My legal theories which are mine, by John Eastman, Esq.

My theory is this: Suppose you were accused of “assault” and “criminal trespass” and “malicious destruction of property” and a bunch of stuff like that because you broke into your neighbor’s house, and chased him around while trying to beat him to death with a baseball bat, although you only managed to wreck a lot of his furniture and stuff, because he was very fast and agile.

Now ON THE SURFACE those look like bad facts for you. But — stay with me here — what if THINGS AREN’T WHAT THEY SEEM? I mean have you even thought about that possibility?

What if your neighbor wasn’t really Jimmy the guy who does something in that government office downtown and coaches the Little League team, but Zortan, captain of an alien invasion from the Andromeda galaxy? Now of course you’re going to say that’s crazy, because the mainstream media calls the claim that Jimmy is actually Zortan “the Big Lie” about Jimmy.

But what if it were true? What if the real big lie is that the big lie isn’t a lie at all, but the truth?

Now what if you were to keep saying, over and over again, that there was copious evidence that it was true? I’m talking about a lot of evidence. Troubling, multi-faceted, much cited by Dinesh D’Souza in a not at all insane new documentary about the hidden truth about Zortan aka Jimmy evidence?

Wouldn’t that change everything?

Also too, if every dispute is really litigation, then everything a lawyer ever says to anyone who is fighting with somebody else about something is protected by attorney-client privilege, especially when you remember that the whole criming exception to that privilege doesn’t apply here because, again, Jimmy = Zortan.

When people tell you that somebody is crazy, remember: that’s what they said about Galileo.