that she was not identifiable as a DoD. She

(15:51):
wasn't wearing a big sign around the next thing, I
work for the DOJ. Beleep, Donald Trump. That's not what
she did. She basically gave a personal statement. I do
not agree with that. I find disgusting, but still it's
her right to do it to a National guardsman again
picking the wrong person. You're picking a military guy who
deserves our respect and our thanks for what they're doing,

(16:13):
and she chose to denigrate him, much like an earlier
caller said, much like how the Vietnam Bets were treated
when they returned from Vietnam. I completely agree with that analogy.
But that doesn't mean she doesn't have rights. Even though
you don't like her, even though you find her disgusting,
even though you wouldn't hire her if you had nobody
else to hire, you still wouldn't hire I get all

(16:33):
of that. That doesn't mean she doesn't have rights. We
have to get away from this intolerance of other people's opinions,
even those that we find reprehensible, because intolerance for that
person means that you can also hold up intolerance for
your opinions. And that's the problem. That's why you have

(16:53):
to stand firm behind people you don't like even a
little bit sometimes. Elizabeth Baxer, basically, she was a paralegal
to DOJ and by all accounts, not a very nice person.
She did a pretty nasty thing on more than one occasion.
She flipped off National Guard and verbally assaulted them while
they were doing their duty in Washington, d C. We

(17:16):
know this because she bragged about it to the DOJ
security guards when she went into work, and they relayed
that information to the Attorney General Pambondy, who launched an investigation.
She didn't want to, you know, she didn't want to
just respond out of control. She looked into it. She

(17:36):
talked to witnesses. They looked at the CCTV cameras, the films.
The cameras are all over GC, so you can really
see anybody doing anything on the street if you know
the time, and discovered that this was true, this was accurate.
She did this and then she fired her. Was that
the right thing to do, was that censorship of Miss
Baxter's First Amendment rights, no matter how distasteful you find

(17:57):
what she did, or was Pambondi right to fire her.
That is the question on the text line, which is
seven zero four seven zero. Let's see, Sandy. I'm looking
at this from Pambonni's perspective, and I think she saw
in this woman's behavior that she's showing her contempt for
the administration and their policies. I have no doubt she

(18:19):
will file a wrongful termination suit and may very well win.
But I would have done the same thing. I completely
understand why pam Bondi did what she did.

Speaker 2 (18:27):
I do.

Speaker 1 (18:28):
I wouldn't hire this woman, and I would be very
distraught if I found out she was on my staff.
I would try. I don't know what the answer is,
except that I don't think you can fire somebody who's
not recognizably tied to your company, so not representing your
company or your department, your administration, because they make a

(18:50):
political statement. Let's face it, that's what it was. That
is an anathema to the current administration. I don't like
what she did, I find it to disgusting. I wouldn't
hire her, but I think she had the right to
do it, and I don't think she deserves to lose
her job for it. Maybe they needed to suspend her
first and tell her just to knock it off, that
it would be a firing offense if she continued. Maybe

(19:11):
she signed a document saying she wouldn't make political statements
in public. I don't know if she did or not,
But without knowing that, on the face of it, I
would say, you need to protect her rights because by
protecting Ms. Baxter's rights, you're protecting my rights too. Barbara
in Baltimore, did Pam BONDI do the right.

Speaker 4 (19:29):
Thing, absolutely, Okay. It has nothing to do with liking her,
has nothing to do with her being disgusting. It has
everything to do with the possibility of a leaker. Oh
in the Department of Justice, and she can file a
wrongful termination, you know, firing suit, and she'll win. But

(19:51):
she'll go to the mail department. Maybe she will not
go back into the Justice Department where she's handling information
that could be leaked to the media, information that could
who knows what kind of damage someone in her position
and that's the reason why she was fired. It wasn't
because of what she said and did and whether or

(20:11):
not it was disgusting or not disgusting. It's because of
her apparent abhorrence to President Trump through the policies and
the possibility of a saboteur in the middle of the
Justice Department. And they've got enough of them. So thank
god she identified herself. And if she does get a

(20:32):
job back because she's a civil servant, but she won't
come back into that department simply because of that. That's
a breach of trust. Well, Barbara, I'll no longer be
trusted to carry out the policies of the administration. That's
why she was fired. Cam BONDI absolutely should have gotten
rid of her. Had nothing to do with her First Amendment,
none of that.

Speaker 1 (20:52):
Well, I think it does happen amendment, Barbara. What you're
saying is that the First Amendment is taking a second
back seat to the possibility that she's a leaker. But
here's my question for you. Would it have made a
difference to your answer if she wasn't in the Department
of Justice, if she were in the mail room, would
she not have been fired if she were in the
mailroom or should she have been fired If she in
the mail room.

Speaker 4 (21:13):
Well, who would care? She's in a position where sensitive information.

Speaker 1 (21:17):
Well what if she's not in a position that she's
handling sensitive information. She's not. She's in the Environment natural
Resource she yeah, let me finish. She's in the Environment
and Natural Resources division. She's not exactly, Barbara, let me finish.
She's not exactly handling top secret information or really sensitive stuff.

(21:37):
She's working with the EPA on that's where she is.
This is not a J sixer prosecution. This is not
any kind of political prosecution. This is basically natural resources
where she is. It's not a sensitive job. And nowhere
does Pambondy say that in any of the things that
she's posted, including her her outsourcing letter or anything like that,

(22:00):
you say anything about sensitive information. So I think your
point is really good and that you need to be,
you know, careful if somebody's has is demonstrating opinions against
the administration and they're they're handling things that could be
harmful to the administration. But there's no evidence of that
here whatsoever. And that brings that makes the question do

(22:24):
people have different levels of rights depending on what department
they work in. I mean, does she have the right
to do what she did if she worked, you know,
in the trash department, or does she have there and
she can't do it if she works in Pam Bondi's
outer office. I mean, are there different levels of rights here?

Speaker 4 (22:44):
Absolutely?

Speaker 3 (22:45):
Okay?

Speaker 4 (22:46):
Absolutely? I mean I worked as a paralegal, worked for
one of an attorney in Georgia in college and being
in natural resources. That doesn't negate the fact that there
are a lot of that. You've got environmentalists that are
doing all kinds of harm. Her abhorrent to the policies

(23:06):
was exposed. She's in the justice department. If she worked
in the trash department or in the mailroom, who gives
a crap her who knows what goes across her desk?
The position that she's in as a paralegal, she is
handling legal information. That is not the kind of person
you want working for you. And I hope a lot

(23:28):
more of them expose themselves because that's why we're dealing
with what we call the deep state.

Speaker 5 (23:32):
Now.

Speaker 4 (23:34):
Point are embedded and that's and this this is one
of them.

Speaker 1 (23:38):
Well, I understand that that we need to ferret out
the deep state. But here's the thing. You bring up
some very good points, but nobody is accusing this woman
of doing anything untoward at work. She did nothing at work.
Let me finish Barra, I let you speak. Nobody at
work says anything that she's that she's done anything to
demonstrate anything other than doing her her job completely well.

(24:01):
Nobody has any complaints with what she's done. Nobody has
any accusations that she's skewed anything, or is leaked anything,
or taken anything. None of that has occurred. That's supposition.
So essentially, what you're saying is she should be fired
because she might do something in the future. We have
no idea. But isn't that true for everybody. So it's
and maybe you have a point and that she's it's

(24:22):
it might be she might be more apt to do
something if her if you know, her political beliefs are
completely against the department that she's working in, but you
have no evidence of that one area, that is, she
doesn't like the National Guard. I agree that it is
very suspicious. I agree that what she did is reprehensible.

(24:45):
But what you are saying is you are punishing her
for her political beliefs and for exercising her First Amendment
on the street. That's exactly what you're doing. You have
very sound reasons for doing that, But that's what you're doing, Barbara, not.

Speaker 4 (25:00):
At all, you know, I guess because I have worked
in positions handling information that makes a difference.

Speaker 1 (25:08):
So have I her views, Barbara. But I but that
doesn't mean I had to politically agree with the people
I was working for, and it doesn't mean I couldn't
be trusted because I didn't agree with the people working for. Now,
I will give you this, she's a nut because what
she did was really, you know, bizarre. To be honest
with you, I don't care if I agree with them

(25:29):
being here or not. It would never occur to me
to do something, and I'm sure it would never occur
to you to do what she did. And most people
I know would be what the hell's wrong with her?
And I think there's something wrong. I think that's taking
your political beliefs beyond what is rational and normal, and
that causes me concern. And I would absolutely watch her
more carefully if I knew that, I would suspend her

(25:50):
and watch her more carefully. But she's and I think
she is going to win a wrongful termination suit. If
she brings it, she may get another job she likes
better or quicker and not bother with it. Or if
she is what you suspect she is, which is a
deep state person, she'll bring the lawsuit for the press.
So we're about to find out exactly, you know, how
nutty she is and how much of a deep state

(26:11):
or she is, because she may not be a deep
state at all. She just could be, you know, imbalanced.
You know, isn't that a possibility.

Speaker 4 (26:19):
At the potential of damage to someone who's who is
who's just adverse to what is going on, and especially
it's cleaning up the DC so that she can walk around.
So true, it has to me that has nothing to
do with it. It has everything to do with how
can she be trusted to follow through with the policies

(26:42):
that are being put forth in the Justice Department? And
she may get a job back, but she won't go
back there. Yeah, that I'll I'll bet my last paycheck
on it. Because she's a civil service, she can go anywhere.
I doubt that she will go back into that position.

Speaker 1 (26:57):
Well, not only that, if you had been her, if
you had been her boss, and you know, they said,
you know, we fired her, And it depends on whether
they decided they wanted to fight for her or not.
But if you, if you had been her boss, and
she wins a wrongful termination suit, don't you sideline her
when she comes back in anyway? I mean, don't you? Okay,
we have to was well, she would, Barbara, Barbara, if

(27:24):
she The thing is this, if they're ordered by a
judge to take her back, then she does go back
where she was, But it doesn't mean she does the
exact same things that she did. It means that that's
what I'm saying to you, as her employer, wouldn't you
then try to sideline her and give her not sensitive
things to deal with because you've been ordered by a
judge to take her back. You don't have a choice.

(27:44):
She is going to go back with if that's what
the judge's order is, you have no choice about it.
That's what's going to happen. But then you just make
sure that she's not handling sensitive stuff. You got to
You have to then watch her the whole time that
she's there. Thank you so much for the call, Barbara.
I appreciate it very much. It's always a pleasure to
talk to you. You are one of the more intelligent,
articulate people. It is my pleasure to speak with either

(28:06):
on the air off the air, and I appreciate it.
We're going to take five minutes here. I want to
talk to somebody who I think you'll find very interesting,
and then we'll go right back to the calls. That's
and Van der Steele. And if you live in Massachusetts,
then you remember the Rivera case which was in the
headlines and still is, when all five kids were removed

(28:27):
by the mass Department of Children and Families last March
following a negligent beyond last March, following a negligent a
neglect complaint filed with the DCF by a pediatrician because
the family decided not to give a vitamin K shot
to their eleven or their seven month though baby. I
think at the time the parents had been together for
a dozen years raising their kids. Were held in jail

(28:48):
for weeks, and they were separated from their kids for
I think like half a year thereabouts, and they continued
to be punished as if they had been guilty until
proven innocent. Now there is a movie, a documentary regarding
this entire frightening, shocking experience and it's going to premiere
Sunday at Legacy Place and they've American Made Action has

(29:11):
produced a very compelling exposy entitled Taken State Sanctioned Kidnapping,
set to premiere. As I said this Sunday, Jeff was
going to be there, but as we all know, he's
been in a horrible accident in that his ribs were
smashed when he was taking a bus in Croatia and
he will not be able to be there. But we

(29:33):
wanted to help out the movie because it's a very
important documentary that people see, and so we're going to
speak with Anne Vandersteel, who was also, besides being an
investigative journalist, one of the executive producers. Hi, Anne, how
are you today?

Speaker 5 (29:48):
Oh Sandy, I'm so happy to be with Kooner Country
this morning. Our hearts and prayers and love goes out
to you all and Jeff Kooner. The Kooner Country folks
are like none other. I don't think there's an audience
out there better the country than the Kuner Country crew.
I just am so honored to be with you all,
and of course we are so upset about Jeff's accident.
We wanted to get well, and I know how desperately

(30:10):
he wants to be there, because he stepped into the
ring with us and got on those steps in the
State House of Massachusetts and he called out Department of
Children and Families and talked about the unconstitutional and unwarranted
seizure of the children of the Rivera family. He's been
with us every step, so we just wish him well
and we are just so grateful that the Kuner country

(30:31):
has come out and supported this effort to get not
only the Rivera family reunified, but you know, get this
story told with our documentary taken state sanctioned kidnapping. So
we're just honored.

Speaker 1 (30:42):
Thank you well, thank you for being with us. And
I want to ask you when did you first become
aware of what was happening with Rivera's.

Speaker 2 (30:50):
Well.

Speaker 5 (30:51):
A good friend of ours who's also a good friend
of your station, Joan Quinn Eastman, who I know you
know very well, brought this to our attention, and imediately
Maureen Steel, my co founder, jumped on doing some looking
into the articles and media that had already been published,
and then of course we got engaged started speaking with
the Rivera family and got up to Boston as soon

(31:13):
as possible to put together this documentary with our producer
Chris Trimple. And I have to tell you the cast
that we've assembled because the American Made Action has an
organization inside of it called our United Law Coalition which
now is representing the Rivera Family Greg Heshian Attorney, Greg
Heshian Attorney Bill Gens. This organization is not only representing

(31:34):
Izzy on the criminal side, which is a joke, because
how can you be familiar kidnapping anybody unless with the
state deciding that you've kidnapped your own family, when in
fact the wife and children went with their father and
a husband lawfully and lovingly to escape persecution by the
state in Massachusetts Department of Children and Families because they
wanted to enforce a vitamin case shot. I'm sorry, standy.

(31:57):
If anybody can show me the law about a vitaminy
shop for your nine month old, I will recant and
eat my words. But frankly, there is no law and
we all know it, and that was admitted by the
pediatrician who filed this complaint. By the way, it's just
total lunacy. So we're putting it together and exposing it
and you guys are walking arm in arm with us,
and we're so grateful.

Speaker 1 (32:16):
So the documentary is airing at Legacy Place seven pm
on Sunday. How do people get tickets to see this?

Speaker 5 (32:23):
Actually, if you go to our website americanmaid Foundation dot org,
we have a VIP event starting at six six point thirty,
the general public can gather. They can get tickets at
Americanmaidfoundation dot org. We will also live stream it at
Americanmaidsfoundation dot org at the Legacy Place Theater and Dedimassachusetts.
It's going to be very powerful training and we'd love

(32:43):
to see everybody from kuner country attend. The family, the
filmmakers and those fighting in this injustice, we're all going
to be there. We'd love to meet with folks on
the VIP side privately and you know, give them more
of a download. And we have some stuff we're going
to be dropping at the theater as well, some very
exciting stuff because we don't intend to left this lay quietly.
We're taking this everywhere across the country and there's going

(33:04):
to be federal litigation following, so more to come on
that at the theater.

Speaker 1 (33:08):
Wow, do you have any plans to show this documentary
anywhere else? Is this the one showing at the moment?

Speaker 5 (33:15):
Is this the right now? Oh no, no, no. We
have actually been nominated for New England Emmy.

Speaker 1 (33:19):
And we congratulations.

Speaker 3 (33:23):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (33:23):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (33:23):
So we'll be taking this show on the road. We've
got filming that's going to be sorry premiers that'll be
in Florida, in New Hampshire and other states around the country.
We're taking this to other you know, film festivals because
it is so riveting. It's an our documentary and it
just absolutely captures the essence of what's happening. You know, Sandy,
I want to let your audience at Cuner Country audience

(33:45):
are the best out there, and they understand families are
the backbone of this country, like our small businesses. And
when you talk about trying to just you know, save America,
make America great, state, sanctioned kidnapping isn't a part of
an issue. It goes across Republican Democrat independence, live caring
doesn't matter. They target a family and they zoom in
because it's about money and it's about child trafficking and

(34:05):
the corruption that we've documented in the court system is unbelievable.
When I tell you we have PayPal receipts now of
judges taking bribes to keep these families separated. This is
what we're talking about. It is despicable and it has
to end. And this is our mission. And so we're
showing the mission through this one particular family. But it's
not a one off, and so Kuner Country. I'm sure
there's members in Kunal Country that have been victimized by

(34:28):
Department of Children and Families and we really want to
see those families in the seats. We want to meet
with them at the theaters. We have families that are
flying in from around the country for this because they
want to be a part of the solution and we
intend to make that solution a reality with American Maid
Foundation and American Made Action.

Speaker 1 (34:44):
Well, I can tell you that Jeff is heartbroken that
he's not going to be there, but I know he'll
be watching on the live streaming because he is so
excited about this project that you've done and he feels
so strongly about it. So again, if everybody wants tickets,
it's the movie is at Legacy Play Showcase Cinema that's
in debt um right, isn't it?

Speaker 5 (35:02):
Anne it's in DEBTN. Get your tickets online at Americanmaid
Foundation dot org. Americanmaid Foundation dot org.

Speaker 1 (35:11):
And this showtime is this Sunday, six pm. Go you know,
go there be Square if you don't go so and
we're looking forward to seeing it. I'm going to try
to live stream it myself because I wish I could
be there, but I can't. So well, we do want
to see it. My husband and I are both very
excited about seeing it. God bless the riveras, please give
them our best and good luck with the movie. You

(35:33):
are working on the side of the angels here, my friend.

Speaker 5 (35:37):
Well Sandy, thank you so much, and thank you for
stepping in for Jeff. God knows he is a tour
de force and you know, to be standing in his
shoes right now, I can only imagine how daunting it is. Yeah,
and I just appreciate you for taking that mantle for him,
because he is just the you know, he is Boston's bulldozer,
and he is the voice and the bullhorn for the
Kooner Country and you guys just do an incredible job.

(35:59):
So we love counter Country, We love seeing them at
the State House in Massachusetts, and we hope to see
them at the theater in Debdham, Massachusetts. Thank you so much.

Speaker 1 (36:07):
Well, thank you, Ann. We appreciate you being with us.
That was Anne Vandersteel of American Maid Foundation. Action dot org,
where you can go to get your tickets for Taken,
which airs this Sunday and Debtam at the Legacy Play
showcase at six o'clock. They will also live stream it.
But it sounds to me like the if you can
make it live in person, it sounds like something really

(36:28):
worth going out for and getting a chance to meet
the people involved in what is a pretty shocking story
here in America. So I want to get back to
what we're talking about before, which is censorship. And censorship
to me is the wholesale editing of people's freedom under

(36:48):
the First Amendment. And you have in my and I
know people a lot of people don't agree with me
regarding Elizabeth Baxter, the paralegal who was fired at the
DOJ for flipping off the National Guard, among other things.
To me, and I'm basically a strict constructionist when it
comes to the First Amendment. If I don't protect somebody's
rights who I don't like and who I don't agree with,

(37:10):
then who's going to protect my rights when my rights
are under fire and my freedom of speech is being attacked.
That's how I feel about it. And I understand that
this particular person is not winning friends and influencing people
unless they are left wing loonies. They are. Basically, she's
disgusting what she did, without a doubt. But that's when

(37:32):
standing by your principles matters. When you have to defend
somebody you don't agree with, that's when it actually means something.
It's easy to defend something that you agree with. It's
not easy to defend something you don't agree with. And
I think we've lost sight of that. There's a whole
generation of people who only defend things and only will

(37:53):
even listen to people that they agree with. And for me,
that's where your First Amendment right go out the window.
When you can't or when you won't not just even
tolerate somebody on the other side, but don't defend them,
because remember, those are your rights you're defending. Even if
it's not your actions, it is your right, and people

(38:17):
lose sight of that. And I understand Barbera's position. I
understand a lot of other caller's positions. They don't like
what this woman did, and it reflects badly upon the
Department of Justice. And maybe this woman is a leaker,
but nobody's accused her of being a leaker. The only
thing they've accused her of is flipping off the National Guard.