Jack Driscoll

@casarek63879 @JamesOKeefeIII Anyone can look at your profile and see you only reply to tweets to argue. you don't even post if its not to reply to someone else

@casarek63879 @JamesOKeefeIII you replied to me dude. Please keep replying to prove you are a rage baiting internet troll

UPDATE: Just got out of court in Miami. The Judge extended the temporary restraining order until May 11th. There will be a ruling then. The court is now asking me to surrender my firearms. See documents below. We are filing an emergency interlocutory appeal today. Prior restraint against a newsroom is unconstitutional. Near v Minnesota. NYT v United States. This is a violation of our 1st and 2nd amendment rights. We are filing an anti-SLAAP, seeking attorneys fees and will appeal all the way, if necessary. The TRO is also based upon third party’s comments, not our reporting. Thats a “hecklers veto,” where the government suppresses or restricts news reporting because of the reaction of an audience. This is regarding our reporting on Matt Tyrmand. We published a tape of him threatening to kill me. He shot up an image of me on the front of my book with a rifle bullet through my heart. He bragged about being a SDNY informant. Comments were angry at him. He just brought a “domestic violence stalking” Restraining order afterwards in Miami family court against my news organization, and the local Judge signed off. This is an extraordinary series of events. This is not an April Fools joke.

@PoohWasRight @JamesOKeefeIII WRONG

@jack29er @JamesOKeefeIII Yes, forget google, just assume you understand the nuance of law with nothing to back you up. You’re wrong. At the state and fed level an injunction connected with domestic violence requires someone to had over their firearms.

@PoohWasRight @JamesOKeefeIII you can keep saying that but you are wrong. Sorry you think google makes you a legal scholar

@jack29er @JamesOKeefeIII Nope, it’s automatic procedure. In case unrelated to domestic violence it’s up to the judge. But you’re stuck on stupid. I’ll mute you now. You are wildly wrong and will never admit it or seek the truth.

Your Tesla has a 60 GHz RADAR pointed at your face. Not for driving or autopilot. For "cabin monitoring" Texas Instruments IWR6843AOP chip. 60-64 GHz millimeter wave. mounted above the rearview mirror. beaming down into the cabin. Detecting your breathing, your heart rate, whether a child is in the back seat. Sounds helpful until you understand what 60 GHz millimeter waves actually do to biology. 60 GHz penetrates roughly 0.4 mm into skin. shallow enough for the industry to call "safe" But your skin is the largest organ in your body. packed with Nerve endings, Merkel cells, melanocytes. Soviet-era research documented non-thermal biological effects of mmWaves at low power densities.. effects the FCC has never evaluated. and nobody has studied what happens when this signal runs continuously for 10-hour drives, week after week, year after year. This cabin RADAR was installed in late 2021 but never activated. Left dormant for over 3 years. February 2025, software update 2025.2.6 quietly turned it on. no opt-out or announcement. just switched on. and it doesn't turn off. it runs while you drive. while you're parked. while you're charging. while your kids sit in the back seat on a 10-hour road trip. continuous millimeter wave exposure at close range.. 0.4 to 2 meters from your body. That's not a cell tower 200 meters away. that's a RADAR transmitter inside a sealed metal box with you. a Faraday cage works both ways. the metal body of the car that blocks outside signals also TRAPS the ones generated inside. every RF source in that cabin bounces off the roof, the doors, the floor.. back into you. and the cabin RADAR is just one layer. a Tesla Model S Plaid has 46 antennas. — LTE cellular: 700-2600 MHz, 2x2 MIMO, always on — WiFi: 2.4 + 5 GHz, dual band — Bluetooth: 2.4 GHz, always scanning for your phone key — UWB ultra-wideband: 6-8 GHz, phone-as-key — GPS: 1.2-1.6 GHz — Satellite radio: 2.3 GHz — Cabin RADAR: 60-64 GHz LTE, Bluetooth and cabin RADAR are essentially ALWAYS transmitting. A 2025 study on the Tesla Model Y took 952 EMF measurements across SuperCharging, standard charging, high-speed driving, urban and idle states. They found: 1/ Peak ELF emissions during SuperCharging, especially near center console and rear seats 2/RF hotspots from LTE, WiFi, Bluetooth in the sub-6 GHz range 3/ Body voltage INCREASED during SuperCharging and high-speed driving 4/ EMF varied dramatically depending on where you sit in the cabin FCC safety limits are from 1996. Based on animal studies measuring only THERMAL effects for less than 1 hour. no non-thermal biological effects considered. no study has EVER examined chronic simultaneous exposure to ELF + LTE + WiFi + Bluetooth + 60 GHz mmWave + UWB in a sealed metal cabin. NOT ONCE. In 2021, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the FCC's refusal to update these limits was "arbitrary and capricious." they still haven't changed them. Martin Pall's model calculates that VGCCs amplify EMF forces by 7.2 million times at the cellular level. that calcium flooding triggers peroxynitrite formation, PARP activation, NAD+ depletion.. your repair machinery eating itself. You're sitting in a metal box with 40+ antennas, a millimeter-wave RADAR pointed at your chest and AC magnetic fields from a battery pack under your seat pulling hundreds of kilowatts during charging. and the safety standard says it's fine because your skin didn't get warm. Diabolical.

@casarek63879 @JamesOKeefeIII Oh is there a medication for being right?

@jack29er @JamesOKeefeIII Get some meds lmao

I read all of them and can confirm that it is up to the judge when issuing an ex parte TRO (yes even domestic violence), whether or not to include a surrender provision. Then AFTER A FINAL JUDGMENT OF INJUNCTION (IN MAY) If the Restraining order is upheld the surrender become mandatory.

@PoohWasRight @JamesOKeefeIII I literally posted all the laws. Read them. I am not wrong. If you are going to come into a chat you are not tagged in and "correct" someone, at least come with the facts. Not some sad excuse about "I googled it".

@PoohWasRight @JamesOKeefeIII F.S. §790.233 and 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8) are the federal and state laws you are talking about and only come into effect AFTER FINAL JUDGEMENT of injunction.

@PoohWasRight @JamesOKeefeIII Wrong. only after FINAL JUDGMENT. which has not been rendered yet. You can read F.S. §741.30 it is completely up to the judge in this case. If James loses in May AFTER final judgement it is mandatory.

@casarek63879 @JamesOKeefeIII you come to some random tweet that doesn't tag you, doesn't have anything to do with you, and decide to argue about it. Somehow that's my fault? Scroll on and stop raging

@casarek63879 @JamesOKeefeIII oh man I got egg on my face. headed home to cry

Put the 2026 New York Times story together with the 2023 James O’Keefe investigation, and then overlay the 2024 Texas AG investigation and criminal referral, and there’s not just smoke -or fire- there’s an inferno ablaze. New York Times Reports the Primary Fundraising Mechanism of Democrats Willfully Accepted Foreign Donations theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/04/0…

@PoohWasRight @JamesOKeefeIII The Florida law the TRO was filed under is F.S. §741.30, which leaves a surrender provision up to the judge. James did not include the original March 26th injunction. The documents he posted do NOT ask him to surrender anything.

@PoohWasRight @JamesOKeefeIII yes, as I have said a few times now its sites 18 USC 922 which does not come into effect AFTER final judgment.

Thanks! Yeah I totally get that. But in Florida it is up to the judge to include a surrender provision and without a copy of the March 26th injunction we don't know if it was. Currently the documents James posted do not ask him to surrender his weapons. It would be great if he included that original injunction. Maybe thats what he means when he says "the court is now asking me to surrender my firearms". But when he said "see documents below" those documents do not support the claim.

@jack29er @JamesOKeefeIII Hi! As someone who went through this exact experience, restraining order filed ex parte, it’s pretty much automatic the Judge will award the petitioner a TRO, with means you have to turn in all weapons registered to you.

I just got off the phone with someone who works in defense policy in Washington. What they told me should end every "Trump is reckless" argument permanently. "Every single president since Clinton received the same intelligence briefing on Iran's nuclear timeline. Every single one was told the window was closing. Every single one chose to kick it down the road because the political cost of acting was higher than the political cost of waiting." Trump got the same briefing. 60kg of 90% enriched uranium. 4 weeks to breakout. Material for 2 bombs. He chose to act knowing it would tank his approval to 35%. He chose to act knowing his own base would split. He chose to act knowing NATO allies would refuse to help. He chose to act knowing gas prices would spike. A senior analyst I know at a major think tank put it this way: "The difference between Trump and every president before him isn't intelligence. They all had the same data. The difference is courage." Read that again. Every president had the same file on their desk. Only one opened it and did something. I'll keep you updated. Turn on notifications. 🚨

𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐁 ’𝐄𝐌” 𝐎𝐔𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝟔𝟎 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐅𝐋𝐀𝐓 A woman on the Whatever Podcast just did what ten years of conservative pundits couldn’t — she buried the Trump “grab ’em” talking point with one question: “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The liberal girl across from her brought up the 2016 tape as proof Trump is unfit. Rachel Wilson didn’t flinch. She corrected the record first: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘣 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” Then she asked the only question that matters — “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The other woman’s response? “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨.” Not “it’s false.” Not “here’s why he’s incorrect.” Just — it’s a bad 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭. Wilson pressed: “𝘛𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦.” Then she went deeper than any talking head ever has on this subject. “𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺, 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴.” The liberal’s last stand: “𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘬𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” Translation — she couldn’t argue the facts, so she went to 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. Wilson’s answer shut it down completely: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩.” This is why the “grab ’em” tape lost its power. Not because people stopped caring about how things sound. Because a generation of women grew up, looked at the actual statement, and realized — it’s observationally accurate. The Women’s March was built on pretending Trump described assault. He described 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. And when a woman says that out loud on camera, the entire moral framework collapses. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡.

March Jobs Report Triples Expectations - 178,000 Net Jobs Gained theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/04/0…

The "split" is connected to the regional location and travel of the illegal alien influx. South and West states enforcing immigration law have housing inventory. Meanwhile, as the alien population seeks refuge in the Midwest and Northeast region, housing inventory is tight.