Latest / The Aaron Day Show / S3E33: I Beat the Attorney General in Federal Court. No Lawyers. My Legal Team Was AI.
Transcript
- The Aaron Day Show starts in moments. Stay right there. All right, welcome back to the Aaron Day Show. This is season three, episode thirty-three. Let me just make sure, is my volume coming through here? Yeah, volume's coming through. All right, this is definitely the most important episode of this year. And if you've been watching the show, you know I haven't had the show for two or three weeks now. And the reason for that is, as you know, I have been in the process of running for the United States Senate and the powers that be in New Hampshire have been trying to keep me off of the ballot. And they want to keep me off of the ballot because this strategy that I am deploying has worked successfully. It worked in twenty sixteen. I ran as an independent specifically to cost then U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte the seat. It worked, and it was the most expensive Senate race per capita in the history of the United States. I determined the outcome, received almost eighteen thousand votes. Kelly Ayotte lost by a thousand seventeen votes, and it pissed off a lot of people. And frankly, it's a threat to the duopoly, because if more people did this, we would be able to hold both parties accountable, especially in races that are highly contested and that have bad, you know, marginal candidates at best. Or in the case of the U.S. Senate seat that I'm running for now, horrendous candidates that are pushing technocracy at full speed and trying to act like that they're independent and fiscally conservative and so on and so forth. So the reason I haven't had the podcast for the last three weeks is in running as an independent, this is not a straightforward process. You don't just sign up and get your name on the ballot. You have to first sign a declaration of intent, and then you have to go through the process of collecting three thousand certified signatures. fifteen hundred in each of the two congressional districts in New Hampshire. And you may think if you're in a larger state, you know, three thousand doesn't seem like a big number, but it's actually one of the one of the most difficult burdens in terms of gathering signatures in the United States. And when you consider how spread out the state of New Hampshire is, it's actually a hugely difficult task. And, you know, I want to thank the All of our volunteers, I want to thank my wife in particular, who helped put all of this together in terms of getting all of the signatures together, which is a massive process. So New Hampshire is spread out. It turns out we have people, we have almost five thousand people that signed the petition to get me on the ballot. And those five thousand people are in one hundred and forty four different towns and cities across the state of New Hampshire. and so we have to take all of those petitions sort all of those petitions and then in some cases mail them to each of the town clerks in those areas with you know return envelope postage paid so on and so forth so they can send the certified ballots back and then we have to drive To thirty three of the larger towns that have more than twenty five or so signatures each and deliver them in person and then go and collect them. So that's kind of the normal process. This is a very time consuming process to collect these signatures, to go deliver the signatures and then collect the certified signatures. And then some percentage of them end up getting thrown out. And, you know, because it's me, as was the case in twenty sixteen, we fully expect that these petitions are going to be even more heavily scrutinized. In twenty sixteen, the New Hampshire GOP party actually went to the town clerks to audit to try to get copies of all of the petitions. And my understanding is they actually removed some people, some Republican members of the Republican committee who had signed the petition. to get me on the ballot. So my race tends to generate additional scrutiny. Well, in addition to all of that work, they have tried to keep me off of the ballot. The Secretary of State did not accept my declaration of intent. So even before you get these signatures, you actually have to sign a piece of paper stating that you're running. And they didn't accept my declaration of intent twice. The first time they said, well, I'm not a resident where I'm domiciled. I'm not a registered voter where I'm domiciled because my voter registration was in my previous town. And so then within the filing period, I actually went to where I live now and filed my voter registration and then took that information back. And within the filing period, Filed again, signed another declaration of intent, and they rejected that as well. So then I appealed to the Ballot Law Commission. which is a board with five people on it to hear and vet these types of things. And there was a similar case just a few years back where the candidate won, where they basically looked at somewhat similar circumstances. In fact, I would argue my circumstances were even more favorable towards me. And I lost four to one. And part of the reason that I lost is that they said that I'm extremely knowledgeable about New Hampshire election law and therefore should have known better. Well, the truth is I do know a lot about New Hampshire election law, and I also know a lot about the United States Constitution. And on the Secretary of State's own website, it states you don't have to be a registered voter to file. That is not a qualification criteria. In fact, the Supreme Court has already decided this in numerous cases. So I relied on the Secretary of State and the Constitution to And in fact, their declaration of candidacy form is unconstitutional. So I followed all of the guidelines that needed to be followed within the time period. Their information was simply unconstitutional. So I filed a case in federal court. And if you watch the show, you know that I am a heavy user of AI. I've spent over a hundred thousand dollars on hardware. I've spent actually thousands of hours, you know, training the system and learning how to use it and playing around and experimenting with multiple models. I've had Mike Adams on here several times. I've been on his podcast. I've shared, you know, some of the things that I've done. And so a filing a lawsuit like this, is incredibly expensive. And the reason no one has challenged this law is that it's really expensive. By estimates on AI, if you were to hire a lawyer, depending upon the quality and the caliber of the lawyer, it would cost between a hundred thousand dollars and four hundred thousand dollars to file all of the legal paperwork that I filed. And I did a hundred percent of it with AI and I beat the state of New Hampshire. I went up against the assistant attorney general pro se, no law firm. And today the magistrate made her report and recommendation in my favor. And you can find that information. I believe it's a day, twenty, twenty six dot com. If not, I'll have it up shortly after the show. This has already been reported in the Boston Globe, the union leader and HPR. This will, I believe, be. A massive national news story for a variety of reasons. One, because I used AI and defeated the state, pro se. And this is important because the fact that I can do this means other people can do this. And so much of the tyranny that we are facing, whether it's data centers or whether it is... imminent domain, a variety of things. A lot of this happens because large corporations come in, they bully towns, they threaten lawsuits. And if you're a concerned citizen, you have no capacity to fight back. Well, you do have a capacity to fight back now. As long as you have standing... You can use AI. And I'm going to show you some of the things that I did. And I'm not going to say that everybody can do what I did. Because as you will see, I spent over two hundred hours working on this. And that is somebody that does have a lot of knowledge of AI. So this isn't necessarily something where I'm like, hey, anybody can do this. However, as the tools get easier to use, I do see this as being something that people can use to fight the state and to fight technocracy. So that is a major component of this that I want to put forward. And it's also a big deal because, as I've stated all along, this race for the United States Senate may determine which party controls the United States Senate. Just as it did in twenty sixteen. When I ran in twenty sixteen, there's a Breitbart article where I said, listen, if these Republicans in New Hampshire extend Obamacare Medicaid expansion, then I'm going to cost them control of the U.S. Senate. And inevitably that became the case because in what would have been Kelly's last two years, she wasn't there. And then that actually tipped the balance. So this is this is very real right now. The prediction markets are about fifty fifty. in terms of which party controls the United States Senate. And actually, in recent days, there are even polls that suggest that for the first time since nineteen eighty eight, Texas might have a Democrat U.S. senator. So there's a lot at stake here. And if you're Trump, you're already going to lose the House. And you're going to be facing the prospect of impeachment and so forth again. And my point on this isn't to attack Republicans. It's that the Republicans have failed entirely to do what they said they were going to do. And the important message about even this strategy, when I did it in twenty sixteen, a lot of people didn't understand it. More people understand it now. When you look at what's going on with Thomas Massey, when you look at what's going on now with Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene and others, other people are waking up to this fact that people will say, well, you just have to work within the two-party system. At least it's not the Dems. Or if you're a Dem, at least it's not the Republicans. And yet all we get either way is an expansion of the welfare state and an expansion of the warfare state. It doesn't matter which party is there because the technocrats that are controlling both parties, No, they can just get people divided and people are just going to buy into the, well, you have to pick one of these two. Well, guess what? We can use third party as leverage to hold both of these parties accountable. So the two big takeaways here are the use of AI in legal settings can empower us to stop and slow down the state. And I have talked a lot of this podcast about how there are no political solutions. And I don't believe there are political solutions. But technocracy is moving so fast when you look at the Genius Act, the Patriot Act, Palantir, AI surveillance, real ID, digital IDs proliferating around the globe. Those technocratic systems are being implemented faster than we are able to build alternatives. So I have added into this concept of exit and build, we need to exit, build, and obstruct. And we need to utilize these tools. And I think two of the biggest tools that we have are now the ability to use AI in a legal setting and the ability to strategically use third parties strategically. to basically drive the balance of power and to use it to hold these parties accountable. So this is why I haven't done a podcast and I'm doing it tonight because I just learned this morning at eight thirty that we won the case. And by the way, we won bigger than I thought. This magistrate essentially sided with us on all of the points that we put forward in our brief and in our materials. And I'm going to show you what that was all about and share you know, my knowledge on this. Now, I want you to understand, it's not completely done. The magistrate issues what's called a report and recommendation, and then that goes to the judge. But in this particular case, this magistrate and this judge, I have not been able to find a single example of where the judge... has overruled the magistrate, this particular magistrate, this particular pairing. So the state has the right to object. They have seven days to object. But I'm going to sell you something else on this. The fact that the AG's office is continuing to object and waste taxpayer money trying to take away my constitutional rights and disenfranchise the five thousand people that have supported me and signed the petition, that enough is a reason for people to vote for me. That is enough for everyone to examine what's going on with this situation. And I will tell you why. I defeated Kelly Ayotte in for Kelly Ayotte, he was appointed originally by Chris Sununu, John E. Sununu's brother. So they are literally pissing away your taxpayer money to keep me off the ballot. The Ballot Law Commission had at least one member appointed by Chris Sununu who should have recused himself due to a conflict of interest and didn't. What is going to be revealed through all of this is exactly how all of this machinery works. And the truth is no one ever stands up for this. No one goes to court because it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. And people refuse to stand up to these people. They refuse to stand up to political dynasties. They refuse to fight in court. It didn't it didn't deter me one bit. In fact, we're going to shove this right up, you know, where this entire thing, because this is going to be now a national press story. And we're at a point where everybody talks about New Hampshire being the first in the nation primary. Well, I'll tell you, if you're going to take away people's constitutional rights, the AG is already under or excuse me, the secretary of state's already under investigation. by the feds. They're going to be sending people here from the Department of Justice to observe our elections. And so this isn't a good thing that's going on right now. And the fact that they're going to continue it, they're going to continue to waste money. I will show every step of what's going on in this process with the AG's office trying to disenfranchise me and violate the Constitution of the United States. So I'm grateful for the opportunity to have been able to do this in court. You know, this is something that I knew, you know, the ballot law commission was right. I'm extremely knowledgeable about New Hampshire law. I'm also extremely knowledgeable about the constitution. And I just proved that in federal court. Now, before we go on to this, I want to actually say, I'm going to read something because I asked AI, you know, how much would it have cost me to hire lawyers to do what I did? And so here's what it said. It said, estimate moderate confidence, New Hampshire market rates, um at a competent new hampshire litigation boutique which good luck finding one of those and two hundred and fifty thousand to four hundred thousand at a national election law shop of the elias or clement class and these are these are firms that are highly regarded in in this area so two hundred and fifty to four hundred thousand dollars so what is the math behind that so my ballot law commission appeal phase thirty to fifty hours worth of work emergency federal package i filed an emergency temporary restraining order within forty eight hours of losing at the ballot law commission that verified complaint temporary restraining order preliminary injunction memo declaration nine exhibits sixty to a hundred hours The stipulation response and thirteen page supplemental brief, twenty four five to forty hours. Research across thirty seven cases, conferences and hearing prep, sixty to ninety hours. Call it one hundred and seventy five to two hundred ninety hours at a blended rate of four hundred and four hundred to six hundred dollars an hour. Plus, most firms would have wanted a twenty five to fifty thousand dollar retainer before touching an emergency ballot case in June. And then two honest footnotes, a firm would have produced fewer documents, but nobody bills a client for five model simulations, thirteen seat red teams and one hundred and seventy three rehearsal cards. That layer isn't purchasable by the hour at any price. And then it says and tomorrow, you know, I asked this the day before the hearing and tomorrow you're the one thing no retainer covers, the candidate arguing his own right to run. So again, this is what I'm going to show you what I went through. Because this isn't like, oh, again, I go into Chad GPT and gee, how do I win this case? This took two hundred hours of my time to do. And I've been dying to tell people about this, except I didn't know if I was going to win or not. So obviously, this would be a lot less interesting of a story if I came on here and said, hey, guys, I just spent two hundred dollars and all of this effort and I lost. Who would really care about this? But again, in summary, a federal magistrate judge just recommended the court to order the New Hampshire Secretary of State to put me on the ballot for the United States Senate, assuming that I get the signatures. Again, I still have to get the barrier of the three thousand signatures. But by the way, as I said, we got almost five thousand. We've been collecting the returns. We should have a very safe margin. We should have a thousand signatures. extra signatures by the time this is done. So in essence, we have put all the different pieces in place. But people ask, well, why haven't I seen you on the campaign trail? Because I've had to spend two hundred hours fighting this. I've had to spend the rest of the time collecting signatures. So my campaign doesn't actually begin until September. But of course, the whole point of this is was to use the threat of the race uh as a way to provide accountability to the gop and and uh you know to hopefully have them meet the four demands that i outlined which the four demands i will go through again today it's just holding them to what they said they were going to do i am not asking for anything outlandish i'm saying you promised a series of things you didn't do them And you should pay the price for that. If you run for office or your party has a platform and you say, I'm going to do A, B, C, and D, and you don't do A, B, C, and D, well, what's the recourse? Well, the recourse for most people is, well, gee, at least they're not a Democrat. I'm sorry, that's not acceptable. it's not acceptable that the epstein files keep on being defended it's not acceptable that we're passing the clarity act and the genius act and pushing things that are the largest surveillance bills in u.s history it's not acceptable to say no more wars in the middle east and then what are we at now day one hundred and something we're you know soon we're gonna be approaching two hundred days with the war in iran based on somebody who ran on no more new wars in the middle east So again, this isn't final, but the history of this is this judge has, to my research, a hundred percent of the time gone with the report and recommendation. And honestly, the recommendation in the report that was put together was twenty two pages long. It was absolutely brilliantly written. And I encourage you to go to day twenty twenty six and take a look at it. as well. So we still have this, you know, September the second is the deadline. So on September the second, I need to go to the Secretary of State's office with these three thousand certified ballots and then they need to actually formally accept my original declaration of candidacy. But then at that point in time, I am on the ballot in the general election. I don't have a primary. My name will be on there. In fact, you will know I will be on the general election ballot before anyone else. I will be the first person Not necessarily enlisted, but I will be the first person who will be on officially qualified to be on the ballot from New Hampshire for the race of United States Senate. So this is a big deal. And again, this has consumed all of my time. If you know my wife or family or everything else, I mean, this has been a crazy ordeal and a very hectic ordeal because of the time frame involved. I mean, usually, and I have the unfortunate experience set of experience of having to deal with the federal court because of all of these crypto prisoners that I've been advocating for. And in some cases, I've gone to hearings and I've reviewed all of the documents in these cases. And so these typically working with the court is a very long undertaking. So the fact that we were able to get the the magistrate to accept the case right away have a hearing then have the um a second hearing uh where we presented the briefs and then you know within a month turned around this full recommendation is is frankly uh amazing so so i'm gonna walk through how i did it now and you know again the the legal team was ai and when you say when i say ai Many times on this podcast, I've said, big tech AI, chat GPT, all of these other things. If you're just going and using these things and asking it questions and you're expecting that the answer that you get back is accurate or useful, you're going to be sadly mistaken. You're going to get slopped. You're going to... you're going to get information that just simply isn't accurate. And on top of that, it will have been screened by the guardrails and safety procedures and woke policies that these big companies have put in place. So you can use AI, but you have to really set up the environment and you have to direct it as to what material to look at. So I don't base my stuff off of what the AI comes out with with data. I do use the AI to find primary source material, and then I take that primary source material and I download it onto my computer. So there have been numerous cases where lawyers have been reprimanded And even people running pro se have had their cases thrown out because they'll come in and they'll cite a case like Fred Flintstone versus Barney Rubble or something and it gets thrown out. So I knew that that was something I had to be really careful about, which is to make sure that I had the actual cases and that what I was citing... um i could actually refer to and and look at it and say okay yes this comes from this case from this section this paragraph so on and so forth so that was a big big part of it um i used multiple ais for this uh i you know i used a lot of the the irony of this is This actually ties into part of this. When I lost, the first model that I used was Claude Fable. But this was when Claude Fable first came out. This is before Howard Lutnick and the federal government shelved Claude Fabel. So you may remember, Claude released this model, Mythos, which was only given, you know, only certain corporations and governments have been given access to this because all of these, quote, implications for cybersecurity. But then they released a slightly modified, weakened version of it called Fabel. And so I actually used Fable within like the seventy two hours of when it was released initially to draft the the templates for the original lawsuit. So this is the complaint, the temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, memo of law, declaration, nine exhibits. The original drafting of this was done fortuitously in this very short window before Howard Lutnik shut down Fable. And then the version that then released after Howard Lutnick got his mitts on it, is less intelligent and more restrictive. So that was a particular piece of luck in terms of doing some of the initial work. But then what I did was I formed a series of AI advisory boards, including a panel of legendary litigators who reviewed every brief before it was filed. So it wasn't just like, hey, Claude, do this. It was first pick, all right, who is an expert on this type of issue? Who's an expert on ballot law? laws, ballot law related cases. But then on top of that, I would, I spent a lot of time refining every aspect of it. So it's like, okay, here are the people that are the most knowledgeable about it, but then it's okay. Who writes the most effective briefs? Who is the, you know, so, so we would have a series of different advisory boards that would look at. And so you're kind of providing not just the generic AI, but you're providing a lens through this team and the team are people that have specific domain expertise in this. But then on top of that, I would form AI red teams. So I would form using different AI models. I used probably a half a dozen or more different models, whether it was Chad GPT or DeepSeek or Grok. I used a whole bunch of different models and created different advisory boards. I mean, essentially simulated... what the defense team was likely to do. So based on who the actual lawyers are, who the actual judge is, who the actual magistrate is, I would run through and do like a hundred simulations on each set of documents before I put them together and run through probabilities of winning and which path won, which path didn't, what are all the variables around it. So just a ton of different analysis. on what the likely outcome was to be. And so this way you're stress testing whether your arguments are good or not. And then I built a citation verification engine. So this is what I said was critically important. So I downloaded, I have a two hundred terabyte hard drive, not that this stuff actually used that much space, but I downloaded all of the case files. And then I had them locally on my machine. And so when we were going through the process of drafting a brief, it would actually check each citation against the primary source word for word. And I will say, we caught an error in the assistant attorney general's filings. He actually cited a completely wrong case in the filing. I didn't even point it out in court. But I went through over and over again to make sure that I understood what was going on here. So it caught, as I said, the state citing the wrong statute. they were, you know, claiming that they had this section about, you know, they were referencing a law regarding qualifications for office, and they actually referenced something instead that was related to political contributions, I believe, for people on the Ballot Law Commission, which was something from one of my filings with the Ballot Law Commission. So this is what that was all about. And actually, hold on one sec. So the biggest challenge for me with this is, and usually when you're doing a lot of these cases, You won't have a hearing. So the biggest obstacle that I had being pro se is I'm going up against the assistant AG. And no matter how much prep work I have, I haven't gone through all the training to learn all of the processes, all of the rules and everything else. And so I went into that where that was my weakest component of the race because it's like, well, what if he brings up something, a case that I wasn't familiar with or a procedure that I wasn't familiar with? So what I did was I created this binder that I didn't even take a laptop into court with me. I created this binder, a twenty nine page binder that's color tabbed and had all of the case cards. It had the most likely questions, the format, the opening, the closing, what their playbook was likely to be, what their six arguments were likely to be. And then it had some of the actual reference statutes as well. So I could actually pull up and refer to the specific New Hampshire statutes if that were the case. Or my primary argument was New Hampshire law doesn't even matter. What they're doing is fundamentally unconstitutional because the United States Constitution says that there are only three criteria allowed for qualification to be a United States senator. You have to be thirty years old. You have to have been a citizen of the United States for nine years, and you have to be a resident of the state at the time of the election. So when you say, well, are you a registered voter where you're domiciled, that is a qualification that the state is not allowed to add. So it doesn't matter what the New Hampshire law was. The New Hampshire law was unconstitutional. And there have been numerous cases on this. And in fact, no one has ever won. The state has never won in federal court when there's been an issue where they've added an additional qualification. So I will tell you this. I actually researched it. There are a lot of states out there. Massachusetts is one, and I'm sure several others that have unconstitutional qualifications. um on uh in their laws and no one has ever challenged it because it would cost two hundred and fifty to four hundred thousand dollars so you know if you're listening to this and you happen to be you know running for office at you know u.s senate or congress in in your state and they're imposing an unconstitutional qualification please take a look at my legal documents and all of the research that has gone into that um So this is what I had. Now, I'm not going to state that it was not a great presentation. I mean, and fortunately, the magistrate was, you know, some of the magistrates and judges are, they hate pro se. So this magistrate was actually very patient. So I wasn't going in there giving any kind of like, you know, passionate thing. This isn't anything that, you know, you can't record these things anyway. But if you had recorded it, you would have seen a lot of me pausing and waiting to kind of flip through the materials because the most important thing for me was accuracy. You know, what you don't want to do is go into court and cite the wrong thing. So the judge was patient. And so sometimes I had to go through and, you know, look at these materials. But in the end, you know, and I even modeled out what the hearing would be like and what the pitfalls were going to be and a list of things that I absolutely shouldn't do. that if i did it could could cost me because we knew based on our brief and our legal filing versus the attorney general's filing we knew ours was significantly better i mean i i have had i had numerous ais do that and you know on average you know ours got an a minus or an a and there's got a c or c minus and in some cases even a d so we knew that if the judge or the magistrate was going to evaluate this just on the legal arguments in the brief we actually far outperformed assistant AG. So the weakest part was the hearing, but we were able to get through it and not make any errors. And frankly, what we learned from the document from the ruling is some of the arguments made by the AG worked against them. I mean, they made a series of different arguments that were, as it turns out, when you examine them, they should have not brought them up at all. The other thing that I did was I created a series of quizzes. I created a... two hundred and twenty three question quiz and then a ninety question gauntlet quiz and also eight mnemonic songs. So I would go for walks around town and I would listen to these songs just so that I would drill through the relevant things about the case. So I mean, I train this like as if it were the bar exam. And by the way, there wasn't a lot of time for any of this. I mean, I think we had like a week between the time that we had the scheduling hearing and then the actual hearing itself. So this was all a very concentrated period of time. But I'm going to play one of the songs that I played just to give you a sense of the kind of thing that I was doing. With this, it might jump right into the song. So if it does, I'll explain what it is. But these were the main arguments of my case. I had three big arguments. My arguments were, you know, first, this Thornton case in the United States Supreme Court basically settles the issue, which is that you can't add an additional qualification. But what states can do is states have the ability to control time, manner, and place of elections. So, for instance, it's not unconstitutional for the state of New Hampshire to say, I have to have three thousand certified signatures by such and such date in order to be qualified. That is something that's within this realm of time, manner, and place, not something that is determining whether I'm even qualified. So they're allowed to do that, but they can't deal with this qualifications issue. But even on issues where it's kind of they control time, manner, and place, there's a different legal standard for how you evaluate that. And the weighing is the interest of the state versus the damage to the candidate. So there's even a balancing scale on that. And then the third part, though, is even on the law itself. And so I would argue, and I still believe that I was accurate on this, that The Secretary of State's website said, for US Senate, it did not say that you had to be a registered voter. And then the declaration of intent form said you had to be registered where you're domiciled. But it didn't say that registration meant that you filled out the paperwork and then you had to wait for a supervisors of election meeting to be held and for them to put you on that list. It did not actually say that. So I argue that technically the third way I win was that I was actually complying with New Hampshire law despite the fact that it was unconstitutional. So this is one of the songs that I would listen to to kind of drill those three points in my head. One fight, one question. Is it a qualification or is it procedure? If it is a qualification, Thornton ends it. That is the whole war. Lever one ends it. No balancing. Lever two ends it. Total exclusion. Lever three skips it. State law. Anyone wins. Anyone wins? Call it what it is It's a qualification Thornton shuts the door On the whole conversation Fixed and exclusive Nothing to weigh It is not how heavy It's a qualification No balancing today Level one ends in No balancing No balancing Level two ends in total Total Exclusion Level three skips It's state law Even on their scale, even playing their game Total exclusion, heaviest burden in the frame Weighed against an interest already fully served I win the balance on their own curve Level one ends it, no balancing, no balancing Level two ends it, total, total exclusion Level three skips, it's state law, anyone wins Constitution at all. New Hampshire law never required this call. A registered voter is all the statute demands. No board approval. The law already stands. The state cannot do indirectly what Thornton forbids directly. Add a qualification for the United States Senate. No one ends it, no balancing, no balancing Lever two wins it, total, total exclusion Lever three skips, it's state law Anyone wins, anyone wins One ends it, two wins it, three skips it Anyone wins, anyone wins Accept my June twelve declaration as timely filed. Accept my June twelve declaration as timely filed. Anyone wins. So so there you have it. So that was one of the songs. I actually had eleven songs that would just drill through various pieces of this, including going through the actual case law itself, the facts of the case. But again, in ways that I could remember and understand. And it's incredibly helpful. I mean, again, I can't, you know, For somebody who's not a lawyer to have one week to go up against the assistant AG in court on something that's this important, I put everything out to try to make this happen. I mean, I didn't leave anything on the table at all. Um, and you know, so this is an example I mentioned that they, they brought up this case that's going on right now, uh, in Alaska, brand new case. There are two people I believe named Dan Sullivan, and they were trying to use this idea of political gamesmanship that, that, that, well, they needed to keep me on the ballot or they needed to have this qualification because otherwise, you know, people might game the system. And, um, I understand that argument for state Senate and for state elections, because New Hampshire has a four hundred person House, a twenty four person Senate. And what people will do is they'll shift. They'll say they live in one place when they actually live in another or whatever. And so, you know, if you played that game, various parties could end up winning or getting some advantage just by the way that they play around with these rules. But this doesn't apply at all to the United States Senate. This is a federal race where the qualification criteria are set in the Constitution and defended in multiple federal cases and then even defended with this Thornton case. at the supreme court but on top of that the idea that there's gamesmanship it's you know i live in new hampshire there's only there's no gamesmanship it's it's a statewide race like the argument didn't make any sense and so they brought up this example of what was going on in alaska and the way the court decided in alaska is the opposite of the way that they were trying to present it in court so uh it was um It was quite baffling at the time when it happened in the hearing. I'm like, I had heard about this case. And then when I reached out afterwards, I was like, why did we even bring that up? But in any event, you know, one man, one laptop. I wouldn't say just a laptop, but outworked the machinery of the state. But I have to express again, if you go through and look at these filings, why are they trying to keep me off? They've used several different reasons to keep me off the ballot. The Secretary of State, the first time they tried to use a rule that said, well, you have to change your... I could have registered before the filing period began and they cited this law. But the law that they cited only applies to changing your party affiliation for the purpose of the primaries. So when they rejected that, they even admitted that that was wrong. So they kept on changing their reasoning for why I shouldn't be on the ballot. Well, why is the Secretary of State so interested in keeping me off the ballot? Why are they coming up with different reasons to keep me off the ballot? And then why is the AG's office still fighting this? So again, I think that the more they push this, this is going to be bad. This may end up turning out to be bad for Kelly Ayotte as well, by the way. This is Kelly Ayotte's AG. So this looks a lot like, to me, is Kelly Ayotte trying to use the force of the state and taxpayer money to keep me off the ballot because of what happened in twenty sixteen? So I advise people watching this to keep that in mind. Now, I want to say I just happen to do this from time to time in these election cycles, but the beatings will continue until morality improves. And again, this is one of the main reasons you should vote for me, which is I vanquished Kelly Ayotte in And now I've defeated the Secretary of State, the Ballot Law Commission, and the Attorney General. And next on the list is John E. Sununu and Miriam Adelson, who's trying to buy the election in New Hampshire, just like she bought the election against Thomas Massey. This is who we're up against. We're up against political dynasties. We're up against technocrats. And we're up against people that represent foreign interests trying to buy and manipulate our elections. So this can work. I've already shown that a third party can work. which is why they're trying to keep me off the ballot. And I've already shown that they can't keep me off the ballot, although they'll still try. And there are still some shenanigans. And I guarantee you, if whatever some last-minute shenanigan they pull, I will use that to show you how corrupt the system is. New Hampshire will not be the first in the nation primary if they pursue that because you will get to see exactly what went on here. I mean, I don't have time to do it now, but there are several other lawsuits, frankly, I could file if need be. So this is what is at stake. You might think, well, I don't care about New Hampshire. Yeah, well, the balance of power is at stake. But again, have Republicans earned it? No. This is an opportunity for the GOP to do what they said before the election. We're not going to do a, you had two years. You did the opposite of what you said you were going to do. We're not going to vote for you again to see what happens. We already know what happened. You know, how many people... that were Democrats, how many people right before the twenty twenty four election said, well, you know, yeah, I was bringing in RFK. This is our chance. We're going to have the dream team, Tulsi Gabbard, all this other stuff, nothing. People got rugged. And so what we're well, we've got to do it again. You can't continue doing this and expecting a different result. This is a way to say if you have the power to do all of the things that I've stated, and in fact, in the four demands, you said you were going to do those things. So again, this isn't, I'm not, all I'm asking people to do, a politician to do, which again, maybe is something that you can't expect at all. This is how diluted the system has become, but I'm asking them to do what they said they were going to do. And if they don't face electoral consequences. that's what happened on legal case additionally we got four thousand eight hundred and fifty one signatures and i i want to say that is a massive effort and i want to thank all of the volunteers and i want to thank my wife and everybody that's been involved in this process or driving this process trying to get all of this done all of these to get all this information sorted into the right people and i will tell you know the these towns have different rules they have different hours some of these towns are only open one or two days a week and they have off hours like the whole thing is a complex puzzle uh to kind of tetris and and and and fit together and you know i did this before and it was uh last minute i i remember i was driving the ballot some of these petitions overnight the night before the deadline last time. And this time, that wasn't the case. We got it all done in advance with plenty of extra time because I knew there would be shenanigans. So we made sure we had these things hand delivered. We scanned copies of each of the petitions. If anybody tries to mess with this process, everything that we have done has been meticulously documented. And based on the return rates, like I said, I believe we'll have close to a thousand excess signatures. And so a lot of people doubted this. The funny thing about this is we're going through this process. Like, oh, yeah, I'm going to run and here are the four demands and so on and so forth. People are like, well, you won't get the signatures or whatever. Guys, I did this before. I don't know why people question this. I've always followed through with every thing that I've said that I was going to do politically in terms of running these races or primarying people or whatever it was. And then there are other people that actually thought they were going to keep me off the ballot. You thought I was going to stop because the Secretary of State rejected my form? I mean, are you kidding me? And also, did you think that I didn't know what the laws were on this? Having done this before, I did know what the laws were. Again, the ballot law commission is right. I knew what the laws were. I complied with the laws. as written and the laws are unconstitutional. So again, grateful for the opportunity to demonstrate that for the people of the state of New Hampshire and to use this as a model that anyone in the United States can use. This ability to use AI It can be done in all fifty states. It can be done at the state level. It can be done at the federal level. It can be done at the local level. This is a true tool. There are a lot of people that look at AI and they say they hate AI or whatever. And by the way, as I've said, just like with digital currencies, you can either have a privacy coin like Zeno or Freedom Dollar, which is a way for you to have freedom and to be able to engage in voluntary trade. Or you can have CBDCs or these backdoor stable coins, which are backdoor CBDCs. So not all digital currencies are bad. Some are the best shot that we have at promoting freedom, economic and personal freedom. And the same is true with AI. So for those of you that are skeptical about AI, I want you to start thinking about how could you use this? And by the way, I know a lot of people have family court issues. This is great. And I won't name some of the people that I know that have been dealing with family court issues. What a godsend this is. Because the way that they get you, four hundred thousand dollars for a ballot law case. I mean, I've seen people bankrupted by family law court. Enough is enough. I mean, this and I'm not even saying that we're going to fix the legal system. What I'm saying is we're going to throw a wrench in the system and it can be done. And I've demonstrated this. So. Anyway, the timeline from here, all of these supervisors of elections have until August the twenty sixth to certify these petitions. But most of them have already not most of them, but a lot of them have already done it. I mean, we have over half of or roughly half of the certified petitions already back. In fact, I was just today we were driving around and went to Manchester and Amherst and some other places and. and picked up these signatures. So everything is well on track there. So again, I want to thank my campaign manager and my wife, Eileen, who kind of built the whole process to get this piece of it done. It would be hard for you to believe that part of it. And so again, this is why I haven't been doing the podcast. It's also why I haven't been doing any other campaigning because this is an exceptional amount of work. So I'm not running to win a rigged seat. Again, the predominant goal of this, the first goal of this is to use this race as leverage and spoiler math to get the administration to do what they said they were going to do. Now, if I'm actually on the ballot, if I have to be on the ballot, if the four demands aren't met or a substantial portion of the four demands aren't met, and then I have to run, then I will actually run. but not under the belief that I'm going to go to Washington, D.C. and fix anything. These are the people that have been protecting the Epstein files. What am I going to go do? Work across the aisle? Do we really believe that? And in fact, if you're in New Hampshire, the biggest threat to New Hampshire, the biggest threat to the live free or die ethos in New Hampshire is the United States federal government, period. So I have a lot of respect for the work that has been done at the state level. And there are a lot of people that have worked a lot at the state house and everything else. But I'm telling you, bottom up will not work. If the federal government has control of thirty three percent of our funds, if they're implementing real ID and digital IDs, and if they're taking an increasing amount of control of the state, it doesn't matter what your bottom up thing is. You cannot just ignore the federal government. You have to do both. And electing somebody like John Isununu is a clear and present danger. to freedom in the state of New Hampshire. And every state has someone like this. This is even a Republican versus Democrat issue. I will tell you, and I have stated many times what John Issununu is all about and what he's voted for. I have opposed Chris Pappas in multiple elections. I have run super PACs and other organizations. I don't support Chris Pappas, but I will say John Issununu is materially worse than In this particular case. So there's nothing why if you're one of these people sitting around saying, well, yeah, but at least he's not a Democrat. Have you read his record? Have you looked at his lobbying activities? Have you looked at the consequences of his voting record? Because if you if you haven't and you're just I will tell you how bad Johnny Sununu is. I was actually talking to Scott Brown about this. Johnny Sununu doesn't even, he's not participating in debates. He doesn't campaign. And when he did have one debate, the moderator actually accidentally called him Chris. And there's another document going around, floating around where somebody actually put Chris Sununu's picture. This guy's literally running on his family name and his brother's reputation, not even his own reputation because he got voted out of office. And his behavior and activity since being in office have only worsened his overall bio and resume. So I'm going to tell you what the four demands are in case you haven't heard them again. And I know there are going to be a lot of new people that are going to be watching this podcast and are going to be seeing these clips. Because again, I've already had, I've had more press because of these lawsuits than I ever would have gotten. In twenty sixteen, it was a ghost town and I had reached out to the press union leader, all of these people, you know, telling them that I was going to be in the race. And even knowing that I did this before, zero coverage, zero mentions. But now that we've had these lawsuits, well, they loved coming and covering the fact that I lost at the Ballot Law Commission, but now they're going to be forced to report on the fact that I defeated the AG in federal court. they've already started to report on it with the magistrate report and recommendation and then when we ultimately prevail when the when the judge signs off on it they're going to be forced to report on it but by the way it will be a national story it will be a national story because of the implications of this race because of the track record of what i did in and because what it means for people around the country to use ai to fight the state in court and to use AI to fight technocratic corporations and the ability to use third-party races strategically to hold parties accountable. This is a big story and it's an even bigger story than about New Hampshire itself. But I'm going to tell you, demand one is free the crypto prisoners. Trump said, the day I take the oath of office, the anti-crypto crusade will