Elon Musk loses out on his own Twitter poll while in Arizona, Kerry Lake's election lawsuit will proceed to trial and here in Oregon, the Battleground election integrity suit gets well under the skin of a Rhino Douglas County election clerk. Yes, all these topics and more on the next episode of The Good Fight. Please stay with us. Well, hello and welcome to another exciting episode of The Good. I am your host, Marc Thielman. That's Marc with C. C stands for Conservative. Tis the season everyone. The time for Christmas cheer, and in my home we will be celebrating the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. There are many others who might be rocking their Hanukkah or their Kwanza, or if you're a Seinfeld fan. Festivus. And for all our atheist members of the Good Fight, yes, those who believe that there is no God We wish you a happy Winter Solstice the Good Fight family is diverse. And we welcome all. So happy holidays to everyone. Now. Front and center. Is the great Elon Musk. He sends out a poll that says, Hey, kinda like, Sylvere Stallone, right? Well, let's just do a, do a survey. Let's do a poll. Okay. And, so he sent it out to all 193 million members, which as we know includes a good 50 million robots. Bots, if you will. And Sure. Not shocking. Elon Musk loses his own poll with 53.3% of respondents saying, you better step down man. Of course, that launched a huge fervor, if you will, in the Twitter world, in. paying members of Twitter. The Twitter blue, yes, you can pay for a monthly service to Twitter, you get less commercials, and a lot more service. A blue member of the great Blue Twitter. The leftist media responded immediately. They're, they're saying it's robots without supplying any evidence, which good fight. Anytime you hear that from a leftist Marxist communist, that means that robots did indeed vote in the Twitter poll. Yes, that is exactly what it means. Now, the humor of this is, Elon Musk goes, uh, it's a pretty good suggestion. You know, I think, uh, Twitter's gonna implement that policy right away. And the reason is, is that if you're a paying member of Twitter, it's kinda like being a citizen of the United States citizen confers certain privileges. One of the privileges obviously is the right to vote, at least in federal elections where non-citizens don't get the right to vote. So if you're a non-paying member of Twitter, obvious. Twitter has the right to make that. And regardless of how you feel about it, I just think it's very humorous because this is Twitter. The company that interacts with its members. And what I like about Elon Musk is he really has engaged, when he makes a unilateral decision and people call him on it, Hey, you were supposed to survey. he kicks out a survey and, when the survey came back, for example when he banned, uh, some journalists, because they had doxed his actual location. Elon said, Hey, wait a minute. If you're doxing me, that's like an assassination order to some of the crazies out there on the leftist, communist side, of course. And, so he, Ban them from Twitter. He said, your account has been suspended for doxing, which is not okay. You're actually putting people's safety in, in this case, Elon Musk's, personal safety at risk, but this shows you the magnanimous value. Of the free market of, I have ideas. Cuz naturally he got blasted by people, you know, Hey, you're a hypocrite, huh? And, sure enough, the leftist media came right out. And says, he's banning us. We've never been banned from anything. We were the ban. Now we're being banned. That's not right. And sure enough, they came up with all of the, same talking points that conservatives have been using for, months in years about why they should not be banned. And this is critical. Good fight. I want you to listen to this because it shows you the hypocrisy of the communists left, but. You understand that we are human beings and we have to look at some of the, issues that drive the behavior of people. Especially as we roll into the holidays again, and we have to engage with our loved ones on the left in our families. if you have a, members of the millennial group in your family, you're gonna need this stuff. So here's how this works. Okay? Human behavior, and I'm gonna way oversimplify. It's a mixture of things called temperament, which if you into the Myers-Briggs, there's 16 different temperaments out there that they've been pretty well able to codify. But there's also personality, right? We'll say there's four main types. There's people who are generally, predisposed to have a fear of conflict. We're gonna call them. Then there's greens people that kind of just naturally, innately, have a willingness to accept risk. And then there's the oranges of the world. I like to call'em the oranges because, you know, oranges are fun, they're fruity, they're wild. You can do a lot with them, right? you can do, Things with orange juice. You can make, you can make a little orange slices. You can even use orange slices for art, right? So the oranges of the world, they are folks who are predetermined and just generally tend to be more spontaneous, a little less organized, if you will. and they also have a, an affinity for, attention seeking and entertainment, which is why Hollywood is made up of a ton of orange personality types. Final is the great golds. Yes. if you have a need for stability out there, people, if you have a need to control and you like to be well-planned and organized, then you are a gold. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. I'm just saying that there is a disproportionate number. of gold personality types, that tend to find their ways into positions of leadership. Elon Musk, by the way, is a gold green. So Elon Musk is very much a control guy. He's very much a detailed guy, but he also has this strange pairing. He's a gold green therefore he has this high willingness to accept risk, A a K A, like buying Twitter. All that being said, there's one more aspect that's very important. There is a chart of emotional levels. Now, most human beings, the vast majority, they tend to operate within a range, and education can have effect on the range at which emotionally one operates. So you can see how complicated psychology gets because it's temperament, it's personality type, and then it's what emotional level you're at at any given moment. how you're feeling in any given moment can shape the way you interpret, stimuli or, or information that comes to you. And here's the fascinating part, when you look at the fact that this chart, it's like 16 levels, you can go all the way up to the guru level, if you will. The guru level of emotion is where you're at a place called illumination, and very few people in history ever spend the vast majority of their time at that level. Then at the very bottom is shame. That's where you are very self-loathing, if you will. You feel shame about everything, and that's kind of one of the lowest. Now, the way that psychologists rate these. Is the influence coefficient of your emotional level, paired with your personality and, your temperament, and related to whatever you're doing. The vast majority of people live in this range, and I'm gonna help you out here. Okay? it's the not the guilt. And shame level, way down low and not the, peace and illumination level, which is, you know, the enlightened level, which is way up high. No, the vast majority of people live in this area the place of, desire, if you will, which is coveting. We all want stuff and then it's, fear. Okay. And then it's anger. And then there above that is what we call, pride. Okay? we all live within that range of those four things. So the problem is pride has an effect that, you tend to become inflated. And this is where we use a word called arrogance, that if our decisions and our behaviors and our beliefs are anchored in the pride level, we will be extremely arrogant and most likely end up very thin skin. So here's how this works. A lot of people go from desire, fear and anxiety, and then they get angry because they really want something, but they're kind of afraid. But by God, they get angry. So they become antagonistic, right? Does this sound like a liberal? Here we go. Okay? And this is called inflation. And what happens when people become inflated, the world tends to smack them down a little bit, which drives them back down to the fear and the coveting. See? So they go down to fear and then they want to covet something because they don't wanna be afraid. And then they go to anger and then they go back to pride. And the vast majority of people live their life in that economic cycle Now, One exception, of course, being members of this show and members of the Good Fight family, yes, we tend to be up higher. You see, there's a place called Neutrality and Reason. Now what happens after Pride? How do you get past it? How do you get past arrogance? Well, you have to go to a place called Courage. Courage is empowerment, and that's the beauty of this show. This show is designed to empower all its listeners to grow in their personal fortitude, to get past pride, through the implementation of courage and empowerment, and get to this healthier place, which is called neutrality. Neutrality is where liberals think they act, but they do not emotionally, they do not act from neutrality because neutrality, the action emotionally is called release. where you give up judging harshly and you just start to see things as they are without a hierarchal judgment, if you will. So instead of judging, you start to discern, but you're not necessarily going. Chastises, anybody who might adhere to something that you find offensive because you say, you know, we're all members of this free market. I have ideas and it's really about an individual journey and individual rights and me charting my path. That's the power of neutrality now, all that being said, let's apply this back to Elon Musk. Elon Musk is a very, very interesting charact. You know, he even says personally that he might be on the spectrum, but when he was confronted with a poll result that he didn't like, he says this word, he goes, interesting. And then he took feedback and he said, Hmm, maybe. Maybe only paying people because paying people have skin in the game. Should be allowed to vote. Maybe we'll do another survey. Now he got immediately attacked because he's trying to walk back. How come he's not resigning? Well, hey, leftist communists. You know, you can say, Elon Musk lied all you want. He did say he would respect the. He didn't say that he would do it. The outcome says, you see, it's because he owns the company and this isn't a government, this is Twitter. So I'm just trying to help people. But this is an interesting thing because Elon's response was what I would call the reason level, which is even higher than what I purported. So people in history that delved in the reason level, Abe. Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy. Another one, that was actually a little bit higher, but spent a lot of his, public engagement at the reason level was Mahama Gandhi. So there are some people in history that were at the reason level. And the thing with the reason level that's interesting is it doesn't assign value judgements. It simply says, this is interesting. what's the solution? What would be good in the long run? How can we learn from this situation to shape a better Twitter in this case for the future? And that is the, response of Elon Musk, which makes him weird. Two most crazy communist Marxists leftists who are way down on that emotional chart, who might have a orange personality or they might be, fear of conflict kind of people, you know, they might have a worry that the government has to protect them from everything, and that causes a guy like Elon Musk to really get under their skin, which is kind of the theme of this episode. So It's kind of important that, we take this in stride and we, move ourselves up that chart, if you will, to that place of neutrality where we can release our anger and release our frustrations and begin to discern rather than judge. That being said, it actually fits very well with what happened in court yesterday. Down in Arizona where Carrie Lake is challenging the Maricopa County election. Katie Hobbs, her opponent and secretary of State of Arizona, faced off in court and her team came in and in their full arrogance, by the way, they were definitely inflated and they sounded a little bit like this, your Honor. Please, your Honor, and the is our Republicans and they're filing a suit. And what's even worse is, your Honor, I mean, come on. We understand that things happen in elections, but none of this rose to be anything of the level that it would take, to overturn the results of this election, your Honor, please. Okay. That's literally, if you watch the judge's response to a lot of the Katie, a k a, the defense's arguments. The judge was hilarious. His facial features were priceless. You see, because we do communicate with non-verbals, and I remembered getting off that, video at the end of the proceeding in which he said to Katie Hobbs, the judge, because you see, they really thought they did a good job. They literally thought, That they were going to win this dismissal because after all, your Honor, everything we do is great. That's literally literally the argument they had. And I'm sorry, never laugh at your own jokes. Good fight. That's important, but I can't help it because, this is a huge. For me, remember I've got my own election integrity lawsuit going, and I was fully expecting that I would be the first to make it to trial however, I do get a little piece of this because I did talk with Mark Finchem and who's very much, working with Kerry Lake, just prior to the filing of these suits. And what was fun was to give them suggestions and I did hear a little bit. Come out in the case. I'm not saying it was directly from me, but hey, it's Christmas season. It's Hanukkah time. I'll take it., my favorite was, they, they wove into the argument not only were people potentially disenfranchised in this case, which means they were marginalized or not allowed to vote or circumstances. Due to the actions of the government prevented them from voting, which would have an effect on the outcome of the election. That was one of the arguments. But they came up with something that I thought was so reminiscent of the conversation I'd had on the phone with Mr. Finchem for quite some time, and that is where I said it's a culture problem. that this is a systemic issue, that there is a systemic, record of culture, if you will. That that the mindset of those in the Maricopa County Elections Office, aka a and the Secretary of State's office, AKA k d Hobbs, is driven by this. Arrogance in which they judge others harshly, but do not apply those same terms to themselves. You see, and this is, what happens with arrogant people they really do good fight, think they're better than you. which is comical because if you're at the neutrality level and you've released and you're discerning, you know that everyone truly is just, as the good book says, we're all equal into the eyes of God. Kerry Lake's team brought in evidence they also did a nice job of highlighting, what the defense wasn't saying. And again, this was reminiscent of that conversation. It's called the Antinomian fallacy. I've said it on this show before in which. The left is so astute, the communist Marxist of the world, they're very skilled at saying the facts that count, least count best. So my favorite was, is they went back and cited that there, there have been errors of these, of, you know, basically the errors that happened. They, these have happened before. And, nobody said anything back then. So, you know, going back to 1878, by the way, nice job. The thing is, none of that really applies. the issue is the Katie Hobbs team, not the legal team, but the Katie, you know, secretary of State, she had made an announcement, so did Maricopa County. That everything has been done according to the law, and that they were ready for a, free and fair election and a secure election in Arizonas. And that's, another premise that was brought up in the case. And I think that this is really telling because, it only takes one or two of these to get into court, to really matter. Now, there's a downside of going into court because of the short timeline on January. the governor is supposed to relinquish power to the Governor Elect, which would be Katie Hobbs. So they're on a very short timeline, and therefore it is only a true day trial, and that was one of the defense's arguments the defense said, your Honor. They have 18 witnesses that they want to try to get through in eight hours. That's literally what they said, and the judge was like, Well, they're the plaintiffs and you know, if they think they can get through 18, everybody gets eight hours. So how's that an argument? And the judge kind of called him on that. It was a sweet and beautiful moment. So what's the outcome? I know what you're saying, mark. What's the punchline? What's the nugget? Well, the punchline is this is the judge told the Hobbs team at the end of the hearing. Well, uh, hey, I'll take your, uh, motion for dismissal under advisement. And the way he said, it was a signal that, he sees the value of, of bringing this to court so that people can feel like they might get some redress out of this. So as of this morning, it's official, it's going to trial. It's a big deal, and I cannot thank Carrie Lake enough for having the fortitude to handle the intense attacks that she's handled in order to push this issue where it needs to go in support of election integrity. God bless you, Carrie Lake. Wish you and your family a happy and merry Christmas you are now an honorary member of the Good Fight. I don't know if she knows that, but we're gonna let her know. Okay. And finally, what I have here is an email from a Mr. Daniel Loomis here in Oregon. Yes, he is the County Elections Clerk for Douglas County, and in my dealings with Mr. Loomis, he is a Republican in name only, if you will. Douglas County is a very red county, and Mr. Loomis he is a very thin. Part of this election, shall we say, integrity challenged machine here in, the mail-in State of Oregon. See, in Oregon, unlike in Arizona, in Oregon, it is illegal to vote in person. So if a county says we're gonna set up polling stations so that people can have the choice to vote in person, including early voting in person or not, that is illegal in. Illegal that the only place you can vote in person is at your county precincts, where they can set those up there. Obviously you're your county clerk's offices, if you will, so gone are the days where you can go to a precinct and have a place to vote. That just doesn't happen in Oregon. So I want people to understand that Oregon's a little different in Arizona, which still allows for in-person voting as well. so here it. a wonderful member of our lawsuit team wrote an article that got published in the Douglas County Beacon, it says, a named plaintiff in the lawsuit, Thalman versus Fagan. Which Fagan is the Secretary of State here in Oregon, which names Douglas County, as the defendant has published an article online. This is Mr. Loomis writing, by the way, which appears to present information that could be considered prejudicial or unfavorable. Now that is a committed statement. The article is called Fight for Fair Elections by Terry Noon. Kester. And she says December 16th is the deadline for county commissioners to choose to represent their constituents concerned about election integrity by responding to a lawsuit. This suit names the defendants as the Secretary of State Shamia Fagan in her official capacity, and 12 Oregon counties of Clackamas, Washington Molt, Noma Lane, Lynn Marion Jackson Deschutes, yam Hill, Douglas Klamath, and COOs. commissioners of defendant counties must respond to the lawsuit in one of two ways. One, they can answer it. Which will allow the suit to go forward to trial, by the way, or with a motion to dismiss. They just live this in Arizona. That allows the judge to dismiss any particular county from the suit. The answer option would give election integrity proponents, and opportunity to prove that there are serious problems with the election system in Oregon. And Mr. Lumis writes, I know what you're thinking. Like, well, what was wrong with that? That's kind of how it works. Nope. Mr. Loomis writes, oh, please. County council would be the one to answer and likely represent Douglas County in matters of lawsuit. Now, I don't know if most people and members of the good fight, I obviously, you know, we tend to be, from a different cut of cloth, but you see the county commissioners run the county. And if you're going to Suey County, generally you would name the county commissioners as defendants, and then the county commissioners would then hand over the complaint, in this case, their copy of the lawsuit that they were served with to their team of attorneys called County Council. But County Council. Does not tell the commissioners how to answer or whether or not to answer or dismiss. County council can make recommendations, but ultimately the county commissioners have to decide to either, direct the county council to answer or direct the county council. To, dismiss. But you see things are so corrupt that the county commissioners don't really run the County, county Council does. And Mr. Loomis just gave us a nice window into that by saying, county Council in Bold County Council will be the one to answer and likely represent Douglas County in matters of lawsuit. And this is my part, by the way. I'm going to introduce it. You morons please. And that's what's very humorous. Mr. Loomis has just let all of us members of the good fight know that our county commissioners ain't really running the county. Uh, Ms. Newton Kester goes on to say the lawsuit, the Oman versus Fagan was started by Mark Thalman. Thank you very much. That's Mark with asis. He stands for Conservative, an Oregon gubernatorial candidate in the 2020 primary election filed by Stephen j Jonas. Attorney for the plaintiffs. The suit can be viewed online at the Battleground, Oregon. Other high profile plaintiffs are Ben Etle, Janice Dysinger, Don Powers, and Senator Dennis Litum. It's a beautiful thing, and here's what Mr. Loomis writes. The And Tel The and Tel Edel and Thieman, Thieman and Tel are defeated. 2022 Oregon candidates and dicing and powers are co-chairs of the Election Integrity Committee for the Oregon Republican Party. To my knowledge, none have served as elect or Oregon election officials at the state or county level. Well, first of all, Mr. Loomis. What the hell you can you help make this lawsuit any better? I mean, what you just basically said is that Thorman and Edel are losers and they just won't, they're deniers of their own election. And then you talk about Janice Dinger, who has been a county election official for years in Multnomah County, and she works for in every election in the last 20 some odd years. but you wouldn't know that. So to your knowledge, my superior knowledge, no one has ever worked well. And then Don Powers has done, national work in election integrity and government data and a whole bunch of other things. So, you know, he's an expert in and of himself, but my favorite. Senator Dennis Litum, who's a Republican. Oh my. Basically he's saying, unless you're an expert of which Mr. Loomis is professing himself to be, you have no standing to even allege that there could be something wrong. So what he's saying is, Judge the source. They're not a qualified source. I'm a qualified source, so only things I say can be true. Nothing that anyone else thinks or does can be true ever. And it gets better. Good fight. So here is a great one. It says now a class action lawsuit. Disenfranchised Oregon residents can join the lawsuit by requesting and filling out a declaration form through this contact link, which they provided. The plaintiffs are not asking the court for money other than for legal fees and expenses, but are asking the court to declare a number of election practices and laws as unconstitutional. So, Mr. Loomis write. The author has used the word deuce franchised, which by definition primarily means depriving someone of the right to vote. Now I'm gonna stop there. Good fight. Because Mr. Loomis is trying to cite the use of the word paci. Of course, as a verb, which would be an example of being disenfranchised would be if you were denied your right to vote, you would be disenfranchised from your vote. That's true. but the general definition, since it is not defined in Black's law dictionary, the general definition must be moved forward. And Marion Webster. Defines disenfranchised a little bit differently. Okay? it is a definition that allows for a little bit more, shall we say, diversity. in which disenfranchised means denied access or the right. Of privilege or immunity. So it's to being denied some right privilege or immunity. Okay? For example, especially deprived of the right to vote, deprived of the right to access a service or a benefit or even better. As in the Kerry Lakes legal defense team, your Honor, these are Republicans, I mean, do they're soy clause, you can't possibly listen to them, which is called a marginalization. Yes. Even marginalized members, such as the election integrity community can be disenfranchised and marginalized. For example, the inability of people to vote in person in Oregon. Is a form of disenfranchisement. If they feel strongly that the best way for them to express their right to vote is in person, so that the people know exactly who they are, and then they can, they can cast their vote and if they need help, they can get assistance if you will. Yes, disenfranchisement can have a lot of variety of means, but as the way Mr. Loo. He says primarily means depriving someone of the right to vote. And then he writes, since the O M V Act, Oregon Motor Voter Act of 2016, voter registration in Douglas County has increased by 26%. Now, for those who don't know, Mr. Loomis is saying that if there's more people registered to vote, even if they don't exist, or even if they're dead, or even better, everyone under Oregon's, motor Voter Act. If you go to get an ID card or a driver's license, you are automatically registered to vote starting at the age of 16. so this is fascinating. Can't vote by the way, till you're 18, but they register you and they let you know so that you roll onto the rules when you turn 18 on your birthday. So he says that now that that Douglas County has increased voter registration, so we haven't disenfranchised anybody. The the issue is, is a lot of people don't even know they're registered. And if you're automatically registering everyone, he's saying that that means that, no one's disenfranchised from voting, and that's fascinating. You see, you, you can register a hundred percent of the population. but if you have no security and no chains of custody, and you start manipulating the outcomes of votes because the opportunities for fraud are so rife in your, poorly conceived system of voting that you've set up, so this is the antinomian fallacy. The facts which count least count best, the fact that counts least at an Oregon, or least in Douglas County, 98%. He says 18 year olds on older are registered disenfranchised, he says, in quotes, does not accurately describe Douglas County voters. Well, there's another form of disenfranchisement. Mr. Loomis, you moron. And I will now say this, Mr. Loomis. Let me help you. I appreciate your reasoning, but the point is you can register 98% of people, but if their votes aren't counted fairly or people can vote seven days after the election or even better, they have no way of knowing for sure that their vote was. Uh, counted or that the value of that vote wasn't watered down. That that psychological, concern is a form of disenfranchisement and it, it undermines confidence that people have in the system. So the very fact of registering 98% of everybody, can actually undermine. The, confidence that reasonable common sense thinking people have in the vote. So this is where he is mistaken. Now, he goes on to say, and here's the punchline., it says here, it doesn't describe Douglas County cuz 98% of people are registered and then he writes the lawsuit outcome in her declaration forms will not change. The fact that nearly 98% of eligible Douglas County citizens registered, which is 87,620 voters, still will account for 2.9% of Oregon voters. So what he's saying is, why are you suing me? I mean, we don't even matter. Our whole county is only 2.9%. Well, the reason that you're included, Mr. Loomis, is because the data coming out of Douglas County says that you are part of a corrupt system, and it gets even better. Mr. Loomis, what you've just done is told people. That if you, unless you're in the high population areas of a state, like you know, Maricopa County in Arizona or in the case of Oregon, molten Noah County or Washington County, or Lane County here in Oregon, you don't matter. Nice job, Mr. Disenfranchised. Anyway, I can go on and on and there's so many juicy things. I think the last thing I'll share is, in response to, uh, in Oregon what was called House bill 26 81, which prohibits removing registered voters from the voter roll for not voting for any period of time. In other words, if you die, you will be on the voter rolls 40 years from now. And what's we're finding as we prepare for this lawsuit is a lot of dead people are voting in Oregon. Now, Mr. Loomis would say only a few dead people end up voting, and that's only because their ballot gets mailed out and their loved ones filling out for them. But please, it doesn't affect the outcome. Look, if a single dead person votes good fight, you have just watered down and devalued the voting of the living., but here's how Mr. Loomis spins this. He says that this bill, which allows people to stay on the roll forever, unless you're gonna love this, unless the family can prove that the person is dead. If you die, you stay on the voter rolls unless your descendants, those to who you leave behind, right? Your loved ones that are still living, then the burden is on them to get you kicked off. So this is a genius. Yes, I know, I know. Don't even go there. Good fight. After all. This is Oregon where we're the one state in the union where common sense has been declared a terrorist. Okay. The, the use of common sense is now a threat to democracy here in Oregon. But anyway, HB 2061, Mr. Loomis writes. HB 2061 brought 930 inactive names back onto Douglas County roll. So he's saying about a thousand people came back on the roll as a result of this law, which the vast majority of those quickly dropped back off through attrition mail returned undeliverable. So in other words, they moved outta state or they died. but you're gonna love this. Many of these activation notices triggered family members and others to respond to us presenting evidence that the voter had died or moved outta state. Now here's the thing, Mr. Loomis, why is it suddenly the, the problem of families to prove that someone is dead and doesn't vote? You know, an easier way to do this, you have in-person voting, so if someone dies, they don't show up to. And therefore, you don't need to burden whole families with this horse manure, and you don't end up adding 930 inactive people back on, which becomes someone else's problem. Mr. Loomis, thank you for proving the whole point of this lawsuit. You are doing a beautiful job, by the way. He goes on to say, despite noon, kesters concerns. If not for the passage of 26 81, these voter registrants might not have been properly updated from inactive. Too active. Now here's the part, good fight. This guy struggles with common sense and reasoning because if there were 931 people that were off the voter rolls and then you pass a law and 931 people get arbitrarily put back on, he's saying that, and I quote, if not for the passage, the voter registrations might not have been properly updated from inactive to canceled status. But they were already canceled Mr. Loomis, because they weren't on the voter rolls. I. when thin-skinned rhino, part of the problem, people really believe that, that this lawsuit is about them. That our county shouldn't be included because we're only 2.9%. How dare you include us. We don't matter. I mean, look, I'm not a resident of Douglas County, but residents of Douglas County. Please know that your host Mark Thieman. That's Mark with a C. Yes. Mark Thieman says, Next election when this guy comes up, vote this guy out and get yourself a real county clerk. Someone who has some common sense. So God bless. Now listen, I'm gonna round it up there. I do want to thank our sponsor, battleground, Oregon, for, uh, promoting this lawsuit. Deadline has been extended for counties to answer to January 6th and, there's about 21 days there in which we, yes, your host will have an opportunity to respond to the state's, motion to dismiss. As of, yesterday, all counties will be moving to dismiss, which shows you things are really messed up in Oregon because, it is a gloriously scary thing that not a single conservative county, many of whom were named, would step out and say, no, we're gonna answer this. Think that there's value of going to trial. Now, that did happen in in Arizona and in Arizona. The judge said that, look, there's value in sending this to trial. Let's give people their redress people, their redress in a court of law is a fundamental. Foundational aspect of our wonderful constitutional republic. And it is something that here in Oregon is routinely denied. people are routinely denied redress because, a trial might expose, the, nefarious., behavior of said actors who are in positions of power here in Oregon. Now, I'm gonna be optimistic because I never fight, to lose. I always fight to win. And we here in the good fight. We'll be back in next week with another exciting episode and more updates. God bless. Thank you people.