115. Davis Younts and Jessica Budge
===

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: [00:00:00] That's one of the things that was so scary. And that's why cases like Brandon's where the level of coercion he met with is just appalling. I mean, why would you do that? Why would you prevent him from, from taking leave to go less than three hours away to be at the hospital? For his child to be born when the civilian hospital isn't even going to ask if he's vaccinated.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Doesn't dinner sound great as it's cooking? This dinner is from Riverbend Ranch, which always provides prime or high choice. has never been given hormones, never been given antibiotics, never been given mRNA vaccines. It's raised in the USA. It's processed in the USA. In fact, it's fully vertically integrated, which means that they own the cow.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: It gives birth to the calf. It's raised on their fields and then taken to their butcher and then shipped to you. And if we compare What we can buy from Riverbend [00:01:00] Ranch to four other major state companies that sell bundles that have ribeyes and other meat in it. It can be as much as 184 to 59 less expensive.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: It's a great price value and it's a delicious piece of meat. Check out MyCleanBeef. com slash after hours. That's MyCleanBeef. com slash after hours. MyCleanBeef. com slash after hours.

Nurse Kelly: Welcome to After Hours with Dr. Sigoloff. On this podcast, you will be encouraged to question everything.

Nurse Kelly: And to have the courage to stand for the truth.[00:02:00]

Nurse Kelly: And now, to your host, Dr. Sigoloff.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Alright, well thank you for joining us again. I first want to give a shout out to my Patreon supporters. We have Too Tough giving 30 a month. We have an anonymous family donor giving 20. 20 a month. We have the Plandemic Reprimando level at 17. 76 a month with Ty, Charles, Stinfoil, Charles, Tinfoil, Stanley, Dr.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Anna, Frank, Brian, Shell, Brantley, and Gary. We have a self made 10 level with Kevin and Patton Bev. We have the Refined Not Allowed. Refined, not burned, level at 5 a month with Linda, Emmy, Joe, PJ, Rebecca, Marcus, Elizabeth, Dawn, Ken, Rick, Mary, and Amanda. Addison Mulder is giving 3 a month, and Frank is giving 1.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: 50 a month. The Courage is Contagious level at 1 a month with Jay, SpessNasty, Darrell, Susan, BB King, and [00:03:00] Caleb. And don't forget to check out MyCleanBeef. com slash After Hours. That's MyCleanBeef. com slash After Hours for some of the best steaks that you've ever had. My next guest is a representative of who we're going to be talking about today and his wife.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Uh, the man that I would like to have on, he's not able to speak because he's currently under investigation for some issues. Uh, we have Davis Yountz on today. He's a lawyer who will be representing Brandon. And we have Jessica Brandins.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Davis has been on here before. Davis, please tell us what's going on. And thank you so much for coming back on with us.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Yeah, always, always great to be here. So this, this is a story that, unfortunately for those that are new to it is sort of a long and sad story. So what I'm going to do is just kind of kind of try to hit the high level.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: And then we can get into the nuances of what has happened to Brandon budge. But the big picture is this, uh, Brandon is a warrant officer in the United States army. He served his country with. He has an [00:04:00] absolutely impeccable record. He's done everything that the army's ever asked him to do with excellence up until the point of COVID.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: And just like we have all seen those of us that, that experienced it, um, he faced tremendous pressure to receive this vaccine. He had very specific conscience based, excuse me, and medical concerns with regard to receiving this vaccine. And because of his rank. He he was subjected to tremendous pressure for it.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: At the end, he was one of the clear examples of someone who was given so much pressure. He had to make a choice. There were issues with him being allowed to leave Korea. But more importantly, there was an issue with regard to him being able to be in the hospital. With his wife, Jessica, for the birth of their child.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Um, they were not even going to let him into the hospital until he received, um, the vaccine. So what happened in his case all begins there because everything else that has happened from the point where he was hesitant to receive the vaccine has been a [00:05:00] reprisal and reprimand coming after him. With false allegations of things to try to ruin his career because there was so much bitterness over what happened.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: So to make a long story short, they trumped up an investigation into his activity. They accused him of falsifying a vaccine card at one point, even though he had already. Received the vaccine from from a Walgreens, I think just a pharmacy off base and done that in order to be with his wife when his child was being born with.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: They started this fake investigation. He received a general officer memorandum of reprimand, but ultimately, then they even went further and tried to take away his ability to fly. They tried to take away his wings at a flying evaluation board. At that point, he was represented by a very good attorney, a man named Matt Berry, um, who I've worked with in other cases.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: He's a West Point grad and does military justice work. Um, Matt Berry represented him at the Flying Evaluation Board. At that board, he was cleared of all misconduct. So this investigation was fully looked into. It's the first time he got any kind of [00:06:00] due process. He was completely cleared of misconduct at that board.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: I became concerned about this case and got a little more involved when we found out that despite the fact that he was cleared of any misconduct, there were still trying to take, there were those in the chain of command that were still trying to take his wings away. And again, this was simply because he had been vocal about his vaccine hesitancy to the chain of command.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: That was it. So, so then he's clear of all misconduct the first time he gets due process at this board, and they still tried to take his wings. It was only because of some public pressure that was put out there. So Jessica has played a role in this, and as you have learned, Sam, and as you know, sometimes The only weapon we have sometimes is to draw attention to the darkness, draw attention to what's happening.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: So Jessica did that. She spoke out publicly about what they were trying to do, and then they tried to punish Brandon for that again. They tried to come after him again. They threatened him again. So where we're at now is this. We are in a situation where, um, I have, I have worked with him in a limited capacity to try to.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Fix his records [00:07:00] to try to get the Army to remove the general officer memorandum of reprimand so that we can repair his career and get him back to the appropriate status that he was in before all of this reprisal and these trumped up investigations. But one of the issues is, um, they're now seeking to hire an attorney that specializes with Freedom of Information Act cases and is prepared to bring federal litigation because.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: At this point, the army is not complying with the freedom of information act to release all the documents about his case that we believe would ultimately show that there is, and there was ongoing reprisal. So that's, uh, that's a lot of information. I know, um, that's, that is a quick summary of what's happened, but the critical piece, I think everyone wants to understand and what we want to draw attention to and shine the light on is the fact that this is all about a senior, uh, chief foreign officer.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Who was vaccine hesitant. And since then they have made his it made him extremely difficult for him to continue on his career. But yet every day he [00:08:00] is serving to the best of his ability. Um, and so that that's who Brandon is. And that's why Jessica and I are here to talk to you,

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Jessica. Tell me what it was like when you first heard that that your husband, the father of your child may not be able to be present because he didn't get some experimental thing injected into his body.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I can't imagine what that's like. Yeah. Yeah,

Jessica Budge: it was really scary is what it was. I had never gone through the birth of a child without my husband before. So that was going to be a whole new experience for me. And I just couldn't believe that it was going to be taken away because of his not have a vaccine, you know,

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: and were you seen on post? Are you seeing off post

Jessica Budge: off post? I live about 3 hours away from Mhm.

Jessica Budge: Post

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: off post was pushing this man. That's insane. So is the military saying we won't give you give him the leave to go [00:09:00] to the delivery? Or was it the hospital, the civilian hospital saying we won't let you in?

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Or was a combination of both? No,

Jessica Budge: it was just the military. Just the leadership saying, no, Brandon, you're not going to be able to go be there for the birth of your son if you don't get this.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Wow.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: So I was stationed in Kuwait when my daughter was scheduled to be born, and they actually allowed me to leave the country for 10 days paternity leave, see my daughter get delivered, and then come back. And here, they wouldn't, they were having a difficult time allowing him to travel three hours. This is a different military than any of us ever knew.

Jessica Budge: Yes, it is. Uh, I should have been in Korea during that time and that was part of the problem was, you know, they wanted you to quarantine for so many days when you get to Korea and then if you don't have the [00:10:00] vaccine, then you can't leave the country and come back. So, we had actually just asked if he could extend his time.

Jessica Budge: Here because he was supposed to be leaving end of September and the baby was due in October We just asked for a few days extension so he could be there for the birth of the baby and then to Korea

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: So was he ultimately able to be there for the the delivery? He was and can can either of you talk about some of the reprisal that you know that if you're able to that he's been able that he's been facing since this

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Yeah, Sam, I can, I can start and, and just walk through it and then I'll let Jessica fill in on kind of some of the more personal aspects.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: But, but again, understand this, this started because his leadership was upset that a, that a warrant officer. Was [00:11:00] hesitant in any way to receive this vaccine, right? So just, and you understand that you understand your own background, you understand what we all faced when we were going through this. And so that that's where this started.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: So there was just tremendous animosity, normal, simple things that happen all the time in the military, like delaying his departure for Korea by a few weeks, um, became. Uh, just, you know, became impossible for him to maneuver on that. It was just a level of frustration that that continued to impact him. But again, I just understand, you know, you understand that that for a Aviation, someone who is in military aviation, there's a limited, there's a limited window of things they can go and try to take, you know, ground you and take your wings away.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: But an FEB, that flying evaluation board, is a process by which they're trying to take away your ability to fly any, anything, right? I mean, in some respects, it's similar to medical credentialing, um, where they're trying to take away your ability to earn a living [00:12:00] later in the future by going after this.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: When the investigation that had no merit at all, but this investigation had, um, you know, it shouldn't have even started in the first place and it had nothing to do with his ability to fly a helicopter. I'd had nothing in no way connected to that, but they were trying to use that process as a way to manipulate anything they could administratively.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: And in the background, the other piece of this is he was actually a victim in another investigation of sexual harassment that they tried to cover up. Right. So there are so many layers to this. What I, what I said at the beginning, there, there's complications here. Um, but, but that, those are the things that he has faced.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: And again, just so people can understand who aren't familiar with the military administrative process in the United States army. If you're under investigation. Just being under investigation for anything. You're immediately flagged. Well, what does that mean? That flag is a flag on your personnel record.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: It means nothing positive can [00:13:00] happen in your career. You can't be promoted. You can't PCS. You can't be selected for a leadership position. You can't receive awards and decorations. You can't compete for awards. Everything in your career is put on hold and being flagged even for a few months for the purposes of investigation can, can have a cascading effect where your military career is damaged for years, right?

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: You're, you're off cycle all of a sudden to move your off cycle for leadership positions are off cycle for promotion. So it has this damaging effect. So one of the things that's happened and we've seen this is that, that poor leaders in the army will use the flagging system as a punishment in itself. So they use the timing of flags and other things to punish people.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: So that's a lot of what's happened here. So this has cost him, you know, the ability to obtain leadership positions and has cost him the ability to promote and all of it that the biggest, most challenging thing that I'm trying to help him with is the fact that he has this general officer memorandum of record in his, in his [00:14:00] official personnel file.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: You can't get rid of it without going through a very long process. And while it's there it hurts him and it could eventually impact his retirement even if he isn't separated So this is you know death by a thousand cuts of using the administrative process to punish someone And again, it all goes back to the fact that he was a warrant officer Who was hesitant about receiving this vaccine and they've done everything they can to punish him for that.

Jessica Budge: So, 1 of the things that Davis was about being promoted just recently, we found out after several months of trying to find out if we were going to be able to have this promotion. That was denied, so Brandon was up for promotion, um, in, well, let's see, what was that? 21? He should have been promoted in November of 21.

Jessica Budge: they took that away when he was flagged. So, then we had to go through several months of waiting to see if he was going to be able to be promoted after the [00:15:00] FEB happened and innocence was already proven and they denied that. So, now we're up against that, um, and I mean, that's in your pocket. Your retirement for the rest of your life.

Jessica Budge: Also, another way of reprisal. Um, we've had numerous threats from leadership all along the way, even before we asked about him staying a little bit long going to be in Korea. Um, there were that's why he was supposed to go to Korea. It had tried to get, uh, stationed. And, uh, somewhere in the states that was closer to his family.

Jessica Budge: And they were mad about that and said, things are just going to get worse for you. And they tried to send them to Korea. So those are just little side things. Like David said, there's 1000 things here that we could talk about for hours. But just like a couple of those things that are, [00:16:00] they really ridiculous.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: One thing about the, the promotions that I don't know if a lot of non military people really understand is that, you know, in the civilian world, you don't get promoted on time. Okay, that's fine. In the military world, if you get passed over once, Even if you're flagged and you should have been promoted, and then you get passed over again, not promoted a second time, you're done.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Your military career is literally over and they will discontinue the service. They'll say, okay, well, we don't need anybody who's been passed over twice because obviously you can't make the cut. You're not the type of officer that we want to have in the military or the type of NCO or the type of warrant officer.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And so that's the end of your career. Even if you don't make it to the 20 years. You will be chaptered out. You will be allowed to, to discontinue your, your contract because they don't want officers in there that have been passed over twice, even if it was because of something they did illegally or retributively.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: No, you're, you're absolutely right. And that's where we [00:17:00] have to be so alert sometimes because there's all these different personnel rules. Each, each one of the services has their own unique ways of doing this. But in the army there, there are ways that you can ruin someone's career. And, and never give them true due process, right?

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: And, and what's fascinating about Brandon's case is at one point throughout all of this is he had even just a little bit of due process and that was the flying evaluation board where witnesses could be called, evidence could be presented, cross examination could be conducted. And when that happened, he was completely cleared of misconduct.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: All misconduct is completely cleared of that, and that should have been the end of this and and properly, you know, the leadership, the chain of command should have looked us and said, Wow, this independent board that reviewed all the facts and evidence found that no misconduct occurred. We should pull this this gomar.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: We should pull this general officer memorandum of reprimand. And we should restore him to where he was before we engaged in this false investigation and the opposite happened, they literally [00:18:00] tried to get the leadership in the chain of command. There's a process by which they can non concur with the flying evaluation board and still try to, you know, Ignore the findings and remove his ability to fly.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: And again, that's not just a military punishment, that's trying to take away his wings period so that he couldn't fly as a second career after he gets out of the military. And I truly believe that it was only public attention that Even stop them from doing that. I think they would have continued on that path if it wasn't for some of the media attention that was gotten and even with that media attention, then, you know, Jessica was threatened.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Brandon was threatened. Basically, you know, told to shut up, even though Jessica did nothing wrong. She was just trying to draw attention to an injustice that was occurring. That's

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I think it's absolutely insane that they can punish the service member because of what the spouse says. Like, I can ask my wife to not say something, but if she wants to say it, she's going to say it.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Because, you know, when I was in the military, there was no rule UCMJ actions over her. [00:19:00] We are different people. Yeah, we're married. But she can say what she wants. Just as Jessica can say what she wants. But yet, this is what happens, is the spouse gets threatened. My spouse was threatened. Um, actually was threatened.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Myself and my spouse were threatened with criminal and civil action against us for going to a congressperson. We were threatened with by Lieutenant Colonel said, if you go to this Congress person again, you're going to have UCMJ or civil action and criminal civil action against you because he couldn't do it through the military.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: So he's going to do it. And, and I don't know what lawyer. He was talking to, but that was a lawyer that probably needs to be disbarred. One of the dumbest lawyers I've ever heard. Um, but it's just, it's insane how you can threaten someone's wife and you can threaten a man because of his wife. It's just, it doesn't make any sense.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: No, you're absolutely right. But again, I think that's, what's so critical as we. As we still try to seek justice for so many service members as it [00:20:00] relates to what happened with COVID. I mean that that's a critical point, right? Because what happened to military members during COVID was unprecedented But now we see and we realize it was it was only a microcosm of some of the deeper problems that we have in the military If we're not going to follow through on integrity and on our oath to the constitution, so I think that's really important but um Yeah, I mean, I'll let Jessica kind of comment on the impact this has had on the family and just other things she's seen as a military spouse because of this, but I do think it's important as we look forward and we try to understand how we move forward as a country, how the military moves forward.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: COVID exposed so much rot, I think, within the military system and so much to be concerned about, um, because it was a lot, it impacted so many people at once and then we could see. The replication of what they were doing when it comes to reprisal and retribution.

Jessica Budge: Yeah, I I've [00:21:00] definitely noticed the Corrupt leadership, you know as an outsider and somebody that's not in the military personally There were a lot of things that I didn't realize um, and all those hopes, you know as an american citizen you have all the faith and

Jessica Budge: Do

Jessica Budge: He [00:22:00] will not be able to write him a letter instead, and Gateway Pundit and, uh, here we are. Sorry, Davis. I don't know if you could make out much of that. I couldn't capture much of that. It'll

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: be on the final recording, but I couldn't hear it.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Okay. Yeah, I, I struggled some, but I, I think, um, Sorry, Jessica, you were, you were

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: kind of bleeping in and out. So I [00:23:00] put on low data mode for a moment to try and catch up in it. I'm sure it was very good, but I don't know what you said. I don't know if it's just your internet, or if it's me being attacked by Wachuka, because they, whenever I seem to talk about things like this, I have more problems.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I talked to Dale Saran the other day, and it crashed like four times, and that doesn't typically happen.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Can you, Jessica, can you tell us about some of the conversations, you know, not the specific details, but the things that you were thinking when Brandon voiced his concerns about getting this shot with you, and Did you encourage them one way or the other? Did you say, you know, do what's best for you? Where were you in that that spectrum of thought?

Jessica Budge: You know, at first it was you're in the [00:24:00] military. You're expected to get all the vaccines anyway. You know, it's another vaccine. But the more research, um, that was done about the vaccine, I mean, we're not just going to go. Inject ourselves or children with something new that we don't know anything about.

Jessica Budge: Um, so I personally was against getting the vaccine. Brandon also is a very healthy person, very conscious about what he eats and drinks and. Um, tries to be as healthy as possible. I mean, and part of us for his career, he knows he needs to be at the top of his game all the time. So, I, I mean, we didn't, we didn't feel comfortable getting it also knew that this is your job.

Jessica Budge: This is what's required of you, so this is a, you know, a risk that you have to take.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And Davis, this is for you. Now, I'm not an [00:25:00] FAA physician, but from what I've been able to glean from speaking with Dr., uh, Lieutenant Colonel Teresa Long, is that you're supposed, you have a waiting period when there's a new medication before pilots are allowed to use it. I believe it's a five year waiting period, and that's after they receive FDA approval.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: This is something that's never received FDA approval, and there was no waiting period. So it seems like that is not a good thing for the military to have done. I know this is kind of going a slightly different direction, but

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: no, you're, you're, you're absolutely right. So, and I, I sound like a broken record.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: I know, Sam, every, every time I talk to you, so many people I talk to is just, there, there were so many unprecedented things, so many things that just, we, we never really had seen done to the level they were done with this particular experimental, um, You know, Mrna product, um, that were done. So among them is the fact that unique to this product, [00:26:00] unique to this emergency use product.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Not only did the FAA waive their normal requirements about medication because the FAA, I mean, for a pilot, the restrictions are extreme. And I mean, essentially, every time you go to the doctor as a pilot, you have to You have to report every symptom and it can cause an investigation or anything else. So pilots have to be so, so cautious, so careful.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: They have to be very concerned about what they put into their bodies at all times. And. And here with this product, there were no waiting periods. There were others. And even worse, I represented clients that were army that, that flew Blackhawks and other airframes within the army that voiced that exact concern.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: And they said, Hey, I'm the safety officer. I'm reporting what I, my concern about my ability. To fly safely with someone who's had this experimental product when we don't know what the long term impacts are. I'm going to die if I'm in a helicopter and this person is at the controls and they're trying to [00:27:00] land it and they experience a cardiac event.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: I'm going to die. It's not just about them. It's about me. It's about my family. It's about ground crew and everything else. All of those things were ignored. That's never happened before that I'm aware of when we saw that, that level of this. And so it was across the board. And again, it impacted those with a, you know, an FAA license, but it also impacted other medical exemptions, normal medical exemptions that would be granted because someone met with a primary care provider.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: They met with an allergist and it said, Hey, there's a contraindication for you taking this product because here's what we see. And those individuals were, were, you know, coerced and then disciplined if they didn't. I mean, I represented a very successful air force officer who was at the tip of the spear when it comes to, uh, high end research with supersonics and other things.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: He is someone who his brother and his sister, his biological brother and sister both had adverse reactions. To this vaccine. One of them ended up in [00:28:00] the hospital for three days. He himself had had an anaphylactic reaction to two different families of antibiotics. Why? Why is that so significant? One?

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: That's rare. But second, the FDA and the CDC both put out guidance to physicians that said, Hey, you shouldn't receive this experimental product. If you have one of the risk factors is if you have it. and had allergic reactions to two different families of antibiotics. So this is an individual who biologically, DNA wise, genetically, uh, the two people closest to him, his brother and sister, both had adverse reactions.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: He filed a request for a medical exemption. With the Air Force, the first provider that he talked to, the captain in the chain of command, said, uh, I have to disapprove this because of policy. You don't meet one of the exemptions that has been detailed out. Um, and so I have to deny this, but if I were you, I would not take this product.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: That's what the provider said to him. It went [00:29:00] up the chain because he appealed it and an 06, an Air Force 06 in the chain of command said, um, you know, if you have, we're going to deny your, your request for a medical exemption, but if you have concerns, just get admitted to a hospital first and then if you have a reaction to this.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Uh, they can save your life because you're already admitted to the hospital that that happened. Right? So again, you know, when we say things like, Oh, the FAA didn't, you know, waive the five year approval period, they waive the five year waiting period. Um, it was not just limited to that. This was across the board.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: The only medical exemptions. They were my clients ever saw that they were authorized to get was if you were, um, as if you got the first shot in a course and you had a serious and significant adverse reaction to that. But unfortunately, as you know, Sam, there were people, people that I spoke to who had a almost deadly reaction to the first dose and we're still ordered to get the second dose.[00:30:00]

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: So, uh, you know, that's, that's what I think is so critical. There's so many issues around this, but there was this dogma, this almost religious level, cult like level of. Everyone, everyone in the military 100 percent have to be vaccinated, even if it kills some, even if we have no idea what the long term consequences will be.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Everyone has to receive this. That's one of the things that was so scary. And that's why cases like Brandon's where the level of coercion he met with is just appalling. I mean, why would you do that? Why would you Prevent him from from taking leave to go less than three hours away to be at the hospital for his child to be born when the civilian hospital isn't even going to ask if he's vaccinated.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: There's a couple of things that you said that I have to comment on that captain. I hope that captain is listening. If anyone knows that captain, please ensure that that captain hears this. You, sir, are a coward and I hope it keeps you awake every single night. [00:31:00] This makes me so angry that people know what's right and then they do what's wrong.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: It's when you know what's right, you must do what's right. And guidance is guidance. Guidance is not law. We are not bound as physicians by The guidance is not legally binding. And if, if the military says, well, these are the reasons why we say that we can approve it, that's wrong. That's not how medicine works.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Medicine, uh, sorry, I'm just very upset right now. Medicine works by a physician evaluating the patient and together making a decision what's best for that patient. I'll I am not the captain of that ship. The patient is the captain of that ship. I am not beholden to the military. I am beholden to the patient.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And I tell them, yeah, there's rocks over there, but if you want to go crash into those rocks, that's up to you. I think you should go this way. And that's why I issued medical exemptions. Because I, I could see that there's products in here that are not valid for human use. They're for research use only. We can't even use them in, in veterinary medicine.[00:32:00]

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And it just, it makes me so angry to hear that someone knew what was right. And yet, and told the patient, yeah, you probably shouldn't get it, but I'm not going to give you any way of protecting you. And, and that other idea that you said that the FAA, or that there was pilots that were concerned, that what if there was some cardiac event mid air?

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: That has actually happened now. That has been reported through Terminal CWO, that There was a pilot student, who was in, I don't know what seat, I think it was the left seat. And, they were flying Nap of the Earth, and he had a cardiac event, and died in the helicopter. And they yanked him out of the seat, took over the helicopter, landed it, and got him a defibrillator.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Before he completely deceased, they were able to bring, restart his heart, but he literally died at the control seat. So this is not some thing that could happen, it's something that has actually happened at this point now. And the military refuses to do an investigation into it because there was nothing wrong with the helicopter.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: [00:33:00] It was a human event. Well, we should figure out why. Why a young, healthy man is having His heart stopped while he died mid air at a low altitude flying a helicopter.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: No, you're, you're, you're absolutely right. And again, you know, Lieutenant Colonel Long has been at the forefront of this trying to discuss these concerns and get people to pay attention. But I'll just go back to Brandon's case and, and the battle that we're in now, you know, Brandon did nothing wrong. He has been cleared of every possible thing that he could have done wrong.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: He's only, the only thing he did wrong. Um, was asked questions about the safety and efficacy of an experimental product and take a stand to say, you know, uh, federal law requires that this be FDA approved and that the FDA approved product be made available before I take it. And I have concerns and questions about that.[00:34:00]

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: And, and this is what he went through. So, you know, now he's in a situation where he did receive, um, this experimental. Product he, he had to make that choice. He didn't really have a choice in it. He had to do that. And so far, I mean, because he takes good care of himself, he's been healthy and, and thank God for that.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: But just that hesitancy, just asking questions. He's still being treated, you know, like, like a public enemy to his leadership and his chain of command. And it takes. You know, in his case, because of the flying evaluation board and everything else, it takes a tremendous amount. You know how this goes. It takes a tremendous amount of money to try to do this.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: It takes different attorneys with different areas of expertise to try to do this, um, and do this well. And, and it's, that's just taken a tremendous toll on his family as well.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Yeah, I mean, all this takes is money, right, to defend. Um, Jessica, is, have you set up any sort of give, send, go that people can, can help you with?

Jessica Budge: Yes, we have, actually. Uh, just [00:35:00] maybe three weeks ago, we started one, um, Helping out with we need this attorney and we have to have so much, you know, in a retainer every at every minute. So we're trying to get that funded. Um, we can not only try and make things right for us, but for other people who are going through the same thing.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And I'll put the link down below and we're going to mention it a few more times of how to get there and how to help you and your family, uh, because this is just, this is not the country that we're supposed to be in where you have to defend yourself when you're innocent.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: No, you're, you're absolutely right, Sam. And I will just say as, as far as the give, send, go goes, and I'll just, I'll be transparent with everyone. You know, we, I've worked with Brandon and Jessica on some very specific, limited pieces of this. Um, one piece is to try to draw attention to it. The other is the record, the records [00:36:00] corrections piece.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: This Give Send Go campaign is really specifically focused on the, the FOIA acts, aspects of this and potential Freedom of Information Act litigation. So I'm not benefiting from that and not a dollar of that is going to me, but I encourage them to do it because. As Jessica said, not only is it critical to Brandon's case, but whatever attorney gets involved to do that, to help them, ultimately, it's going to set a precedent and FOIA request to show here's where the reprisal comes in.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: And, and again, just like they ignored so many of the rules during COVID, they're essentially ignoring the law when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act. So that's why. They need to go there. And unfortunately, when we're talking about FOIA litigation, you're talking about federal litigation. So it is an expensive prospect for this family, um, and one that could take a couple of years to resolve.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: So the resources are definitely needed, but it won't just benefit, um, Brandon and Jessica, you know, I'm hopeful. Um, that some of the things we're doing on the [00:37:00] records correction piece that are already in motion will help them in a very real way. But this FOIA litigation is an opportunity to get additional information that needs to be out there about the course of steps that were taken because those are the stories that endure.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: And those are the stories that help us learn from history and try to prevent this from happening again.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And hopefully there can be case law that can be set because of this. Where people can go, oh, well, let's look at Brandon V. D. O. D. And we can say, okay, this is the precedence that's been set. You can't do that because this is, this is why.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: This has already been, you know, figured out in the legal system.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: You're absolutely right. And unfortunately, it's come to this. You know, you and I, before COVID, you and I would not have anticipated this. I know that, right? We wouldn't have anticipated the need for federal courts to get involved, to, to resolve things that should be simple military administrative matters or decisions that are made between a patient and And their physician to be in their best interest.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: And now [00:38:00] federal courts have to engage in order to try to protect people's rights. Um, it's a shame that it's gotten to that and unfortunately it takes a lot of resources, but again, not everyone knows this. And I don't want to put you on the spot with some of your particular, you know, facts and circumstances of your cases, Sam, but as you know, the department of defense, the department of justice, their standard operating procedure in any of these cases is.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Is legal tactic after legal tactic to delay to file motion after motion to do things because they have unlimited resources, right? They just keep printing the money and then individuals are left to try to fight this behemoth of the federal government. It's never intended to be that way. You know, we're supposed to have equal access to the courts, but practically speaking, that's not the way it works anymore.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: And for an individual in federal litigation, I mean, it's not unheard of at all for federal litigation to be. You know, a 250, 000, 500, 000 proposition to do it well, and the government can just keep printing money to combat that. So I just say that to say, any one [00:39:00] of these cases that can be done right and done well, um, can set the precedent, and then it, and it can be pushed back against that, that level of tyranny that we've seen over and over and over again.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Uh, Davis, you had mentioned that in the Uh, the board, uh, the, uh, was it Aviation Evaluation Board?

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Flying Evaluation Board, FEB.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: The Flying Evaluation Board, that they, they came out with the right answer. When they were presented all the facts, they came out with the right answer. Now, I, I remember something like this with a Navy, uh, client of yours, that when they went to this, uh, Board of Corrections, or whatever board it was for him, when you presented all the facts, they came out with the right answer.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: But it seems like people like, Mark Bashaw, when they go before the court, they present all the facts and they come out with the wrong answer. Is this seem to be a pattern that you're seeing?

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Yeah, that's a great, that's a great point. So in, in Brandon's case, and again, it was Matt [00:40:00] Berry, it was an attorney named Matt Berry that represented him very, very well at this flying evaluation board.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: But this is a situation where These board members, they, you know who the board members are, but they can't disclose who voted which way. So there's a level of, of protection for them as individuals when it, when it comes to that. And it just has to be a majority. And you're right. You're talking about Billy Mosley's case, right?

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Lieutenant Billy Mosley, who was someone who. We had the opportunity to present to, um, you know, senior Navy, a panel of three senior Navy officers, and we were able to show them to demonstrate the Navy was not making an FDA approved product available. For Lieutenant Mosley to take it was impossible for him to comply with an order to receive an FDA approved vaccine because one did not exist at the time.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: It did not exist and the Navy could not prove otherwise. And so what they did, they weren't lawyers. They weren't judges. They were in a room. They were tasked to do a job under the law under Navy [00:41:00] regulation. They took that oath seriously. And at one point, this Navy captain literally looked at the Navy Jacks and said, Yeah.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: You, you're telling me you can't prove to me this is a lawful order because you cannot prove this is an FDA approved product or that any of it's available and he goes, Do you know I've been asked to give this order to other sailors? I have a lot of questions here and it's going to impact the way I handle this within my chain of command.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Now, I don't know what the fallout was after that. I have no idea what that Navy captain did. But, but that's the point. Unlike a judge in, in Mark Bashaw's case, you know, was one individual judge. Everybody knows who that judge was. But again, unfortunately, in Mark's case, there were issues that were never fully briefed or presented to that judge to decide on.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: So I'm not confident. Um, that was great precedent, if you will, because the real issues related to the lawfulness of the order We're not fully addressed in that court the way they should have been. And then unfortunately, um, the appeals court, the court of appeals for the [00:42:00] army, um, never had an opportunity to take that case up because while the judge in, in Mark's case gave him no punishment and actually said this conviction should be set aside, recommended that they set aside that conviction, the judge.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: In that case did that, um, the, the army jag, the senior attorney for the United States army refused to send the case to a review before the army court of criminal appeals where this legal issue could have been addressed. So again, as you well know, Sam, and as you've tried to emphasize, there has never been a day in court to fully address the issues related to the lawfulness of this order.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: It has not been finally adjudicated. Again, I'm of the position that it's not just litigation tactics. They're afraid to answer that question because if they do actually get to the truth on that and it is presented to them the way it was in Lieutenant Mosley's board, the conclusions they're going to have to reach are not, are not good.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: They're not good because they're going to have to recognize this wasn't a lawful order.[00:43:00]

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Yeah, it seems, it seems as though, as though the courtroom, the way it's set up to protect the, the innocent and, and make sure that the guilty are, are punished is actually been inverted to where it ensures that the guilty are not found guilty and the innocent continue to be innocent. Cause you just mentioned that, you know, Bashaw's case, but that's not due to his lawyers.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: That's due to the laws of the courtroom. Because they, they prevent certain information from coming out because you don't want to sway one way or the other. But in reality, is that, is that giving the full picture or is that preventing a full picture from being presented?

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: You're absolutely right. And I think one of the things that we've lost in our, in our nation, I don't want to go too much of a tangent on this, but you know, there was a principle that our founders believed in from the beginning called jury nullification.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: And what does that even mean? That's this concept that that a jury can look at a case [00:44:00] and they can, they can decide to consider certain evidence. They can decide to consider certain information and they can say the application of the law, what the government is trying to do with the application of law of the law in this case is unjust.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: So someone could technically have violated the law, but the jury had it. Car juries had jury notification so they could literally say this is unjust what the government is asking us to do to convict this person or find against this person in this proceeding is unjust and we the jury can can make that finding that's a critical aspect of our legal system that has been lost over time and it's been a subtle shift people don't even realize the importance of that because the whole point of our our court system the whole point of due process the whole point of a judicial system is this idea That the citizens, this jury, right, a jury is supposed to be, as Thomas Jefferson said, the only anchor yet imagined in the mind of man by which a government can be held to the principles of [00:45:00] its constitution, right?

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: What does that mean? What did the founding fathers envisioned? They envisioned this idea that just like military members who swear an oath to support and defend the constitution when we put on the uniform, that jurors are taking an oath in their jury duty. To support and defend the constitution and to protect fellow citizens from tyranny, the tyranny of the government, and that's a powerful thing.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: So I think that in, in COVID in particular, because fear was involved and threats were involved in coercion and misinformation and, and censorship and all of this, we really lost the importance of some of these principles that have helped make our system great. And you're right. What happened in Mark's case was his lawyers tried to present things.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: I believe they should have been allowed to present them legally and lawfully. But the way that the army escaped accountability for what happened was doing everything they could to try to avoid having to address the issue of the lawfulness of the order. [00:46:00] And again, that's why I think the, you know, the request for review on appeal before the army court was denied because no one really fully addressed in Mark's case, the issue of the lawfulness of the order that was not litigated factually so that information would be heard.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Presented to demonstrate why it was an unlawful order. It was an administrative boards like Billy Mosley's where we're able to do that and be successful. And again, in Brandon's case, it was a separate issue. It wasn't related directly to that issue, but it was the same kind of issue where he'd already been punished.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: He'd already been reprimanded as retaliation and retribution when people knew it wasn't true, but that flying evaluation board, those independent officers. Looked at all of the information, they found no misconduct once they were presented with it, and then the army still tried to go against their findings at the end of the day.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: So again, I hope out of all of this, what we're learning is lessons, but we also understand, you know, Brandon and Jessica, I benefit nothing [00:47:00] from any gifts and go that happens with them. They're going to be, I'm going to help them find another attorney, but they're going to find an attorney. That's an expert in FOIA once this money is raised.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Um, but I, I believe very passionately in it because I believe it's going to help other people. It's going to help other clients. It's going to help people like you and I, to be able to see the truth of what happened through a freedom of information act request. So I, I hope that's something that can be funded and done well.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And I'm interested to find out if we uncover some sort of good old boy network of communication that was going on behind the scenes, and if that's why this FOIA is not progressing as it should, because that needs to be exposed, because I, I believe that has happened to me in my situation as well, that there is a non official network, uh, communication that happens, and, oh, Siglof's causing problems, why don't we bring the hammer down on him, but it's never through any official channels.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Right. And I, I submitted a FOIA request in my own case. Um, and I, I retired from the [00:48:00] reserves in December of 2022. I'm still waiting. I'm still waiting for the response, uh, in my own personal case in my, to the, to my FOIA request. Um, so this is, yeah, I mean, I have on behalf of clients, I sent a FOIA request behalf of some of my Navy SEAL clients to Navy Surface Warfare.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: I'm still waiting. I'm still waiting after three years for responses to some of those things. So I do, I do think it's really, really critically important. You know, Brandon is, Brandon is sort of a figurehead at this point for some of this FOIA litigation, but I do think his case is a great opportunity to expose some of the things that happened behind the scenes, because there's just this sense of, you know, I don't know what it is.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: I can't put my finger on it, what it is, but these leaders. In, in the military system that think they're somehow immune from any sort of accountability or consequences, but sometimes FOIA is the way to do that, because we get to see the actual communications and we got to see the intent behind it. Um, and maybe that's how we can hold some of these folks accountable.[00:49:00]

Jessica Budge: You know, when Brandon was being investigated and he was told he was not being investigated, the DOD was doing their investigation. Once that was completed, they had missed, never interviewed, you know, witnesses that they had never even taken into account. So we had filed a complaint and guess who investigated the DOD?

Jessica Budge: The DOD. They investigated themselves. So something wrong with this picture.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: That must be a common new thing that these investigators do is they don't talk to witnesses and they don't talk to people who are directly involved because that happened a lot with me. They talked to a lot of people that weren't involved, that had a, you know, uh, an axe to grind, but they didn't talk to people who were directly involved, who actually have witnessed what was going on.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: You're absolutely right, and [00:50:00] unfortunately, that's something that I see far too often. Um, you know, I, I, I can honestly say in the work that I do, it is rare that I see a well done investigation. Occasionally we get very well done investigations, but it is very, very common. Unfortunately, I'll even provide, um, names and information, contact information for potential witnesses to investigating officers, and they won't even speak to them if there is a narrative.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Um, that the chain of command wants to follow. And again, that's where we look at accountability, you know, and, and often we're able to present that to a board or to a court martial panel, um, and be successful at the end of the day, because we have that information. And quite frankly, we'll make the government look very, very bad when they won't disclose things.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Um, to us because we'll say to board members or to a court martial panel, there's information we ask for. We ask for it properly. It would provide you with critical information. You need to do justice in this case, and they've refused to provide it. And I can tell you almost without exception. [00:51:00] What happens when you have an independent board or a court martial panel?

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: They will, they will acquit, they will find no misconduct because they'll say, we're not doing that. Right. Unless there's, you know, unless they're biased in some way. So I've seen that over and over again, but you're absolutely right. I know you've experienced it. It's this idea that a investigation can be done in such a way that it's only looking to confirm the answer that command wants to hear.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: Right. So it's classic confirmation bias where they only look, only interview people that They only interview people that they can exert pressure on or they believe they believe will make you look bad without actually providing exculpatory information.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Well, Jessica and Davis, I want to thank you so much for coming on. What can you leave us with, Jessica? What's one thing that you want everyone to know? And at the end of that, I'd like for you to say the Gibson go one more time so that. Uh, we can hear it a few times. I can get it down in the link below and people can help support you in this.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Cause this is, when you're fighting the [00:52:00] government, it gets expensive very quickly.

Jessica Budge: It sure does. It's, it's just so expensive in a hurry. Um, and there's, there's a lot of different going on here. So it's a little complex, but, um, our hope is that again, we can get a little bit of justice out of this. It's long overdue.

Jessica Budge: And overdue for, unfortunately, a lot of other people. So it's our hope that we can help them and, um, and, and just make things right the way they're supposed to be, uh, give, send, go, I will have to provide you with that link. Okay.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And I'll have it in the show notes down below. So you can just, any listener or viewer can just go down there and find it there.

Jessica Budge: Perfect. Thank you so much.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Davis. Is there anything [00:53:00] that you'd like to leave us with?

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: You know, I would just say that I, I tend to be optimistic in some respects and I remain optimistic in many respects. I think that there's so many good people that have come together and I've had the opportunity to meet so many people like you, Sam, who are not giving up on this fight or going to continue to push.

R. Davis Younts, Esq.: And again, I'll emphasize it once again. I think that Brandon's case is one that needs to be continued to brought into the daylight so people can understand what's happened to him. Um, the level of coercion that he faced and then just the retaliation and retribution. So I do hope people that can will have, um, The heart to, to support them and then just pray for us that, that the right attorney comes forward to address the FOIA issues and do that effectively so that we can use that to shine a light on this and get relief for this family.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I want to thank you both so much for coming on with me, for sharing this story and, and Jessica, we'll, we'll be praying for you and your family that, that you'll stay [00:54:00] strong throughout this and that God wraps his comfort around you and gives you comfort through this because it. You know, I've, I've gone through some tough times, still going through some tough, and it, it's so, it can be so disheartening, but you can also find the best joy because you realize joy is not dependent on the situation of life, but it comes from God.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And so I just pray that, that you're filled with that joy, and that comfort, and that you're given strength to continue this fight, and that as a family, you're brought closer together.

Jessica Budge: Thank you so much. I really, really do appreciate that.

Jessica Budge: Thank you. God bless.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Just a reminder for everyone out there, in duty uniform of the day, the full armor of God, let's all make courage more contagious than fear.[00:55:00]

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Doesn't dinner sound great as it's cooking? This dinner is from Riverbend Ranch, which always provides prime or high choice, has never been given hormones, never been given antibiotics, never been given mRNA vaccines. It's raised in the USA. It's processed in the USA. In fact, it's fully vertically integrated, which means that they own the cow, it gives birth to the calf, it's raised on their fields, and then taken to their butcher, and then shipped to you.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And if we compare What we can buy from River Bend Ranch to four other major state companies that sell bundles that have ribeyes and other meat in it, it can be as much as 184 [00:56:00] to 59 less expensive. It's a great price value and it's a delicious piece of meat. Check out My Clean beef.com/afterhours.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: That's my clean beef.com/afterhours, my clean beef.com/afterhours.

​