🌟 Internet Famous Viva & Barnes - Balldowasher, delusional "constitutionialst", the "confession through projection" guy who accuses people denouncing child abuse of paedophilia.

  • Want to keep track of this thread? Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading. Create account
6MillionCoofs said:
To be fair, he is very smart.
Click to expand...
The Doom Slayer said:
Seems like he's recovered at this point.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be too sure about that! :sighduck:
Screenshot_20250131_213032_Brave.jpg

(https://ghostarchive.org/archive/28b7K)

Straight from sweeping for one sex pest to sweeping for another one!
 
"That was 10 years ago"
Click to expand...
Do you ever notice how abusers like to distance themselves from allegations and criticism by saying it happened a long time ago, as if to suggest it's unfair to hold them accountable for it now? It's just a classic minimising tactic and cliché. Nobody should fall for it.
My main chick helps me pimp the second girl
Click to expand...
The first rule and he broke it. That's some mispimp'n right there.
 
stares at error messages said:
Do you ever notice how abusers like to distance themselves from allegations and criticism by saying it happened a long time ago, as if to suggest it's unfair to hold them accountable for it now?
Click to expand...
And it's never "and I've learned a lot since I made those mistakes, which I deeply regret, and I hope I've become a better person."

It's just oh that was a long time ago, never mind I'm an absolutely worthless piece of shit who has done exactly the same thing over and over since then and still do it today.
Sprate Header said:
Straight from sweeping for one sex pest to sweeping for another one!
Click to expand...
Lmao @ Boss Baby looking motherfucker Barnes wearing a newsboy cap, the fat faggot with bitch tits fashion choice du jour.
 
Last edited:
Here's Viva sweeping for child rapist and sex trafficker Andrew Tate's defamation lawsuit against his critics:
Screenshot_20250322_135936_Brave.jpgScreenshot_20250322_135956_Brave.jpgScreenshot_20250322_140018_Brave.jpg
(https://archive.ph/fN9xW)

Whoever it was that said they wanted to do a full rewrite of this thread, I'm looking forward to it. This retarded kike and his fatass cohost need to be raked over the coals.
 
Capture.JPG
I assume he'll be saying the same thing to his buttbuddy Nick Rekieta given his repeated definitive statements, and continued insistence despite zero evidence, that Monty likes to suck little boy dicks, right?
 
Third World Aristocrat said:
I think Barnes main strategy is attacking people, not arguments.
I made a video with a compilation about this:

Robert Barnes: The best defense is a "good" offense ​

/data/video/6467/6467162-e0a00e9d53dda169cdbe8fafb287e05e.mp4
Click to expand...
After watching some of their content, it looks like Barnes is a lot sloppier than her first appears. I think most of what he does is just a confidence trick. All he talks about in his show with Viva is really just spin and he clearly doesn't research as much as he pretends to.
 
Viva and Barnes take on the Tim Pool self defense argument over the recent case of Austin Metcalf being murdered at a track competition by a nigger.

  • 4:15 - Robert defends Give Send Go keeping their legal fundraiser up
  • 4:50 - General self defense law
  • 5:30 - Robert says "there's probably a lot more to this story," saying we don't have all the facts in this case.
  • 6:30 - You have to believe you're in danger for your life to respond with lethal force
  • 7:20 - Barnes brings up, for the millionth time, the idea O.J. Simpson might really be innocent 🙄
  • 7:40 - Barnes starts talking about defending Michael Strickland (Laughing at Liberals)
  • 8:50 - Again, Robert says there's probably a backstory between these kids that's not being told to the public
  • 9:30 - In some jurisdictions, provocation is an exception to self defense laws. If you provoke someone, to fight you might not have a right to self defense
  • 9:50 - Barnes argues: "'Touch me and see what happens' is not provocation" but an "announcement"
  • ~10min - If there is no backstory and they were just trying to remove him from the tent, he has no right of self defense justification
  • 12:00 - Barnes claims some of the rush from the right to condemn the kid is because he's a nigger
  • 12:10 - Brings up the Nikita Casap case for some bizarre reason?
I personally do think it's good that Give Send Go is allowing a legal defense fund for the nigger. That's the right thing to do / innocence until proven guilty. All his lawyers basically just get free money from all the other dumb niggers who donate cause he's going to fucking lose that case.

I also think the media coverage is intentional psyop bullshit, something Barnes will never address. Remember how the Fentanyl Floyd body cam videos were withheld for months? Police are not releasing video here either. It feels like a mirror of that case. There are people in these big media companies and in Washington waiting for a perfect story like this to pop up. They order all their subsidiaries to run with because it furthers racial tension in the US.
 
iheartjosh said:
Barnes and Viva coping about how they were right actually.
Click to expand...

oh course, Barnes is going to start off insulting other Internet lawyers. "I don't know how he can't read a sentencing document..." 🙄 In the following clip, MakingLawSimple mentions (1:15) how Minnesota orders are weird compared to other states he has worked in (other states mention deferral conditions specifically/explicitly).

Then Viva straw mans the entire thing. No actual lawyers were predicting months/years in jail. Almost all the other response videos were surprised there was any jail time at all; and most mention it will probably all be deferred if he doesn't fuck up his probation.

Barnes talks about schadenfreude and accuses some people of hating Rekieta for "personal profit" and .. "treason" ?! I dunno Barnes, could it be that Rekieta was unremorseful for his daughter testing positive for large amounts of metabolized cocaine?

They make nothing but insane straw man arguments that no one was making except sensational meme junkies like King Casino. He's still talking about how the allegations in the case weren't true, even after Nick pleads guilty! Then he tries quoting the Bible and can't remember the "Whoever has no sin, cast the first stone," verse, fucks it up, and then jumps to the "rod in one's eye" verse. He brings up "constitutional issues," even though none of the evidence was thrown out and none of the hearings had a judge rule on any constitutional issues.

"Kids are dirty, kids are hungry," "That's the reality of the world." What?!

Barnes claims the allegations that lead to the wellness check were several degrees of hearsay. What is he baseing this on? As far as I've heard, none of those specifics have even been released. They're basically just making all kinds of shit up at this point.

"I was right, on this one," ... no you weren't Barnes.

I remember even trying to lookup some of the things he's mentioned in years past like "Equitable Entitlements" when referring to DACA and the Emancipation Proclamation ("Equitable entitlements" is not a real legal term I can find in any law dictionary). He's also talked about the "constitutional requirement of colloquium" in regards to defamation cases, specifically with Alex Jones. That's also another term that I can't find in any legal papers anywhere. The most important case in defimation seems to be around the "actual maliace" test.

This clip reminds me of everything I hate about Viva and Barnes. Barnes can never admit when he's wrong. He makes up new legal theory all the time. He's just a fucking liar and general fat sack of shit.
 
Cybrwind said:
Who is worse Barnes or Viva?
Viva likes to "play it safe" but has had some pretty awful takes of his own.
Click to expand...
I've lost most of my respect for both, but I think I'm more disappointed with Viva.

Barnes, to his credit, wears his slimy, pugnacious nature on his sleeves. I don't think I've seen him pretend to be a humble, upstanding family guy. He's a bulldog of a lawyer who clings onto his lucky breaks, but I do believe he follows the beat of his own drum and will own his hot-takes.

Viva, on the other hand, looked more principled and genuine. But what appeared genuine just turned out to be meek passivity. He appears to just follow along with whatever his buddy Barnes is saying, never pushing back and even feeding into their purposeful ignorance. This is someone who seems legitimately scared to stand on anything unless daddy Barnes tells him to, and once he gets the OK, he'll be as self-assured as a coward who thinks he's in no risk of danger.

I'll respect a smug jerk on his own over a lackey who can't stand on their own feet.
 
Last edited:
I think Barnes has permanently broke Viva. Barnes is always going on and on about random psy-ops and grifters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom