Latest / CrossPolitic Show / Medical Tyranny and the War on Free Speech (ft. Dr. Eggleston & Todd Richardson)

Transcript

Medical Tyranny and the War on Free Speech (ft. Dr. Eggleston & Todd Richardson) · CrossPolitic Show

• Hey, well, y'all, welcome to Waterbreak, not Waterbreak. Oh my goodness. Welcome to Cross-Politik, one on one with the Water Boy. It's good to be with you. Jesus is Lord over politics. Jesus is Lord over America. And we've been doing this since 2016. And you know, never forget. Never forget. I think part of one of our problems is citizens here in the United States is we got short memories. And having short memories has actually hurt us and I think the political battle for America. Never forget. The reason why I bring that up is because I got Dr. Engelston and Todd Richardson. You guys might remember when we had Dr. Engelston on in COVID, you know, the COVID time. You guys remember the COVID? Don't forget. And Dr. Engelston is a friend, Dan and Lewiston doing great work, kind of fighting the COVID tyranny. So hold on for that. They're coming up both Todd and Dr. Engelston will be coming on and I'll be interviewing them kind of on some updated kind of where the battle is the updated fight. Where that's at and everything excited to have them on. But before we get there, are you ready for the fight lap feast conference in 2026? If you haven't, you need to sign up this year. We're going to be in Franklin in Franklin, Tennessee. We got a great conference venue. It's the Franklin factory. Go check it out. You can go online. Actually check it out. It was a great conference venue. And but we only have seats for 850 people. The Bird registration ends July 1st. So you have to sign up. We got Pastor Wilson, Pastor Toby Joe Rigny, Pastor George Grant and the topic is Holy Wars, just worth theory, sanctification and the Christian life. Excuse me. Yeah, just worth theory, sanctification and Christian life. Make sure you guys check that out. Excited. Bring your kids. Bearing Psalms on Thursday night, October 1st, 2nd and 3rd. And we'll be doing our pre-business conference also that Thursday afternoon and everything. So more details coming. And if you want to sponsor booth at the conference, again, a smaller space. So if you want to vend with us, make sure you guys sign up there now. We literally have very few vendor spaces already left and everything. So check that out. Go to fightlapfist.com for that. And then I'll be actually traveling here. Knox is traveling. We got some things coming up. Oh, our next documentary that's happening is going to be interesting documentaries. It's not it's we're going to be doing our next show on Tuesday night on the topic on the next documentary and then the that documentary will be releasing the following Tuesday. I think that's like May 13th or something. Whatever whatever that following Tuesday is for giving for those dates. Make sure you guys check out what we're doing with our synodox and all the past synodocumenaries are in our app also. So for our guest, Dr. Richard Engelsen. Engelsen is a retired off fellow malagist. He can correct me there and a military veteran from Clarkson, Washington, just literally 40 minutes from me, who became a central figure in a major free speech dispute during COVID-19 pandemic after facing prevent professional conduct charges over opinion columns. Listen to that over opinion columns in the newspaper. The Washington Medical Commission withdrew its complaint. Um, finally, Engelsen continues to pursue legal action defending physicians. First amendment rights outside the courtroom. He's also known for his lifelong medical career and commitment to constitutional principles. I also have his lawyer on the phone and I'm sorry Todd. I don't have a full bio from you, but I'll start with you so you can actually introduce yourself to our audience. But Dr. Todd Richardson is also joining us on the show. Gentlemen, thank you both for coming on. Thank you for everything. Thank you. It's good to be here. So Todd, just real quick, since I didn't have a bio for you, I just want to give you an opportunity to kind of introduce yourself who you are and what you do. You know, I'm just a native Idaho. I was born and raised in Southeast Idaho. My mom talked me into going to law school. I went to University of Idaho coming out of law school and attorney and Lewiston offered me a job. I figured I'd sit back to Southeast Idaho. So I said, sure, I'll take the job. I'll probably be here six months, 29 years later. Here I am. And I'm enjoying it. I've had a great career working in Idaho and Washington. I've been able to work with terrific people when Dr. Agiliston. That's that's great. Now, Dr. Agiliston, you last came on our show. My goodness, I would say four years ago, maybe five. Now, I think I think it was, now that it was about two years ago, three at the most. Okay. And like February or March. Okay. And yeah, send them up to the studio there. Yeah, you drove up from Lewiston to come up to the studio now. Now, before we get to the update, actually just remind us, there's actually three different, I think lawsuits that are three different charges or three different issues that you've been involved with in the courts. But if you could just kind of go back and remind us, what are the legal issues you were facing three years ago? Well, let's talk to explain that better to you than me and. And you're right. There are three. First, there's a charge where the Washington Medical Commission charged him with unprofessional conduct charge accused him of dishonesty and moral turpitude, because he would write articles that disagreed with their position on COVID. They started a disciplinary action against him to stop that. We filed a civil action in Washington State courts seeking an injunction to stop them from proceeding against him. Zad and Junction went up to the court of appeal back to the local court, back to the court of appeals where finally just a couple of weeks ago, the commission decided to withdraw their charges against him to stop the case. And then Doc, because of a good friend of his by the name of John Stockton, you may know John from his NBA Hall of Fame career. John's the root plaintiff along with Doc and then another doctor on the west side of the state is going through something very similar to almost identical to Doc Agilist case, but be Dr. Tom Siler and then Dr. Daniel Moynihan also from the west side of the state, along with children's health defense came together and brought a suit in federal court and gave him maybe interest to know that as we sit here right now, that case is in front of the United States Supreme Court. They're hearing it in conference trying to decide if they're going to accept the case for review. Wow. Okay. I don't know if I missed the third one in there. Well, the third one is the federal case. That's the one that's in front of the US Supreme Court that we have the civil case in Washington Supreme Court or Washington State courts and then we have the administrative case with the medical commission. Okay. Perfect. So medical commission state court and then the federal court real quick, because this is not really the update that I want to focus on, but with the federal, what's before the federal court, the Supreme Court, excuse me, with John Stockton case and Dr. Engelsen, what's the details of that case that's before the Supreme Court? Well, that case actually approaches the first minute from three different angles. First, from Dr. Engelsen and Dr. Seiler, they are plaintiffs in there because their right to speak was silenced by Washington Medical Commission for prosecuting them for writing their articles. Dr. Moynihan came at it. He was silenced not for speaking. He was afraid to speak because of what was being done to other doctors. And then we had John Stockton and children's health defense coming in with the right to speak here. So you have the right to speak that was being silenced against actively against two doctors, one doctor who had his freedom of speech chilled and then everybody else who had the right to hear what these doctors had to say. That's what's in front of the US Supreme Court today. That is interesting. Right to hear what is your thoughts on that case? It seems like a pretty cut and dry free speech case. But what are your thoughts on the courts picking it up? That kind of thing. Well, you know, I agree. I would have thought it was cut and dried, but we had a federal district judge disagree with me. We had the night circuit court and the appeals disagree with this. That's San Francisco though. But it is indeed. You know, the thing is, a couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court came down with the child's versus cell is our case, which was free speech allowing a mental health counselor to be able to have the freedom to speak within the bonds of treatment. And so that really resulted a lot of it. Last week they came out with another case and I just went blank on the case name there, but it helps us as well. So I'm very hopeful. And right before we went on air, we had a prayer and you prayed for the right to well tell you what keep praying for the judges and the righteous judges and justices of this nation. They need help. Yeah, Amen. Okay. So that's the Supreme Court. So that basically if it got picked up, you would expect to hear a ruling this summer kind of thing. I hope to hear in the next few days. To hear, I guess I'm trying to ask to hear if it gets picked up or to hear when we, if it got it, what are you waiting here? This would be clear. Here what the Supreme Court is going to do with it. They have three options actually they can reject it. They can accept it and remember just basically a three or three. Or that says, look at these cases. So back and now do it right because we've already spoken to this. What they can say we want to have full briefing and bring it up to the court. Either the last two would be good with me. Yeah, right. And that'd be interesting if they did number two of that and say, look at these cases and go give a different verdict basically is what they'd be suggesting. And you'd have basically a four. That would kick it back to San Francisco, correct? And then San Francisco liberal court would have to reverse their own decision. Exactly correct. They could actually just send it right back to Spokane, Washington, so that drives, started over and did this right because here the cases you will follow. Yeah. Okay. And you might also mention that we're going to stay in the game but we'll consent case how that affected the divorce agency and Supreme Court. I think it was certainly wanted to hear about the Supreme Court first. I missed that last comment Todd. What were you saying? I was asking me about another Washington case against Dr. Ryan Wilkinson. What's in the division three court of appeals where they took a very strong, pro free speech position that the commission decided that they thought they could get the Washington Supreme Court to go against it and and sought review. The day after child's versus self-doubt was handed down from the US Supreme Court Washington Supreme Court rejected. Review of Wilkins case so that will also place an effect in Washington. Okay. Okay. Now, Dr. Wilkinson, you part of the reason why Washington, you live in Lewis, the Idaho and but you practice. I live in Clarkson, Washington or so Washington and the Washington, the Washington, the Washington River. Okay. I understood it. Did you practice in Washington and Idaho or just Washington? Both I had the main offices and when I first moved here was in Lewis, but then we built an office in Clarkson's last year for in Clarkson, but I worked at the hospitals and had several offices in Idaho too. Yeah. Okay. But the reason why you having these battles in Washington is because you're licensed in Washington and Idaho, Idaho wasn't really doing this to his doctors, although Dr. Ryan Cole had some problems in Idaho. You didn't have any problems in Idaho. That's correct. Okay. And then so let's start with the, I mean, I think I think I found out about you through your first case, the Washington commission is where I think I heard about you. And in that, all that stuff going on, you started writing letters to the editor. Was that 2021 or what was the timeframe of the letters? Actually, actually I'd written a letter to the editor starting probably in 20 or even before that I tried to and the thing that the commission was unhappy about was what I wrote as in the 10, the opinion page of the Lewis and Tribune at the invitation of the Tribune itself to write these articles. Yeah. They think about exactly what I was going to write about, but I was invited to do that. And so you got invited by the Lewis and Tribune to write opinion editors, letters, the, you know, on the opinion page. And you started writing about COVID and you were, you were a, what would, what have been called back then a contrarian to the COVID narrative, the standard COVID narrative. And I remember this is my memory slowly coming back here. I remember reading some of those articles and being like, who is this guy down in Lewis and he's a doctor writing, you know, against the COVID narrative, which is so refreshing because I remember I'm just a little history of our show taught you may or may not be familiar with our show either, but we started in 2016 and we launched in 2016. And our whole point was basically talk about Jesus and politics. The church didn't do that much. In fact, it was kind of taboo for the church to talk about Jesus and politics. And so we started our show with Pastor Toby when he's in the studio with me in chocolate knocks, knocks, Mr. Nox. And so the three of us in 2016 started our show, well, then then COVID hit in 2020. So we already kind of doing a taboo topic and pushing against kind of the general narrative of evangelical evangelicalism. And then COVID hit and then 2020 when COVID hit, we started, this is the first time where we started doing a show every day in March of 2020. And we started doing a show every day because it taught you might remember our city council up here in Moscow Idaho is liberal and they went crazy. They signed this health emergency order. I think it was March 21st or March 26, 2020 where then they shut down all our businesses in downtown and everything. It was just so sad and ridiculous. So we started doing a show every day because we were like, the people need to hear the truth. They need to hear how to think about this biblically and not just obey tyranny. And so we started doing a show every day. Well, through that process, I think it was, you know, marching in March when we started doing a show every day. And through that process, I started trying to research and find who some doctors I could talk to. I couldn't find any doctors. I thought the first doctors that I knew over the doctors down in California, the current county doctors, if you remember those guys. And I got in touch with them. We were ever never able to work things out. Things were so busy for them once they kind of went public. It went crazy. But I eventually found Dr. J about a chariot and Dr. Ryan Cole. And we were the first ones to platform Dr. J about a chariot. I think Ryan had already been maybe platform before. But anyways, we very quickly found them in April of 2020 who are willing to actually propose a different narrative than to the pressurized narrative that was set forth by the CDC and then a lot of politicians who just kind of glombed onto it. And so when I saw Dr. Engelsen probably in 2021 or something like that start writing these letters to the other. I didn't know what pushback he was getting or if he was getting a pushback. I was like, but I was like, good for him. And then at some point you started getting in legal troubles. And then that's when we had to go on the show also. But it was such a, it's such a, um, that 2021, 2020, 2021, 2022 even. There was so much pressure not to speak out against kind of the political narrative of COVID. And at what point in Dr. Engelsen, did you start realizing that man, you know, we got it, we got to, we got to speak out, we got to speak the truth. We got to speak against this political narrative that's been created. Well, I realized rather ways that this was a, you know, propaganda and a say up type thing was being forced to country into people. And I always venture. A group about thinking I believe what I believe in I have actually to back up. But I believe in my philosophy is basically, I don't care what you think of the fact from time and the restaurant. After the first page letters that come out and stuff, I was going to the restaurant. There's a bunch of guys I do. And they say, well, how does it feel to have the doctorate against you? And I said, well, I've been alive for 80 years without their help. I think I'll make it a few more years. So I'm going to keep on writing. And, and, and, and, and actually when we first started writing, I got emails from doctors in the, in the US from France, from Britain, from Brazil, New Zealand, Australia. And I got letters from people saying they would just can't find any information and thank you for putting it out. And those were from some of those same countries and about half the United States. States people were doing that. And I, in my letters and my articles, I had to list all the sources where I'm getting my information. So they didn't depend upon me and they could read their own information. And so I still get things from people periodically. But especially on this, this, this missile of the case. But now I, I, I always believed in, and then strong believer in the concept of what our family fathers and people say that this country depends on, to have a functioning Republic informed government. And so I, I just, I just transformed that into writing. And I felt actually that I was directed to do this when they, when the Tribune put out a request on the editorial page that they were looking for. So it gets over the writers. You know, I said, well, I think I was supposed to do this. And so I felt out the forum and as I was sitting there thinking, should I press this key to Sanders? Should I not? And I had the strong, this feeling coming over me that I was supposed to do that. So I, I put the button, push the button and then the rest of history, you know, they probably said, well, we'd like to offer you this. So can they get a picture for the paper? Now, how long from when you started writing op-eds for the Lewis and Tribune, how long until you started getting into legal trouble? Well, I started writing in January of 21. That was my first article. And in part of it was I explained how so much of the medical system has been behind and has backed wrong policies for so many years. I quoted several of them and we can go into that later. Very important concepts. But I wish your hands before you come from patient to patient or from when you do autopsy to the patient that was published in the 1700s. But it took 15 years for medicine to accept that. And and then it was in September of an article I wrote that a person who I'd never seen didn't know. He was not my patient up in Moscow. He wrote a letter to the commission. And then I think a couple of other people did too, but I know this guy for sure, saying that I was putting out false information. It was going to harm people and everything. And so and that's when they sent me a letter. But I didn't worry about it because number one, I was felt like I was being directed and backed by a higher source, a higher power. Number two, I was only sent, I was retired and only had a, a, a, a retired license, which means I was not seeing patients. So they couldn't do anything to me. And the leverage over being on my license and I felt that if I had the ability and I didn't stand up and write this stuff and everything that that would not be good for me, right? You're wrong. Yeah. If you don't mind, I just make one quick chip in here and, and Dr. right, there's one person just outside of Moscow who filed a complaint. What was his name? Any filed it three times. I don't know his name. All right. I can, I can go find it. Uh, he did. It isn't the hard to find. I'm sure I haven't worried about it. Uh, but he did it three times. And that was there, there wasn't anybody else who complained. And the reason I raised this, though, is you talk about spiritual warfare and when to stand and when to fight, you know, it works both ways. It takes people to stand and they make a difference. This guy made it, it took a stand and it was not for good. It caused a lot of pain for Dr. Agustin, but those who want to stand for God and want to stand for, for, for, for the law for stand for freedom, you kind of stand whether you feel like you're standing by yourself or not. That's what it takes. Might, at least I always say one man and God makes a majority. Yeah. That's right. This is actually right. Uh, so Todd, um, I do know my story, you know, my story in 2020 and I got arrested, you know, about, uh, one of the things that was so disappointing and difficult for me was I couldn't, I wish I would have known you back then, but I couldn't find a lawyer in Moscow, Louiston. Now I didn't talk to every lawyer because obviously I didn't find you, but I couldn't find a lawyer in Moscow, Louiston that would take my case because it was so politically charged. And I had, I literally had a couple lawyers tell me I work in this region and I want to make sure I have a good relationship with the judges up in Moscow. And so I ended up with a lawyer down and boyzzy to represent me because I couldn't find one locally. Why did you take Dr. Engelston's case? You know, uh, there's a lot of reasons. First, uh, I've, I've represented the doc son for 18 years on the case. Uh, that we're still fighting. And, and so doc and I have became friends over the years. And when he came and asked me if I'd be willing to defend him, uh, my first thought was I don't know anything about, uh, about fighting medical commission and just out of sheer happenstance about, uh, two weeks before doc contacted me, a friend of mine who is a trial lawyer who represents doctors around the nation and called me and said, well, he helped me represent Dr. Engelston Washington Medical Commission. And so it just happened to have just been exposed to that area of law and, uh, for my whole life. Well, since, since 1980, when I met, uh, the United States Senator Steve Sims, Steve, uh, talking to him and he said to me, he says Todd, get to know the Constitution. You need to descend it. And since then I have learned the Constitution and I dedicated my life. To defending it. When doc gave me an opportunity, I was more than happy to do it. Did you get any? Could I also break in here? Please. About the other attorney that's been very helpful for us. Rick Jaffin is what children's health defense, which is Kennedy's group. But when he, uh, when John Stockton contacted him or the group about my case, uh, Rick, uh, called and was very interested as Marf Fafty said, this case is the exact one I've been looking for my entire career. It's a strict first amendment medical issue. It's not about treatment. It's not this or that is only can the doctor speak his mind to give the information. And so that's one of the reasons that this children's health defense is involved in. He and Todd have worked to like, you know, hand in glove on all these issues and turn out to be very good for both of them, I think. That's really interesting. That's really good to hear. Uh, now Todd, did you get any blowback pushback, you know, legal, you know, bar, legal bar association pushback, anything? No, uh, I have an I, I, I'm, I'm, I'm pleased I didn't. You know, I didn't want to have to defend myself to the bar. I would have, uh, I'm defending my client and I'm going to stand up to anybody because I'm not only defending my client, but I'm defending the constitution and free speech is something that is a reliable buy on. Now make it a constitutional issue. That's a reliable dial. Now, Dr. Aglestone, uh, Aglestone, um, you are over 80 years old. And, and so this is going to be, yeah, that's the 86 in July. 86. Thank you. And how, how do you think America got to this point after growing up and living here for 86 years? And how did you get to this point where you're defending like basic constitutional rights in a country that you served? What happened? I think a lot of it goes back to the, uh, I think it was the 63 Supreme Court decision about taking care of it with schools. And was that that basic knowledge of, uh, how we should live, you know, shown by the commandments in the gospel. There was a, I think people have drifted so far from the founding principles that they didn't know that they were even under attack. And so they, uh, they, that fortunately, I believe there's a real research and coming back of some of a lot of people. You know, I think the young people with Gen Z, I just kind of divided between those, uh, secular and those who are understanding what, uh, you know, what this is all about and how their freedoms are involved. So I, you know, I'm kind of, uh, I'm pretty satisfied. I'm not satisfied. I'm hopeful that there's going to be enough of these young people that will stand up and fight for it. And I think there's a lot of that happening everywhere. So you take this back to 1963 parent schools. Todd, how would you answer this question? Uh, you know, when, when prayer came out of schools, everything started to change. Uh, and if you go back here, uh, in the century, you started to see the proof of the progressive movement, which really worked on trying to break up the family and, and the, the, the nuclear family and keeping connection to God, really when America started to turn from that, we start running into a lot of problems. Uh, we need to keep God in our lives and in our schools and in our places of business. Uh, we, we came about as a country because God inspired the founders to write the constitution. God fought the revolution for us. Uh, we would not have won the revolution if it were not for a number of terrific miracles. Uh, he will fight this one for us as well. If we turn to him, but we must turn to him or we're going to our country. Could I put a statement in that? Hopefully not interrupting you. I talked to Todd about this a little bit before we started. But in Congress, there's been a recitation of the scriptures of Bible and, a few days or a week or so ago, a president Trump from his desk, Rhodes, a red second Chronicles 714, which, uh, Reagan also did in 1980. And that was a big turning point for our country at that point because we were really on the road to, uh, method. And so I think with, with the leader of the country, this is required for, uh, going that on public television and from the office, I think that's hugely important. Yeah. And so, and so what does your case mean to the average citizen? I mean, we, you know, a lot of people just talk up, uh, this is a kind of a free speech medical fight kind of thing. But what is this? Well, I think, I think it means that people will be able to get truthful accurate information and may not be what the system says or the government says, uh, but they will be able to get it without their physician feeling they're going to lose their license or being, uh, or being disciplined. There are some, there were at least 60 doctors in Washington or some kind of review and punishment by the commission because they, uh, because they're saying things that aren't just close to be said. And this goes back to about February, January of 21. I believe it was 21 to the end of decal defederation of state medical boards, which is a national group that is designed and, and, and good for that designed to prevent bad docs from just moving from state to state and doing bad medicine. And that's, and that's the general reason. But it morphed into that they're going to discipline you if you don't tell the line. And so, and that was a statement they put out to every, I think there's 50 state and, and territorial entities that they said that too. So we want you to know after docs who are not telling the light essentially, but it's interesting, you know, all these people are very unhappy. When I was writing that, that was being put out by the government was not being followed by the docs, but now that there's different administration then and saying different things from the government. Well, we're not going to believe that we're going to sue the government for saying the things that we went after other people for first, not agreeing with the government. We're going to disagree with the government and be, and go after it. So, yeah, you ask what it means to the average person. And the answer is now they can try to find someone that will give them the truth about their health. Yeah. It's so simple. It's so simple. Why it is. I mean, this kind of goes back to the question that you guys have already been answering a little bit, but it, it seems like something so simple. And yet our country is in has, has just faded so far from what was simply true in our constitution. Well, that's right. But the one thing about this episode right now is that so many people are rejecting all this vaccination stuff they could propagate and thought control and a way to direct you to me, all these vaccinations, all these vaccines are many of them are having particles and things put in that are, that are not good for your body and maybe have other than the various things too with it. But it's, it's, it's just so important that people be able to make their mind up. And they're showing that because the vaccination rates are down so far. And there was a recent study that Pfizer was going to do about some vaccine, but they couldn't get enough volunteers to partition it. So they had to cancel the study. And so that tells you that people are late have woke enough and you're just not believing the garbage anymore. Yeah. Now now, Todd, I got a, I got a little bone to pick with your profession. Maybe, maybe it's not just lawyers, maybe it's not just lawyers, but kind of like the legal, oh man, the, the legal culture, the legal process, all this stuff. And I got a resident in 2020 and then I end up in this, you know, silly legal battle. And it wound up going for about four years, just a little under four years. The whole battle did. And you've, I'm sure you've heard this saying before where the process is the pain, the process is the point. And so I don't get really any sort of clear legal victory. For four years. And by then, it's kind of, I mean, it's great. We won. God was kind. Thomas more society backed me and the federal courts, just fantastic. But in a whole other sense, like it doesn't really make my city change. You know, they got the federal courts ruled against them for violating my first and fourth amendment rights, but nothing really happened. You know, so I guess part of my two questions here, it's like, the legal process is so slow and difficult and frustrating. And I, and I think there's some wisdom to a pace, a slower pace. I don't mind that, but it's so slow. And then, um, you know, people retired and in my case, by the time the city, city supervisor had been retired, all the stuff, it's like, there's no way of really actually dealing with the problem that occurred. Maybe talk about kind of those two questions, the process and then like the actual problem isn't, it's not like really that punishable in one sense that they violated my first amendment rights. Now I did win $300,000. Me, um, uh, Sean and Rachel Bane and, um, Thomas more society. So my lawyers all got paid back and I got a little bit of money, not much. I literally, I got paid $50,000 for it. So we split, you know, $300,000 and Thomas more got 150 and then I got 50 and Rachel and Sean got a 50 each also. Um, but then I also found out that I owed taxes on that. There was a 1099, which was like insane. And so I go through this legal trial and then even I kind of get penalized on the other side of it and the city never got a apology letter from the city. Never known ever owned it. The chief of police, um, chief fry behind the scenes, apologized behind the scenes and I'm very grateful for that. He's the only one that did that. Um, but no one else. So yeah, kind of a couple of things there. The process is punishment. That is a absolute truism. Uh, and the thing is, whose prosecutors get what they call prosecutorial discretion. All they have to do is have a good faith belief more likely than not that they, uh, that this could have happened and they, they are pride. They are, they are protected from any, uh, any punishment or any blowback for what they did other than if they rebbe defend the voters, the voters can do something. Uh, and, and so it, it is designed to go slow. But one of the reasons it's designed to go slow is it's designed to be careful. Uh, I, as a city attorney, I happen to represent a number of different cities in the area, but I tell the councils, the government is designed to move slowly because every time the government moves, someone's rights are at risk. And so we should move slowly and deliberately. Now, at sometimes that slowness is then exacerbated and it's made to be part of the pain. Uh, with Doc Eglistan, the, and frankly, he was the first one, first person in the nation that we've been able to find to be able to stop the medical commission from being able to proceed. And he did it by slowing them down and being able to drag this out and cause enough political or court litigation pressure, the finding they had to give, but it's been years. They started this four years ago as one that filed it. Wow. And so the doc is out a lot of money. Uh, he's had to pay a lot of attorney fees and not, and, and we're trying to, and we're trying to find a way to be able to, uh, get the rest of them paid by the state and getting back. But let's say the state pays every penny back. That doesn't pay him for his time with the damages. Uh, there are times that the, the principle you stand for it and you never get, uh, recompensed. Yeah. Well, I'll say that and then say, wait a minute. No, one day you're going to stand before God and I suspect you get recompensed for standing strong. Yeah. Yeah. Amen. So, uh, basically let's, let's, uh, bring this in for a landing. What's happening now? What are the next steps? Where do you want to see this land? Well, the court cases, the Washington Medical Commission, uh, with Drew, they're, they're charges. Uh, what that means is they said, okay, we're not going to prosecute you now. It's not with prejudice. They could bring them back if they chose. Uh, the Washington Court of Appeals, uh, they asked the court to dismiss the case. Uh, we said, wait a minute because they dismissed without prejudice. We, uh, we think it could come back. We want you to proceed. The, uh, Washington, the court of appeals said, no, uh, we just, we handed down the Wilkinson case and they can't bring it back here because Wilkinson controls and free speech actually mean something in this division. Uh, so that one's now gone as well. We're waiting for a good ruling now from the, hopefully a good ruling on the Stockton case. Uh, where does that land? Well, there, there, there is also the possibility and we're looking at the options of, do we now sue the state for infringing on, uh, Doc Eglistan's free speech rights. And that is something that is a possibility. Yeah. And so it seems like though the Washington commission, the state, you know, all these, um, entities and people that went after Dr. Inelson, it's, they aren't going to get punished. They aren't going to, there's, there's no correction there. You know, and I will say you're right. Even if we, even if there is a lawsuit against the state for violating his rights, there are certain members, the ones who have the most, uh, involved them in this have what they call a quanta judicial immunity. Uh, and so we can't go after them anyway. There are certain agencies that we can still, uh, tap for the, for the, but some of the worst actors are the ones that are protected. Now a couple of them are not, uh, and we've warned them that that's the case, but we'll see now one of the things just for what it's worth. Washington has a weird, uh, division of their court of appeals. Idaho has a single court of appeals. Washington has three in the law and Washington is that if one division decides something that's not binding on the other two mentioned, Dr., uh, Tyler, Dr. Tyler is in the exact same position as Dr. Eglistan, except when this commission moved to dismiss the case against them. The court of appeals there said, no, let's let this continue out. Let's let the case finish. And so we're still proceeding with that case for Dr. Tyler. So we, there may be another good thing that comes up where we may be able to get at least one more case, uh, a pellet cord in Washington says free speech actually matters. Wow. Yeah. I say something else. You know, uh, I said I, I, I, I didn't have anything to lose as far as license or income. You know, there's other, you know, reputation and all that that is still something considered, but, uh, this, this was, uh, again, such an important thing that I actually thought and planned that when I started writing that somebody would object to the commission. And so it actually came as I thought because now we have it, uh, in at least in our district there, uh, that they can't do this kind of stuff to dox. And hopefully we get it as a nationwide, uh, a nationwide decision. Again, the Supreme Court has done this so many times that you can't restrict the doctors rights to speak, but they keep going after it. So we just got to stand and fight as long as we can. You know, I start off the show talking about never forget and I mean, as citizens, we really do have short memories and it's, I think it's been come a problem. I mean, um, we're here in Idaho. A good example of a short memory is we're about to reelect Brad little who literally shut down churches in Idaho under COVID. In fact, me and some of my friends and Todd, you probably followed this too, but me and some of my friends sued Brad little governor Brad little. And then he pulled that out. Um, he exempted churches after we sued them. And then the judge said, well, I don't need to take this up now. It's kind of a moot point. And we're like, you know, we couldn't even, we couldn't even dress what had happened, but at least he took churches out of his shutdown. But we just have like supposedly conservative, you know, governors, trampling all over our constitutional rights. And then here we are in a conservative state. We're about to, we could potentially, I'm, I'm supporting Mark Fitzpatrick. But it's hard to become, come in comments and it's hard to be in comments and races and stuff. And so, uh, but it's going to be a hard fight. But Idaho and Zer, you know, some of them are still going to vote for Brad little. And maybe most of them might vote for Brad to get back to be governor again. But like our memories are so short, we keep hurting ourselves in how we vote, even though even as conservatives, we say we're principled and we yet we kept supporting politicians who are obviously doing unprincipled moves. Can I say something else about that too? You know, I agree with you about politicians, but I put a lot of blame on some of the church leaders, and especially some in my faith, they did not stand up and say we're not doing this. Some arrest me. It put me in jail and there have been enough personers that would have gone with him to do that. But it's, it's the hierarchy in my church is a lot of ways has gone way off real. And I don't know if they would be supportive of these kind of rights that we're supposed to have. Yeah, but in answering your comments, I will say this. We have short memories in part because we're lazy. In part because we've gotten so used to grabbing our phones and we'll look up something and we have the instant gratification and then okay, then we move on and we don't learn. We just see we let something else give us information and we say, oh, I learned that. I got it on my phone. I don't need to remember it. I can get it on my phone. We do that with politics. We do that with so many things. The only the only way we preserve this is if we understand first we have to understand the Constitution. We have to understand our rights. I mean, you did that. You brought the cases. It's a hard stance to take. It's an expensive stance to take. It's a hard, it takes a long time, but it's the Constitution is not written on your heart first. Doesn't matter where else it's written. And so we have to learn the Constitution, lift the Constitution and then we start to develop enough of a memory that we say, okay, now we're doing the whole DRA elected officials to the Constitution. Yeah. Well, thank you. Dr. Ingolson for your work and continuing this, you know, a lot of, I think older men at 86 would say they're retired and they don't need to mess with it anymore. And so I have a lot of respect for you. You know, doing this and fighting and not retiring in any sort of fashion away from what you should be doing as a good Christian. And citizen. So thank you so much for not retiring in that sense. Well, thank you, but it couldn't have been done without Todd and it couldn't have been done without Rick to, but Todd has been such an important part of this. Gig, let me tell you the he told me that if he died for instructions for his estate to finish the fight. That's the, that's the, that's the quality of this man. Amen. That's awesome. Well, thank you. It's not if I die. Yeah, that's right. That's right. You know, one of one of the vangelism tactics I use is there's two things that we all have in common in this world. We all make mistakes. We all sin and we all die. And how you answer those questions have everything to do with where you will eternally stand with God before the gates. So thank you very much. All right. Thank you. What can we do? What can we put in to see this show will be a show will be dropping on Monday. So today's Friday for those who are listening, the show will be dropping on Monday and also knew the links to the show drop. And so you can, you can tune into with everyone else. Okay. Thank you. Is it in a library that can be found except the man that Monday or other time? It'll also go into our app and it'll stay on YouTube and our other video places we put it on on X and Twitter and Facebook. Actually, I don't know if we post on Facebook anymore because they're so difficult, but X and YouTube is where it'll stay on there also so you can share the link yourself. And then it'll be on podcasts also. So I'll send you both links. I'll send you the YouTube link in the podcast link so people can listen to it audibly and video through video. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks for the opportunity, Gabe. I appreciate your reach out on the article and connecting again. Thank you. You bet. Thank you, Todd. Thank you, Dr. Engelston. We'll see you guys before I close out, folks, are you concerned your child's current education won't give them the skills necessary to succeed in any area of life? Consider homeschooling with classical conversations by applying the classical Christian model of education. The classical conversation is curriculum encourages students and how to learn and how to think for themselves so they can adapt to every challenge life throws at them. Join over 50,000 probably more than that by now 50,000 families in 60 countries who have chosen educate. Chosen to educate their children with classical conversations by visiting classical conversations. Ford slash F LF that's classical conversations.com forward slash F LF folks. Make sure you guys share the show and and make sure that we don't forget. And this is another good way not to forget is listening to shows like this reminding ourselves being able to listen to victories. This is a recent victory with Dr. Engelston's team. There's still more fights to happen there and everything but make sure you are paying attention to these kind of things and thank God and be praying for these kind of victories because there's still a battle happening. I mean, even COVID from 2020, there's still COVID battles happening. So thank you so much for tuning in. Make sure you share the show and this is one on one with the Water Boy and we'll see you next week.