Chauvin Trial Day 16, Matt Gaetz Investigation, SEC vs. LBRY Crypto Lawsuit

George Floyd’s girlfriend testifies in Court and reveals more about Floyd’s drug addiction struggles. We learn more about Matt Gaetz’s sex trafficking investigation and counterclaims of extortion. Securities Exchange Commission continues its war against decentralization with a new complaint against LBRY. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:

• George Floyd’s girlfriend, Courteny Ross, testifies in trial today.

• Ms. Ross details long history of opioid addiction for both herself and George Floyd.

• George Floyd has an overdose incident in March 2020 which required a several day hospital stay.

• Maurice Hall, the man with George Floyd the day he died, had previously supplied drugs to George Floyd.

• Hennepin County paramedic Seth Bravinder testifies about what happened when he arrived on scene.

• Matt Gaetz’s dad says he wore a wire for the FBI in a probe into Department of Justice extortion claims.

• Ex-GOP official Joel Greenberg, Matt Gaetz’ alleged ex-colleague, was charged with child sex trafficking.

• Elizabeth Brown via Reason.com analysis of the law: is Matt Gaetz a sex-trafficker?

• SEC files complaints against LBRY, Inc. digital assets securities violations.

• Review the complaint, SEC vs. LBRY, INC. filed in US. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

• LBRY responds to the complaint with email to Odysee and LBRY users detailing their defense.

• As always, your questions and live Locals.com chat after the news!

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: 

• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/

CLUBHOUSE AFTER PARTY DISCUSSION:

• https://www.joinclubhouse.com/event/PvnLR5ZD

• Join the Club: https://www.joinclubhouse.com/club/watching-the-watcher

Connect with us:

• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com

• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/

• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq

• Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq

• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/

• Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/

• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy

• Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq

• Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv

Don't forget to join us on Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com

Why Locals? We head over to Locals to continue the conversation before, during and after the show. You can also grab the slides (and other stuff) from the show as well as a free PDF copy of Robert’s book which is also available to buy on Amazon here: https://rcl.ink/hHB

Other tips? Send to tips@rrlawaz.com or tag @RobertGrulerEsq on twitter.

#WatchingtheWatchers #DerekChauvin #ChauvinTrial #GeorgeFloyd #MattGaetz #Gaetz #GaetzInvestigation #LBRY #Crypto #SEC #DigitalCurrency #Bitcoin #Odysee

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and I to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. And so that's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our very system with a hope of finding justice. We're grateful that you are here and with us today, we are in the middle of the Shovan trial. Today was day 16, and it was actually a pretty eventful day. At least this morning, we're going to hear from George Floyd's girlfriend, somebody who has, uh, been in a relationship with him for a significant amount of time. We're going to hear about their relationship in particular, their relationship with opioids, something that is very near and dear to my heart. So we're going to break down what happened there and how this might impact the case. So she was a very, very interesting witness, some good for the prosecution, some not so good for the prosecution, but there may be a reason behind that. There's a reason why they brought her out today and we're going to break down what that looks like. We also heard from some under other individuals, we had a couple Hennepin County paramedics who showed up there. The people, the sort of the first responder medical team. We were all remember them showing up after the video they showed up. So two of them testified and we had a, another couple of law enforcement related individuals, or one, one was from the law enforcement. And one guy was a fire captain. So both of them testified today. Anyways, the point is, we're going to break down, what's going on with Chauvet and got a lot to get to there. Then we're going to change gears yesterday. We started our inquiry into Matt Gates, as we know, very interesting little back and forth going on right there. We got Matt Gates saying that he's being extorted for$25 million. We've got the justice department, which looks like they may be hinting towards an indictment for underage sex trafficking. So this story is just bananas. We're going to break that down. So new information is being revealed. So we've got some updates on that story. Then lastly, we're going to finish up with a story. Somebody brought it up here previously during the week, specifically asking about this case, these, this library, L B R Y versus the sec. This is cryptocurrency. This is sort of a financial lawsuit that's taking place because the security exchange commission, they're saying that library, this crypto blockchain company, which is very interesting technology, they're saying that they are distributing securities without registering those securities. And that's in violation of course of the U S law. And so very interesting little thing happening right now between our government and a lot of these private companies, it relates to blockchain. I'm very interested in learning more about this space. I know it's not our traditional type of criminal law, but it is. I think something that is going to be with us for the foreseeable future. And we talk a lot on this channel about decentralization and sort of getting out from under the thumb of the authoritarian government and from these bureaucracies that are basically trying to control every facet of your life. And I think blockchain is a very interesting new, medium something that might enable us to do that more effectively as human beings. And so it's a very interesting field. Something I think is going to be with us for the foreseeable future. I also think that this is largely the answer toward, uh, to the sort of the media monopolies that we see on Facebook and Twitter and Google and YouTube and all of these other things. So we're going to get into that story, save a little bit more of that commentary until we get there as is usual. If you want to be a part of the program, very easy to do. So I would just ask you to go over to our locals.com community. We have a group there called watching the Watchers. The show is simulcasts there as well. So you can watch the live stream and there's a live chat that happens right as right now, it's happening right now. So if you want to go over there and ask a question or drop a comment, you have to support the show. If you want to participate very inexpensive, low$5 a month just to participate and it's well worth it because you get to meet new people. You get to post links throughout the day. Of course, you get to participate in the show when we go live. So go check that out over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com and you can get a copy of the slides. So everything we're about to go through, you can go over there, become a member, download the slides and join the group. All right. So let's get into the news. As I mentioned, Derek Shovan trial today, we heard from George Floyd's girlfriend. Very interesting, interesting testimony. And so we hear a little bit more about their drug use and some of the struggles that George Floyd had with addiction. And we want to break down how this might play out for the jurors. Of course, that's what we're looking at. Everything through the lens of the jurors, what are they seeing? What are they interpreting this to mean? And so we've got a lot to break down here. Now in this segment, we've got a lot of different clips. Some are very provocative, some not so provocative as is usual. Try to balance this out a little bit, right. And right now, just as a reminder, we are in the government's case in chief. So these are the government's witness. These, these all are individuals who should be relatively favorable to the government's case. They should be friendly witnesses for George Floyd and for that side of this case. So let's take a look at our trial board edits as, as usual. You're going to notice here today. We heard from this prosecutor, we also heard from Mr. Frank, and we also heard from Steve Schleicher nothing really else changed. We still saw that Eric Nelson is really the only person working for the defense with his assistant. And then of course, Derek Chauvin's in the courtroom. Jurors obviously haven't changed. These are the witnesses that we heard from today. So we started off with the girlfriend and we're going to go through her name. Her name is Courtney Ross, and she had a long series of testimony or long testimony today taking place all this morning. We're going to get into her here shortly. We also have paramedic number one, paramedic number two, who showed up. We have a fire captain and we had a Sergeant. And so we're going to hear clips from these three individuals today. Uh, I I've got some, a summation of these last two witnesses, but there was their testimony was largely, I would say foundational. And, uh, this, this third Sergeant, the Sergeant for the third precinct, uh, did have some testimony. He was actually still testifying as, as I was sort of buttoning up for this program. So if there's anything new that, that he said this afternoon, that I have not seen yet, we'll cover that tomorrow. So let's get into the witnesses. As I mentioned, we're going to start off with George Floyd's girlfriend, and this is her name. Her name is Courtney Ross. We can see her here. She is in court. She gets very emotional throughout this entire,

Speaker 2: 6:52

Uh, uh, uh, uh, presentation.

Speaker 1: 6:55

Her entire testimony was very emotional. Actually. It was hard to watch really because you could almost not even understand her for about the first several minutes of her testimony. Just kind of very emotional, you know, almost, almost to the point where she could almost not even speak. And so, you know,

Speaker 2: 7:11

One of the things that,

Speaker 1: 7:13

That is a legal concept that I want to frame out before we dive into the testimony today is this concept

Speaker 2: 7:18

Called drawing the

Speaker 1: 7:20

Sting. All right? And this is a legal concept that I learned about it.

Speaker 2: 7:23

Law school, other lawyers, we'll, we'll, we'll talk about it.

Speaker 1: 7:27

Uh, some other lawyers will call it some other things like embracing the ugly, right? Sometimes you have a case and you've got some ugly facts in your case. Just got to embrace that. And so this sort of what is happening right here, it's called drawing the sting. And when I threw this into Google, I found a nice little a post from somebody named Jill over from J a smith.com. It's a blog written in 2008 and she gives us a summation of it. And what it means. She says when I was in law school, a trial practice professor of mine discussed it

Speaker 2: 7:54

Technique called drawing the sting. It referred to the strategic revelation of negative. I'm sorry, the strategic revelation

Speaker 1: 8:03

Of negative information about your client. So the other side couldn't stage a dramatic uncovering of the same information. The logic was simple. If it's going to come out, let it come out in a way that allows the home team to retain some control over how the information is presented.

Speaker 2: 8:18

This technique, when done well also has

Speaker 1: 8:21

The collateral effect of making you look, Frank and forthright instead of dishonest and stuff.

Speaker 2: 8:27

The effect of drawing the sting can ripple outward from disclosure. Having impactful

Speaker 1: 8:32

Far beyond the moment when the information is given, therefore whenever possible, the information has to be given in a straightforward and dramatic manner in an atmosphere lacking in emotional charge, the less emotional freight you load on the revelation,

Speaker 2: 8:45

Less, it will travel the less

Speaker 1: 8:48

Emotional freight you load onto the revelation.

Speaker 2: 8:51

The less it will travel well, that doesn't really make sense. All right. So here's, here's the, the point of this statement. This is what's happening here. There's going to be a lot of conversation in this trial about George Floyd and whether or not he died of a drug overdose. Last minute, ingestion of drugs for the purpose of concealment is how judge Peter Cahill phrase this. So the idea being that George Floyd at the very last minute consumed drugs, that's what killed him. So if you are a prosecutor, how do you rebut that? How do we show that if the defense comes out and they say, George Floyd has toxicology levels that say he had 11 nanograms per milliliter in his blood, people die as low as three nanograms per milliliter. So how do you combat that? It's pretty easy. You just embrace the fact that George Floyd was a drug addict. He used drugs all the time. So while 11 nanograms per million per milliliter might kill the average person, George Floyd was not the average person. George Floyd was a drug addict. He had a long history of opioid addiction. That's why he was allowed to survive. His body was capable of surviving at that high level. And so if this is a bad fact, we can flip it into a good fact, ordinarily, that's not good that he's a drug addict and that he's buying and selling drugs and he's been to rehab and he's been to the hospital for a potential overdose. All of which we're going to hear pretty bad facts, unless you want to flip that to show, Oh, the drugs wouldn't have killed him because he was a drug addict. See how you sort of color that nicely. So that's kind of what's happening here now. She is the, the, the information that we're going to hear does not paint George Floyd in a good light. Doesn't, he's a drug addict. And there are still a huge sections of this country that look at that, like it's a moral failing. They look at somebody who's addicted to alcohol or drugs, and they say, that's just a bad person. Why can't they just stop drinking? Why can't they just stop using drugs? Maybe if they got their life together, they wouldn't be so addicted to drugs. It's not really how it works. You know, these things are much deeper than that. So I don't look at it like a moral failing. I look at it like being human. We've all got addictions. Everybody watching the show does whether you want to admit it or not, doesn't necessarily have to be heroin or opioids, but it could be gaming. It could be pornography. It could be gambling could be food. We all have these little things that we do. Some of them are way worse than others. It's just part of the human experience. So George Floyd was a drug addict and his girlfriend comes out today and testifies about that. So many people on the defense are saying, well, there you go. He's a drug addict. So clearly it was the drugs that killed him. It could not have been Derek Shovan they're saying no. Yeah, you're right. He, in fact he was a drug addict. That's why we know it steric Shovan because he would normally be able to operate at high levels of drugs because he's been using drugs for a long period of time and hasn't killed them before he went to the hospital previously, didn't kill him. The need did. This is how the prosecution is going to be reframing this. All right. So let's take a look at the first witness. This is George Floyd's girlfriend. And I want to show you this. I want to show you this emotion. We're going to hear what I'm talking about. She's crying for a good minute here, and we'll see how long we can, uh, sort of, you know, bolster through it. I don't like to watch people sad. I don't like to watch people emotional and you can have this, and you can interpret this in one of two ways. One, this is genuine emotion. Number two, this is performative. She's George Floyd's is, is, uh, pseudo air. And she wants to make sure there's justice on his behalf. So you can pick it up. Both sides, genuine emotion, fake performance. This is what the jury decides. They get to they, this is their decision. They get to answer those questions and decide this witness's credibility. But this is her sobbing. You can judge for yourself.

Speaker 3: 12:48

First met Mr. Floyd, may I tell this story? Sure. Okay. Uh, if I'm my favorite stories to tell, excuse me, and Ms. Ross. So, you know, if you feel like you needed to take a moment to collect yourself, feel free real for no rush here. Thank you. In August of 2017, I had a God not work when night I, uh, I worked at a coffee shop for 22 years now. I'm part-time and I was tired and it just cleaned up and closed up the shop. And I went to go visit my son's father, who was staying at, um, Harbor lights, the salvation army shelter.

Speaker 2: 14:07

All right. So that story goes on copying the middle of a drink there. That story goes on, and it's just a big, long story. How they met, fell in love, all of that stuff. Then it sort of moves into some conversation about, well, let's watch this next clip. This is where she, she comes out pretty clearly and says that drugs were a part of this relationship. This is the drawing, the sting. They know the prosecution knows that the defense is going to come out and all day wave around the toxicology report. So they don't want the defense to come out. And the first time the jurors to hear about opioid addiction or drug use from the defense, they're going to say, Hey, it's, it's part of our case. It's a bad fact. We got to deal with that. So how are they going to do it? They're going to put a positive spin on. They're going to say he was

Speaker 1: 14:52

An addict. What do we do with addicts in this country? If we're compassionate people, we help them. We want to get them off of the drugs. Some people do. Other people just want to throw them in prison. All right. But I don't. Right. And so speaking to sort of the humanitarian in people in the jurors, you can see here, how the prosecutor is sort of working her through this. And you'll notice in that last clip, that it's hard to come out and be a judge of a witness as well as to whether or not it's being performative or whether it's being sincere. It's not really my place to make that call. The jurors can make that call, but you'll notice that it absolutely comes out from the prosecutor. Right. The prosecutors do this all the time. So the defense attorneys sort of like consoling the witness. Oh yeah. It's okay. Take your time. I know it's hard, right? It's so difficult. I know, I know when really these, you know, it's, it's, it's, I'm not saying that I don't believe them that they're not genuine, but it's a little performative. It's a little, just add a little bit more on there. You know, normally if you'd say, Hey, I'm so sorry you're going through this. You just turn that volume up a little bit. I know I'm S I'm devastated that you're going through this, right. It's one of those kinds of things. So you'll, you'll hear it from attorneys on both sides. And of course he's doing that. So now this is about reframing the conversation. It's not about, he's a drug addict that was, you know, out there dealing drugs, doing counterfeit things, sort of that bad caricature of drug addicts that we have. This is about a man who was a good man who just had an addiction. And she S she frames it out by saying that, you know, this was an addiction. It started much the same way that many addictions do. Let's listen out here to her. In this name,

Speaker 3: 16:24

You, uh, met Mr. Floyd, uh, at salvation army. Yes. And then proceeded to maintain a relationship with him. Yes. I have to ask you if your drug use was a part of that relationship. Yes. And what kind of drug use, um, was a part of that relationship flight night? Uh, both suffered with opioid addiction. And do you know how, I mean, like, for your own self, how it, how you came to be involved, you know, it was what kind of drugs and how you became involved. Yes. Um, both our, our, our story. Uh, it's, it's a classic story of, uh, how many people get addicted to opioids? We both suffered from chronic pain. Mine was in my neck and his was in his back. We both, um, have prescription, but, um, after prescriptions that were filled and, uh, we, we, we, we got addicted and, and try really hard to break that addiction many times. And where you each aware of each other's struggles with opioids? Yes. Eventually in our relationship, we shared that. And did you work together on that? Absolutely. Absolutely.

Speaker 2: 18:16

All right. So very, very standard story. Those of you who've been around this channel for a little bit of time, know that my family went through something like this as well. My younger brother, Eric died when he was 27, died by suicide, same story. He broke his wrist as a young man had a number of different surgeries on that. Wrist had to be prescribed pain pills for the pain pills. Those of course were opioids, the oxies and things like that. Once that ran out, you're still addicted. So you go and you find other places to get it. The oxies turned into heroin, heroin turns into rehab. Sometimes it just becomes too much. People leave the planet as a result of that, it doesn't make them bad. People just means that they had a problem that was too much for him. Right. And they, they couldn't overcome that. And so this happens to all of us, and sometimes it can result in tragedy, unfortunately. So they're taking this really bad fact and they're just owning it. They're doing a nice job of it. They're saying, listen, you know, it's both of us, it's him. And I, we struggled from the same affliction. We worked through it together. It sounds like, you know, from that last video that they even were working on their recovery and their sobriety together, which is sort of, you know, kind of a beautiful thing to watch people emerge from this just dreadful state of addiction into a new life. I see it very frequently with some of the guys that we work with in our men's group. So, you know, this is a beautiful thing. So it's taking something that is very bad and putting a nice spin on it. And it sounds like maybe that was truthful. Maybe George Floyd was a very good guy. He just had a bad addiction issue. And so as when the defense comes back out and they start hammering drugs, drugs, drugs, criminal, criminal, criminal, no, he was just an addict addicts don't deserve to die, also deserve humanity and respect. And so they're, they're taking that bad fact. They're wrapping it up in a nice gift wrap and it looks pretty good. And tell, Mr. Nelson comes back out. Now the defense attorney comes out and he starts probing a little bit further into what really happened there. So once again, you can see how the scope of this conversation changes depending on the point that the party is trying to make. So in this case, now what's going to happen is traditionally, we have been seeing the prosecution wanting to narrow this down onto just the video and the defense attorney wants to break it up, expand it all the way out and talk about the 2020 arrest and some of the prior offenses and on different drug addiction issues and all of that stuff. Whereas the prosecutor wants to just hone back in on that timeline. So same type of thing is happening here. Eric Nelson. Now we just heard the prosecutor who was asking her questions about the expansion of the case. So he's kind of doing the opposite today, taking it way out. Well, tell me about where did you meet what'd you do all of this stuff. Addiction addiction really broadening this to make, to, to, to minimize this one bad fact by wrapping a bunch of other meat around it. So now Mr. Nelson is going to squeeze it back in. He's going to, he's going to clamp back down and he's going to say, well, what about that day? What about on May 25th? Who was he with that day? Let's take a look and see what she says.

Speaker 4: 21:08

And then there were other times where you would buy other people's prescriptions from it. And then there were times when those weren't available. And so you would have to buy different types of belts, right? Unknown sources, so to speak. Yes. And, um, are you familiar with Maurice hall? Yeah. And, um, was Maurice hall, the person that you and Mr. Floyd bought controlled substances from? Um, I'm going to ask, I'm going to show you a photograph and just to do you, you'll be the only one that can see it at this time. It's been previously marked as defense exhibit 1006. Can you see that photograph ma'am Nope. Yes, sir. Nope. Sorry I get this. Can you see that photograph now? Is that the person, you know, to be more useful? Yes. And can you just generally describe what he's married? Uh, and that is, uh, up in the upper right hand corner. Would you agree that that has the date of May 25th, 2020? Yes. And that's the person that both you and Mr. Floyd had previously purchased controlled substances from? Yes. Now.

Speaker 2: 22:19

All right. So if you noticed, he let that sit for a little while. If I played that again, which I'm not going to do, you'll notice he said, so that was the person that you and Mr. Floyd bought drugs from previously. She says, yes. Nelson just lets that meatball just hang right out there. Let that sit moves onto the next question. So summarize that conversation. She and Mr. Floyd had previously purchased drugs from a guy named Maurice, Maurice, who was that guy, same guy that George Floyd was sitting in the car with when the cops came upon them. So he was with some people are saying his alleged drug dealer could be a friend who sold him drugs that one day, or it could be somebody who just regularly deals drugs, who knows. So an unsavory character. Right? And so the defense brings that out and that doesn't kind of sound like somebody who's in recovery. That doesn't sound like somebody who's trying to kick this habit. So it kind of is a little bit of a contrast there. Now, Maurice, the individual that she just referenced has sent in a motion. This went in yesterday at 4:14 PM. You're going to notice this. It says notice of intent to invoke the fifth amendment privilege and to quash the subpoena. So this was filed yesterday at four 14 in the state of Minnesota versus Shovan. We can see here, Mr. Morrie's Lester hall through undersigned counsel provides notice to everybody that if to testify, he's

Speaker 1: 23:46

Going to invoke his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the constitution. And they move to quash. The subpoena pursuant to the Minnesota rules of criminal procedure signed off on by Adrian cousins who was an assistant public defender. So he's lawyered up and he's not going to be talking about anything, which is the right thing to do. Good move. So let's take a look now and let's go back to George Floyd's girlfriend, because we're going to learn a little bit more about this drug use. And again, this is coming out from the defense. So we heard her testimony about her relationship. We saw her how upset she was now. This is Mr. Nelson coming back out and talking about a prior hospitalization, which happened in March of 2020. So we heard about a prior case that happened in 2019 under very similar circumstances where George Floyd was also in an altercation with the police that resulted him in him, allegedly consuming drugs at the last minute, which required his hospitalization. That was in 2019. Now we have new notice that in March, apparently he had another overdose situation and he had to go to the hospital at that time as well. Here is Ms. Courtney explaining what had,

Speaker 3: 24:51

And was there an incident in March that required Mr. Floyd to be hospitalized? Yes. And that was, um, can you describe for the jury what that incident was? Which used to be March when he was hospitalized? We went to the hospital a couple of times. Okay. Um, he was hospitalized for an extended period of time in March, right? Yes. That's the incident I'm talking about? I understand. He went once because he had hurt his hand, like cut his hand on glass or something, and that was a shorter hospital surface, but then there was an extended hospital site. Can you describe for the jury what led up to that hostel space? Uh, yes. Uh, the Floyd, I went to go pick him up from his house that night. I thought I was taking him to work. He wasn't feeling good. His stomach really hurt. He was doubled over in pain. Um, just wasn't feeling well. And you said he had gone to the hospital? So I took him straight to the hospital. Um, we went to the ER and, um, they were checking him out in the ER and, um, it was getting late and I had to go home to my son. So I left that Friday night. You later learned that that was, uh, due to an overdose? Yes. You spent several days with him at the hospital, correct? Yes. And did you learn what that, what caused that overdose? No. At that timeframe, did you learn that Mr. Floyd was taking anything other than opioids? No. You did not know that he had taken heroin at that time? No.

Speaker 1: 26:15

All right. So a couple of things we can break down there. Number one, her testimony is actually pretty good, better than some of the other non law law witnesses. So you'll notice that when she testified, she actually is turning in this clip, not the previous clip, but she's turning to the jury and speaking to them. So can you tell us what happened? He says, can you tell us what happened about that 2020 case back in March? And she goes, yeah. To the jury, Hey, turns right over and talk to them. You'll notice the police do that. She was the first sort of non law person who I've seen do that thus far. So good for her on being coachable on how to talk to the jury. Prosecution did a good job with her. So, uh, what else did she just say there? So she was talking about, uh, the idea is George Floyd had previously been, almost killed due to a drug overdose dose to the point that it required her to take him to the hospital and stay there for a few days. You'll notice that the last line of questioning there, he was trying to dive into whether she knew at the time. He said that a few times. Well, okay. So at the time, did you know that he was overdosing on heroin? No. She says, no. I had no idea. Well, if you watch the rest of this segment, then she'll, she actually does come back and confirm that she may have told that to the FBI or to some other investigators earlier on in the investigation. So this is another example of somebody whose memory or testimony is a little bit contradictory to what she said previously during the earlier original investigation. And so, you know, this language was, this cross-examination was not particularly good for the prosecution, but wasn't terrible for them. You know, they had to get this information out in front of the jury. They had to get the idea that George Floyd was an addict out because that's actually a better framing than if he was a drug addict, right? It's, it's, it's a, it's a nuanced difference, but somebody who's an addict who's trying to recover is looked at a little bit more favorably than somebody who is just sort of not beyond hope. They're not even attempting to get sober anymore. They're just out there using without any remorse or even any awareness that this might be a problem, two different things and society views them differently. I presume the jury will as well. So now we transition, we talk a little bit more about, this is our first paramedic. His name is Seth Brown vendor. This is what this guy looks like. And he was one of the first people on the scene. You may remember him actually. I mean, his face is in one of the body camera videos where he comes out and he kind of is just, he first one of the first paramedics on scene. So we're going to hear from him. Then we're going to hear from another individual who showed up right after this guy. So two back-to-back medical people and, you know, their testimony was somewhat useful. A lot of what we heard today is sort of framing out still the context of the entire situation, but it's really not getting, in my opinion to the meat and potatoes of what the real issue in this case is, which is all about causation. What was the cause of death? We're going to get to the medical experts when we get there. But this is sort of the first person who is medical related, who showed up on the scene and actually was trying to probe at George Floyd's body to determine what to do and how to treat him. So this is Seth vendor, a Hennepin County paramedic.

Speaker 3: 29:19

What did you see when you arrived on scene? Um, as we're pulling up to the scene, saw multiple officers on the side of the road with our patient lying on the, on the ground next to a squad car. So, um, as you were pulling up, was that the position that you observed on him, meaning the officers on top of the patients Mrs. Walker? Yes. Could you tell at that point, as you were approaching, what, um, the situation was or what you, what the condition of the patient was at that moment? Uh, no. There were multiple officers on top of the patient. We pulled up to that point. Uh, we assumed I should I say, I assumed that there was potentially some struggles still because there were still on top of them. So that was my assumption when we pulled up. So when you got to the scene having no additional information and seeing what you saw, that's what was going through your mind when you got to the scene, what'd you do next? Uh, parked the ambulance, uh, you know, the patient got out. I walked to the back of the ambulance and my partner walked over to check on the patient. And what did you see when you got out of the ambulance in terms of, um, the patient's condition at that point? I was standing a little ways away so I can get my partner would have a more accurate description of his condition at that point, but from what I can see where I was at, I didn't see any breathing or movement or anything like that. Did he appear to be unresponsive to you at that point in time? From what I can tell? Just standing from a distance? Yes. And, um, was he in handcuffs? Yes. And we're just getting the patient here. Was that patient later identified as Nordschleife? Yes. So, um, when you got out your partner, first approach does that, right. Um, what were you doing at initial point in time when you first got there? Um, as he went over to check on the patient, I was watching him to kind of get a cue on what we were going to do next, because you know, we're still determining what the patient condition was. Um, so I was kind of waiting for him to go check on the patient and then know what to do next. At that point in time, when you were standing outside and your partner was approaching a patient, did you see a struggle of any kind going on and movement? Anything like that? Nope. Okay. Um, so after your part, your partner, first question, do you see what he was doing? Yes. You talked a pulse on his neck, aquatic pulse, and also like he checked the patient's peoples. And did you, um, discuss with your partner at that point? Next steps? Yeah, he walked back towards me and I passed. Uh, is he in cardiac arrest? He said, I think so. So these are the word cardiac arrest. What does that mean? It's a term we're gonna use for anybody that's not responsive, not breathing, uh, and it doesn't have a pulse currently.

Speaker 2: 32:02

All right. So not a lot out of this guy's testimony, uh, SAS testimony, he was sort of laying out some of the procedural framework there, you know, showed up, got out, assess the patient. You heard it, not nothing too groundbreaking there, not even any really good sound bites that you can run with sort of mechanical, right? Showed up, saw that there was nothing really going on there. I presume that there was still a struggle because they were still on top of them. But by the time my partner, who we're going to hear from next, by the time he checked his pulse and his pupils, while we're going to hear what he says. And so this is where they're sort of framing out the idea that maybe they should have rendered aid earlier. And this is where we get into a separate issue about this depraved mine, and whether this was some sort of negligence that would rise to the level of manslaughter or murder, because they should have rendered aid. In other words, a man was dying right under their bodies, right under their knees and arms, and they didn't render aid. So how do you overcome that? Well, then the next argument is going to be that they had to continue to execute their duty as police officers, rather than render aid, right? They have to prioritize certain activities. One is maintaining order, conducting an arrest, responding to threats around them. The other is, is to preserve life and they have to prioritize those things. It's going to be a tricky thing to do. Isn't it. So let's take a look at paramedic number two, and this is not good for the defense. This guy shows up. Here's what he says.

Speaker 3: 33:39

Sorry. And when you approached, you said he was in handcuffs as you approached him to inspect further where the officer still on top of him. And what did you do when you approached, assessing the scene running through what Jeremy needed. And did you take some initial steps, like checking for a pulse check for a boss? And, um, did you also check the individual Mr. Flores pupils? And what did you determine at that point? They were large dilated. So you determined that as peoples were large dilated, what about a pulse do not help it a boss? When you say palpate is that you didn't feel or detect a pulse and what did his condition appear to be to you overall? In lay terms? I thought he was dead. So, um, what did you do next? Try to get one for my partner dead. And I want to move this over. Okay. We'll begin here on the bed. Did you say you would begin care in the back of my room and, um, is the red where of your equipment is to deal with something like a cardiac arrest? Okay.

Speaker 2: 35:07

Okay. So they actually do load George Floyd up into the back of the vehicle. They in the ambulance, they move the ambulance down a couple of blocks because the crowd was now getting a little bit out of control. So they wanted to go to a safer location. So you kind of got two things that are going on here. You know, number one, this guy shows up within a second. It sounds like pupil. Paul says this guy's dead, right? That's not a good fact for the defense. That means that Shovan. And the other two officers who were laying on Floyd were laying on a dead guy to this guy,

Speaker 1: 35:38

Right? He had already died. He had expired right in front of them and they didn't do anything about it. That's not going to sit well with the jury. The second thing that is not so good for the prosecution is that this guy, when he showed up, he also recognized that this was a dangerous scene. This was not something that was safe. We're not going to start doing chest compressions right here in the middle of the road, because he could feel it that this did not feel safe. So they actually had to load George Floyd up and relocate him. They strap him to a chest compression machine in the back of the ambulance. Some very gruesome pictures that you can see if you watch the full trial within the machine does chest compression so that they can start doing other things like opening up the airways and whatnot.

Speaker 5: 36:18

And they were

Speaker 1: 36:20

Not able to do that right there, because it was an unsafe environment, according to his own

Speaker 5: 36:25

On testimony, they had to move. So you've got some good

Speaker 1: 36:29

Testimony for the prosecution and some not so good testimony for the prosecution, because if they had to move, if the situation was so volatile and so dangerous,

Speaker 5: 36:38

Then you would

Speaker 1: 36:40

Extrapolate that Derek Shovan was also feeling that same thing. And he also had to prioritize

Speaker 5: 36:46

His response. And so if you can show us

Speaker 1: 36:49

Through the Minneapolis police department or some of their protocols

Speaker 5: 36:53

That you've got to maintain

Speaker 1: 36:55

Order, you've got to protect yourself and your own life. Before you start worrying about your surroundings, sort of like in the airplanes, right? Put your mask on before you put somebody else's man

Speaker 5: 37:07

Chauvin had to do that for himself and the officers will be the defense argument. So they,

Speaker 1: 37:11

He couldn't really focus on Floyd who was already resisting arrest and already disobeyed a number of different commands. And by the way, died of drug overdose

Speaker 5: 37:18

Anyways. Right. That's good.

Speaker 1: 37:21

And be the defense. And so this guy gives them a little bit of that. Not a lot, but a little bit is there. Now we've got two other witnesses that I want to fly through. Just for the sake of time we have the fire captain. His name is Jeremy Norton. He rode the fire truck from his station to cut foods only to find no patient there. So he encountered an agent, an agent agitated to distraught off-duty firefighter, Genevieve Hanson, who we heard from on Monday Norton said he inquired more about her concerns. Norton soon learned over the radio that he and his rig were needed elsewhere. Immediately for someone injured in a scuffle, they went back over to 36th street and park Floyd was being treated by paramedics. He was unresponsive body on a cot Norton set of Floyd. We did multiple pulse pulse checks, never found a pulse all the way back to the medical center with the call complete. He returned his attention back to Hanson. The off duty firefighter. He said, I understood the justification for her duress. So not a lot there from him. We have this other guy who is a Sergeant over with a third precinct, which I think got burnt down after Kamala Harris, bailed out a bunch of the, uh, the protestors. This guy is a supervisory Sergeant in the third precinct, which covers 38th in Chicago. He was alerted to reports about the officer's action outside of cup foods. According to earlier testimony, he fielded concerns on May 25th about possible excessive of force by officers while detaining Floyd. He said, it sounded like a less serious takedown. According to dispatch audio from that night prosecutor, Steve Schleicher reviewed various department policies about when officers must report use of force with takedown not being on that list. So Plager spoke with Chuck Shovan by phone, after being alerted to the incident and they, they played some of this audio today. It said, Shovan said we had to hold a guy down on the audio call said, going crazy. Wouldn't got in the back of it.

Speaker 5: 39:04

The squad plugger testified that he was told

Speaker 1: 39:07

The Floyd became combative. After struggling with him, he suffered a medical emergency and an ambulance was called

Speaker 5: 39:14

That's what he was told.

Speaker 1: 39:17

I haven't mentioned any use of force. He said, I don't believe so. So showman did not mention putting his knee on Floyd's neck. The Sergeant said, so some interesting testimony, as I mentioned, I did not finish this guy's testimony. So if I'm missing anything, I'm sure I will see it after the show. And we'll cover that tomorrow. So that's what happened today in the Shovan trial today was what day 16. We've got a lot more of this to go. Haven't even really gotten into any of the heavy lifting yet when it comes to expert witnesses or anybody who's going to be coming in and testifying about the ultimate cause of death, which is going to be a big portion of this case. So we'll see what we've got tomorrow. Maybe we'll get started on that. Maybe not, probably be more foundational stuff. And we'll see what Monday has, but stick around. If you want to be a part of that. If you want to ask some questions, you're free to do that. For some reason, they're not showing up in my slides and we'll figure that out later, we're going to change gears now. And we're going to talk about Mr. Gates, Matt Gates, big story. We talked about this yesterday. Lots of accusations flying around. Many people are saying that Matt Gates is now under investigation by the department of justice, allegedly for being involved in some sex trafficking with some underage minors and whatnot. And now he's sort of firing back and saying, no, actually this is all a ruse. This is all a facade. It's not even true. This is all because we were about to blow the whistle on people who were trying to extort our family out of$25 million and this random person, by the way, as somebody who used to work at the DOJ as a us attorney going, what, how does this even make any sense? This is like out of a movie, like out of a, you know, house of cards or something like that.

Speaker 5: 40:51

Well, we didn't know much

Speaker 1: 40:54

About this yesterday, but now we're able to add some more meat on the bones. And we learned here from politico.com that Mr. Gates, his father, Matt Gates, his dad said that he wore a wire for the FBI probe into the DOJ extortion claim. So they're saying that somebody who worked for the DOJ

Speaker 5: 41:11

Knew that this was sort

Speaker 1: 41:13

Of a percolating under the scenes over there, or somebody who used to work for the DOJ. And now they were trying to extort them. They were saying, Hey, we can make this indictment. That's coming, go away.

Speaker 5: 41:21

If you pay us 25 million. So they,

Speaker 1: 41:25

Or wire to sort of root out this extortion scheme. And the question was, well, what is this? Is his dad really involved in this? Like, was he really going to do this? We some corroborating information here. If we're going to be able to piece, piece this all back together. And so now we know that there is a little bit of that. So representative Matt Gates, his father, Don, a former Florida Senate president said he's working with the FBI, including wearing a wire on more than one occasion as part of an investigation into an alleged extortion plot that the pair said was organized by former federal prosecutor, David McGee. We heard that name yesterday. The FBI asked me to try and get that information for Matt and indication. We would transfer the money to Mr. David McGee. Don Gates said in an interview late Tuesday without specifying what information he was referring to. He said into the interview, he wore a wire during a meeting earlier this month with McGee and said that the, that he was set to meet on Wednesday, Steven Alford, a local developer, who said that he was part of the alleged extortion scheme during that meeting Don Gates. So that's Matt's dad. He said that he was set to wear a wire and to try to get Al Ford to talk about payments, allegedly was going to be making to McGee. But that meeting fell apart. When the news broke that his son was being investigated by the justice department. So the other people on the other side of the scheme freaked out, because now this is headline news. And the New York times Al Ford did not respond to text messages. So you can comment in separate interviews, Don and Matt Gates acknowledged the justice department probe involving younger Gates, 38 into whether he had improper involvement with a 17 year old girl. The Gates is say, they are the target of an extortion plot bar and the office of the attorney general. So if you remember this, this is not something that's really new. And yesterday we were having trouble trying to make sense of this, whether this was all happening simultaneously, whether there was an investigation into alleged sexual improprieties with Matt Gates, whether that was one thing. And whether this extortion scheme was an entirely separate thing or whether they were in fact related, it was all, it kind of was a little bit murky yesterday. And so now what it's looking like is yes, this investigation into the sexual allegations was already well underway. In fact, this had started in the summer of 2020 under the Trump administration. So they started this investigation. It sounds like somebody caught wind and in the DOJ and then use that.[inaudible] sort of funneled that over to the Gates as family and said, Hey, you've been under investigation for some period of time. If you pay us some money, we can make sure that that goes away. So that's the relationship there. And so this is just confirming that bar in the office of the attorney general received multiple briefings on the probe, but beginning in 2020, a second person familiar with the probe, they encourage prosecutors to move as quickly as they needed and to take whatever steps were appropriate. Briefings were consistent with bar's memo requiring notification to department leadership on probes of candidates. So bar specifically said, you got to send me a memo. Anytime that you're investigating one of these people, the briefing was important because among other reasons, bar didn't want to accidentally appear anywhere with Gates. The person said at one point bar was scheduled for a meet and greet with Republicans, but the DOJ canceled his appearance. Cause it would look improper. FBI spokesperson. Tina Jacobsen declined to comment on the probe. Don Gates said, he asked his attorney Jeffrey to keep in contact with David Goldberg and assistant us attorney in Florida. So there was evidence he was working with the feds Neiman didn't immediately respond to an email. We can either confirm nor deny the existence or status of an investigation, nor can we offer comment at this time. We appreciate you reaching out. I'm sorry. We can't be of more help. I said to the FBI, I'm willing to wear a wire and be cooperative. Don Gates said, but I was asked to say things that are not true to draw out an admission. We've talked about this a little bit yesterday, right? The FBI says, Hey, go in there and wear a wire. Say you did all this stuff so that you can induce the person you're having a conversation with to also admit that they did a bunch of wrong things.

Speaker 5: 45:10

Then we have you both. You have, we have you as an undercover person

Speaker 1: 45:14

Getting information about somebody else. But what if they don't say anything bad? Now the FBI has you on tape saying a bunch of stuff back.

Speaker 5: 45:22

And what if they already had that? And they wasn't captured

Speaker 1: 45:28

As a result of a conversation. It was actually you being stung, but you're trying to say that you were part of the undercut. You see how this works. Everybody's saying I'm undercover. This is why you can have very good James Bond movies. Cause everybody's undercover. We said I wanted there to be an understanding committed in writing that I'm working for the FBI and if their requests not operating on my own. So hopefully he's got something to support his claim. And I'm sure that he does in March 25th emails, Neiman and Goldberg said that Matt Gates shared with Politico that the cooperation between his father was discussed and confirmed. So we've got emails to say, I can confirm your client is working with my office as well as the FBI at the government's request. In order to determine if a federal crime has been committed in an email from Goldberg to Neiman, this has been discussed with and approved by the FBI as well as leadership in my office and components of main justice, the government, thanks you for working cooperatively with the FBI, the email concludes.

Speaker 5: 46:23

So there it's all actually happening. It's all true. Right? It's looking like

Speaker 1: 46:31

It was an investigation that started in 2020 that was authorized during the Trump years that was signed off on by bill BARR. And the FBI is also confirming that he is sort of being extorted, that they've been working about this extortion claim. Now the extortion claim really may be a little bit separate. And apart from

Speaker 5: 46:48

The sex trafficking allegations, he could still technically be guilty of that and also be the victim of an extortion crime, which is just kind of the bad day. Isn't it. Now

Speaker 1: 47:04

It's looking like a lot of this sort of came to light because of an investigation into one of Matt Gates, his colleagues, and this guy goes by the name of Joel Greenberg. We talked a little bit about him and we're learning more about his situation because he was also indicted. Federal investigators arrested him on stalking and child sex trafficking charges. And because there was such a close proximity between the two Matt Gates is sort of involved in it. Now whether he, you know, obviously was actually involved in it or was just sort of connected as a result of being friends with the guy we don't know yet, but that's what the investigation is there for. So this story came over from the Washington post. It says the ex GOP official Joel green

Speaker 2: 47:44

Berg flaunted ties to Matt Gates. He was in charge with

Speaker 1: 47:48

Sex trafficking. So until last year, Joel Greenberg, wasn't ascended political player in Florida where he used, he unseated long-time incumbent

Speaker 2: 47:55

And for County tax collector, he became prominent with Republicans, including rep Gates

Speaker 1: 48:03

In Roger Stone. Last June, his reputation fell apart in spectacular fashion. When investigators from the feds arrested him for stocking and child sex trafficking charges, then he resigned. He was 36 gay national promising prominence. After the New York times reported, it had sparked a separate criminal investigation into allegations that Matt Gates had a sexual relationship with a teenage girl. It's unclear exactly how Greenberg's criminal cases connected to the Gates investigation. Gait lawyers did not immediately respond to the post. It is clear that the two men who pose for a photograph together outside the white house in 2019 had ties in Florida where they both first gained power around 2016, Greenberg owned an Orlando based advertising company before running for office. He defeated a three decade. Incumbent family was embroiled over controversy, over real estate stuff. And shortly after his victory, he made headlines again, push deputy a tax collectors to carry guns, to work a move that was opposed by the attorney general. He used his title to, uh, to trying to S he used his title while trying to sway an actual police officer who stopped him for driving 39 and a 25. So one of those guys, all right, so Greenberg also navigated a political quagmire

Speaker 2: 49:10

After

Speaker 1: 49:11

Inappropriately funneling 3.5 million in taxpayer dollars. Independent audit conducted for the County said that he purchased and spent a bunch of money on inappropriately. So this guy's just not a good dude. All around federal investigators said the Greenberg had posed as a very concerned student in anonymous letters sent to the school or the political rival worked

Speaker 2: 49:30

Teacher. Okay. The letters accused

Speaker 1: 49:33

Teacher of having inappropriate sexual contact with the student. Yeah. So this guy is just terrible. Awful. The tax collector also created an imposter Facebook and Twitter accounts made to look like they belong to the teacher and wrote posts that portrayed his adversary, his segregationist and in favor of white supremacy. All right. So he's a troll as well. Uh, there's a lot of those on the internet. We know that in August federal investigators added charges to Greenberg. All right, so this guy's not any good investigators said. They found several fake IDs inside of his home accused a tax collector of improperly accessing a state database to access personal information of people. He was in sugar daddy relationships with including a minor victim between the ages of 14 and 17 Greenberg allegedly made fake IDs to help facilitate his efforts to engage in commercial sex acts. He was released on bond to await trial, taken into custody again, early in March, after he violated conditions,

Speaker 2: 50:22

Release broke, curfew

Speaker 1: 50:25

Tried to find his wife. He allegedly used wife's Snapchat account to track her location and showed up at his mother-in-law's home, uninvited around 5:00 AM. He was arrested in Seminole County. According to court records, judge ruled. He should remain into detention until trial in June so that guy's having a rough rough go with things.

Speaker 5: 50:41

All right. So

Speaker 1: 50:44

Interesting analysis comes over here from reason.com. So the question then was all right, is this really sex trafficking? And so let's take a look at what the libertarians have to say on this, because libertarians have interesting arguments a lot of the time. And this came over from reason.com. It's an analyses done by, uh, who did this? Matt Gates. I wrote her name down. Hopefully I wrote it somewhere. Ms. Faith will get it to me if I don't have it. All right. So, uh, this was written here. You can see, it looks like it says it's Matt's gate eight, Matt Gates, a child sex trafficker. Here's what the law actually says for more than a decade. Sex trafficking has occupied a central place in modern crime, panic and fears for child safety to many conjures images of abduction while morally suspect and quite possibly a crime of some, okay, what's going on here? The federal prohibition on sex trafficking specifically relates to commercial sex like prostitution involving force fraud, coercion people under the age of 18 passed in 2000 and expanded every few years since it implicates anyone who recruits entices, harbors, transports, et cetera, any person knowing that a force threats of force fraud or coercion will be used to coerce that person into a commercial sex act. It's defined under federal law to mean commercial sex act. Some have argued that if Gates paid for someone, he was having sex with, to travel with him, this constitutes commercial sex. But the key thing when it comes to commercial sex acts, whether we're talking about activity between consenting adults or activity that would qualify as criminal sex trafficking, is that any payment must be in exchange for sex. The payment needn't be a direct monetary exchange, but it must be quid pro quo. Two adults go together on a trip. One of them pays for the plane tickets and the pair winds up having sex that is not considered commercial sex, nor is it commercial sex. If someone buys a date, a dinner or some sort of a gift, and later the night that pair hooks up. And obviously if an adult pays a 17 year old to travel with them and no sexual activity takes place, that's not commercial sex either. But what about the activity alleged here on adult pain for a 17 year old to travel with him and also engaging in a sexual relationship with her that certainly could run a foul of a number of criminal laws. However, prosecution for child sex trafficking seems unlikely unless it could be proved that paying for the girl's travel was explicitly conditioned on her engaging in sexual activity or that money or something else of value was specifically promised in return for these sex acts saying that what Gates is accused of isn't child sex trafficking doesn't mean it's perfectly fine behavior for a member of Congress, but our modern tendency to describe any and all morally suspect or criminalized sexual activity as sex trafficking leads us not to moral righteousness, but moral panic. None of this is to say that a man in his thirties dating a teenager is something to be condoned. Most people agree. It's probably at the very least creepy. Many people would agree that it crosses a moral line depending on where the relationship took place might also violate a number of criminal laws in DC. The age of consent is 16, meaning that a sexual relationship between an adult man and a 17 year old girl would be legal. But the age of sexual consent in many States, including for a Florida is 18. So an adult having sex with a 17 year old in these places would be guilty of statutory rape a state level crime. And if a state County or territorial lines were cross prosecution under a federal law known as the man act is also possible. The Mann act of 1910, which is distinct from the pre federal prohibition on sex trafficking, pass the century, prohibits bringing anyone, including adults across state lines, with the intent to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. In addition to crossing borders for prostitution purposes, the Mann act also bans an array of other acts, some involving minors, the times report on Gates, his relationship it's true. This part seems to be the most applicable federal statute provided the age of consent in any of the areas traveled to is above 18. New York times did not say what statutes Gates violated, but it does report as part of a broader investigation where this investigation and Gates counterclaims will ultimately lead is anyone's guess. But for now it seems like a prime example of how sex trafficking allegations have become a catchall to capture all sorts of perceived sexual misconduct. Yeah. Not a bad point, not bad, right? Just because the allegations are there doesn't mean it's even technically a law, regardless of whether you're a violation of the law is what I mean, regardless of whether you condone the conduct or not. So good article from reason. And now we know that house minority leader, Kevin McCarthy is saying that if these allegations are true, they're going to remove them, but they're going to wait until the information comes out. So this is Mr. McCarthy.

Speaker 2: 55:34

Okay. I haven't heard from DOJ. I haven't been able to talk to Matt Gates yet. I just read the story. Um, those are serious, um, implications. If it comes out to be true. Yes, we would remove them if that was the case. But right now, as Matt Gates says, it's not true and we don't have any information. So let's get all the information. I haven't heard that.

Speaker 1: 55:52

All right. So that was an article from Elizabeth Nolan Brown over@reason.com apologies for not having that name earlier. And so that's it for that segment. We're going to wrap up. We've got one more thing to talk about here on, uh, some crypto cryptocurrency. Can you believe this talking about the sec, the security exchange commission, the sec is filing a civil lawsuit, a complaint they're suing a company called L B R Y. I'm going to call it library for transacting

Speaker 5: 56:24

In cryptocurrency for

Speaker 1: 56:27

Sending these little bits around to other people who use their platform. I want to break down the story because I think that we're going to be talking a lot about cryptocurrency and decentralized ways of living our lives for the foreseeable future. And I don't just mean talking about, you know, sort of the cryptocurrency by Bitcoin Bitcoin's over 59,000 or whatever that is. We're talking about some new utilities, some new platforms that are evolving on the backs of blockchain technology. One of them is this company called library and they're a competitor to YouTube. And so many people just think of blockchain. Like this is just a solution for an alternative financial system, but that's not the case. This is something where a number of different applications can be built on the back of the blockchain, which enables massive decentralization. So think about a YouTube

Speaker 5: 57:14

Platform that doesn't run on a company. It's just a platform. So there is no sense.

Speaker 1: 57:19

There's nobody to tell you what you can post and what you can't post and who can participate. And not because it's decentralized, it's kind of a weird new novel concept, but many people are concerned about these big platforms, exercising too much control over our lives

Speaker 5: 57:32

And sort of eliminating

Speaker 1: 57:34

Free speech, eliminating real debates in the name of, uh, you know, political expedience in my opinion, but they sort of tuck it under the guise of safety and dangerousness and all of those things. But what about a different way to attack that problem? What about, rather than sort of going at these companies in the courts or in even the normal realms of competition? What about just saying, Hey, we're just going to develop a different technology that makes you obsolete. That makes you irrelevant.

Speaker 5: 58:03

That's where this is going. And federal government is not happy about it. Most

Speaker 1: 58:08

The governments are not happy about it, and we're starting to see them exercise

Speaker 5: 58:12

The strong arm

Speaker 1: 58:13

Of their authoritarian power against these startup companies. We're going to talk about this one very interesting story today. This is library. And if you go on their website, they're going to say that L B R Y does to publishing what Bitcoin did to money. And so you remember that, right? Bitcoin sort of freed up a lot of people if you're not familiar with Bitcoin, fascinating, fascinating area, but basically, you know, anybody can go buy a Bitcoin or a portion of a Bitcoin trade money trades almost instantly. You know, if you, if you do a wire transfer from one financial institution to another financial institution, especially if it's international, it can take days. Even if it's domestic, it can take three days, Bitcoin, you go into Coinbase transfer some money. Most of it's virtually instantaneous, any amount of money almost. It's, it's a very interesting concept. Anyways, the point is that was all for money and the financial world. What they're talking about is this is for,

Speaker 5: 59:02

Or content, which is exactly what

Speaker 1: 59:06

We do here. And something that is so valuable for people in this country. Because right now we're noticing that people that we want to hear from are being de platformed and just thrown off, almost eliminated from the internet by these big tech companies, there needs to an alternative library is one of those things. And so I want to show you what it looks like. This is the YouTube competitor. So this is a platform called Odyssey, which is built on the back of the platform. I'm sorry, on the blockchain. It's built on L B R Y as a protocol. And you can see over here, this is my profile. So this is me on Odyssey. And I must have 5.2, two L B R Y. Whatever, whatever that's called, you can see the channel is here. I've not posted anything onto it because the last time I was playing around with this on Odyssey, there was some technical problems. I mean, I couldn't upload anything. I was trying to upload my content here to play around with this and support this group, but I just couldn't get it to work. And I think it was right around the same time that Donald Trump got deep platform and everybody who started scrambling to different platforms, myself included like, Oh, maybe I'll try this one. Maybe I'll try this one. And so things may have gotten better. I'm going to try to see if I can work with it again today. But you know, as you can see, not much is there right now, but that is subject to change. And so I want to show you what's going on here. So the sec, which is the same entity that governs a lot of our financial institutions and tells us what to do with our money and who can transfer to whom and what to report when and how to register this, that, and the other. They're getting involved now. And they're saying that what is happening with these cryptocurrencies is problematic and it's problematic because they don't know what you're doing. And they want to keep tabs on everything they want to, you're not registered. You gotta be registered with the government because if you're not registered well, then we can't tax you. And we can't control what you do. We can't regulate you. And that's kind of the point of all this stuff. But needless to say, this company was formed in the United States. So they are now subject to the laws of the United States. And I want to, they have a, they have a very nice video. I'm not gonna play the whole video at six minutes, but I want to play a couple of clips from it, just so we can sort of frame out what is going on here. So this is from their website over@lbry.com. If you want to find out where to support them here it is.

Speaker 6: 1:01:15

He has dealt another blow to those in the cryptocurrency community. The sec is devoting a significant amount of resources to this crackdown. The sec is going after crypto last month, the former sec chair said that

Speaker 1: 1:01:30

You have all of the crypto currency

Speaker 6: 1:01:32

And that review has well and truly begun. They've targeted ripple, kick telegram. And now they're going after library, a decentralized video platform. They've been saying the crypto tokens on these platforms are securities financial contracts, similar to stocks, and that they're in big trouble for selling them without being registered. If the sec is aggressive complaint against library holds up in court just about any crypto token, even any crypto trade could be targeted by the sec as unregistered. This would put the entire blockchain industry

Speaker 1: 1:02:08

At risk, not good. So this is a big deal. And I want to show you what the sec is saying about this. So sec charges, New Hampshire issuer of digital securities with registration violation. So they're going after them hard. And they are from New Hampshire. You know, they, they formed in the United States, which is a big problem. You know, we've got all these new companies, all this brilliant startup culture happening in this country. And now we have the government coming down and just smacking them over the head, stifles innovation. But this is what they're saying happened. The sec charged library, a blockchain company with conducting unregistered offering of digital assets securities. Okay. According to the complaint from at least July, 2016, to February, 2021, lb ROI, which offers a video sharing application, sold digital assets called library credits to numerous investors, including investors based in the U S complaint, alleges that they did not file a registration statement for the offering and that the offering fail to satisfy any exemption from registration, the complaint further alleges by failing to file a statement. They denied prospective investors. The information required for such an offering to be public as alleged. They receive more than 11 million in dollars in Bitcoin and services from purchasers who participated in its offering. The sec has complaint filed in the district court of New Hampshire, charges them with violating different protocols. They're seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and civil penalties. And they tell us who it's going to be handled with. So what's going on here? How is this all working? Let's go back to their video now that we know what the complaint is, let's see what they're talking about and how this all works.

Speaker 6: 1:03:42

Library says that they've spent three years over a million dollars and thousands of hours of team members' time on this case. So far,

Speaker 1: 1:03:50

It just wipes out a whole bunch of small startups.

Speaker 6: 1:03:53

I hope it won't wipe out library. I use library. Maybe you're even watching this video on odyssey.com a YouTube alternative built on the library platform. The token in question is libraries LBC token, which stands for library credits to explain how libraries LBC token works well. Basically you pay LBC to post a video. People can tip you in LBC. You can lend the LBC to other videos to give them more visibility and you get rewards in LBC watching content. It's the backbone of the whole library protocol. And without it, people couldn't use the network despite their practical use. The sec claims that library credits are stock like securities that people buy to make a profit rather than for use. Hey sec, I'm using LBC right now to tip content creators on the platform. But the sec, his position is that if something has value and someone buys it and the market sets the price, then it's an investment contract. And hence a security. I wonder what that makes beanie babies artwork, Pokemon cards, magic, the gathering cards, people buy all of those things, hoping the price would go up. Library says that they've never advertised LBC as an investment. It's a utility token to be used on the platform. Just like you use a Chucky cheese token at Chuckie cheese shop.

Speaker 1: 1:05:10

Yeah. Good analogies. I think that they make sense. I, I, you know, I agree that this should be something that is unregulated. That's kind of how the whole thing works. And it's of course, under scrutiny from the federal government. Why wouldn't it be? And it's going to be something that we're going to have to deal with. And I think that this is part of the natural evolution of cryptocurrencies and crypto and blockchain platforms just in general, is you're

Speaker 5: 1:05:33

Going to see several different hurdles

Speaker 1: 1:05:36

As this continues to develop. Number one, obviously is adoption. It's certain people are just not going to use this stuff over an extended period of time until they become familiar with it until the technology develops so that it is ubiquitous so that we have it everywhere so that we don't have to go through all of these different tools and skillsets in order to buy a piece of a Bitcoin or something like that. So technology will ultimately catch up, but once it does, and what's adoption rates pick up the government is going to come back down on it and say, this is unregulated. This is decentralized. We can't control this thing. That's why we don't like it. And so we're already seeing that start. This is just another domino in that cascade. And so let's go through the complaint itself just so we can see what's going on here. This is security and exchange commission versus library. So this is a private company here in the United States. And they're saying from 2016 to present,

Speaker 5: 1:06:22

They were basically selling

Speaker 1: 1:06:24

Those library credits. Just the same stuff that we just talked about. They were offered and sold as investment contracts and therefore they were used in exchange for us dollars, Bitcoins and other consideration. So if you would go on there, you would buy some of these credits and then you could use those credits to support other videos or to transfer, to make a tip to somebody. And the way that these blockchains work is you want to create a market and incentivize people to do work on the protocol. So in this situation, how do you, how do you host a bunch of videos that are decentralized? And I don't have the specifics of the library protocol work, but the theory is if you're going to be a person who's going to be delivering that content. If you're going to act as a server and provide that out to the world, then you want to be compensated for that. You would be compensated for that in the version of library credits. And so if you can sort of create a market and

Speaker 5: 1:07:13

Jumpstart it, spark it with

Speaker 1: 1:07:16

Some of these credits, then you can create this little market and people will start

Speaker 5: 1:07:20

Transacting and

Speaker 1: 1:07:23

Doing work in order to earn those credits, serving the content and the platform builds without having to have any centralized servers anywhere in the country, which of course makes it very difficult to censor somebody on that

Speaker 5: 1:07:35

Blockchain. So that's what they're doing. Yeah,

Speaker 1: 1:07:37

They're creating this market sec is not happy about it. Currently. Lb library offered LBC to institutional investors. So they were sending this money elsewhere to different people in order to generate funds, investment funds, paid library more than 250 K between October, 2017 and 2018. The term of library sale For the investor was to wait one year before selling the 2 million LBC. So they're talking about different cryptocurrencies. We see down here, LBL, LBR, why did not register its offer or the sale of LBC? So the library credits with the commission saying that that violated the securities act and the commission seeks permanent injunction, enjoining library from engaging in the transactions. So they've just got to shut off

Speaker 5: 1:08:20

All of that down and conduct

Speaker 1: 1:08:23

And a conduct based prohibition, prohibiting it library from participating in any unregistered digital assets, securities offering commission also seeks disgorgement of all ill gotten gains from the unlawful conduct. So any money that they made, they want them to give that up. This is jurisdiction. They're talking about the defendant down here. So we've got, it's a privately owned Delaware corporation principle place of business over in New Hampshire incorporated. In 2000

Speaker 5: 1:08:46

Thousand 15, Congress passed the securities, act two,

Speaker 1: 1:08:50

Uh, make our lives difficult. Then they have some facts here. Background library describes itself as a company founded to create a way to distribute and purchase digital content that would be open to the public and would not involve an internal

Speaker 5: 1:09:03

Media area. Intermediary

Speaker 1: 1:09:06

Targeted video distribution in SATA compete with YouTube, Amazon, and other video entertainment platforms to accomplish its objectives. They said they would use a blockchain related technology. Blockchain is an electronic distributed ledger or a list of entries maintained by various participants. In a network of computers. Library would create a block, a Brock blockchain protocol, a set of rules and procedures that govern the transfer of data and library would create a user application. They would create software that would allow the user to use the protocol. So it's an interface with the blockchain. They would then recruit creators and producers to publish

Speaker 5: 1:09:41

Their videos and movies on the protocol.

Speaker 1: 1:09:44

And they would publicize the protocol and the applications to attract

Speaker 5: 1:09:46

Consumers. They would support

Speaker 1: 1:09:49

Themselves by offering these LDCs to investors. So it's almost like a startup. Here's what they said on its website. In the early days of our protocol library, we'll be making a concerted effort to deploy the coins in a non neutral way. We'll be incentivizing early adopters, amazing content publishers, and even non-profits who share our vision for a free and open internet. We will be retaining a portion to finance that continued development of the ecosystem. Library credits will work on behalf of the development of the content distribution network, not

Speaker 5: 1:10:19

The other way around. So they launched

Speaker 1: 1:10:22

In 2016, they held the first 400 million library credits in possession, which was 40% of the supply. They divided the LBC into funds and used LBC in those funds to raise money. So this is a little bit different. So, you know, think about this in, in terms of like, if you're a startup and you want to go public, you go out and you sell your shares. Once the call, once a company has demonstrated that it has enough value, then you go public open up and people will buy shares of your company. You make a bunch of money. If you are one of the original founders of the company. So you're, you're sort of going out there and going public. This is kind of working in reverse. This is kind of going public saying, if you want to support us, you can invest in us now. And we're going to use those funds

Speaker 5: 1:11:03

To build a company kind of the opposite

Speaker 1: 1:11:05

Way, right? You normally like with Google, right? They work up, they start making a ton of money. They go public IPO. Everybody buys their, their shares go up through the roof. They become, multibillionaires kind of opposite. This is, Oh, we don't know if this is going to work, but if you want to participate, you can buy some coins. We're going to use a portion of those coins or those credits in order to fund our continued development, you get to get some benefit by being an early adopter. Those coins have a little bit more value now than

Speaker 5: 1:11:30

They will later. So library

Speaker 1: 1:11:33

Divided the, the big, the LBC that it held into accounts called an operational fund community fund and an institutional fund, slightly different goals for each one of those different things. And let's see what they are. So community fund is reserved for spreading usage and adoption of the protocol. The more people use and love library, the stronger the network is number two is an institutional fund, which is going to form in international partnerships, institutional partnerships, and then the operational fund, 100 million LBC to fund continued development and provide profit for the founders. So they're going to be taking some profit out of it because library held such a large amount of LVC. It's fortunes were inextricably intertwined with those of other investors holding LBC, they offered and sold securities is what they're saying here. So for example, July, 2017, they were running low on cash to pay for its development of the network. So in July it sold 1 million LBC directly to secondary market purchasers through online digital asset trading platforms. Later in November, the LBC, the price of LBC climbed after dipping in October and the profit from rising prices, they continue to sell LBC.

Speaker 5: 1:12:43

After the fact on various dates,

Speaker 1: 1:12:46

They sold another 5 million LBC starting in 2017, same story starting in 2017. So there's a lot of transactions happen.

Speaker 5: 1:12:54

Yeah, they're using it like, like you would

Speaker 1: 1:12:56

Currency investment contracts. So they go through, they do an analysis on some of this stuff. They're trying to determine whether it is an investment contract. So they're going through an analysis. What is the first prong? Did the LBC holders invest money? They go through, yes. From around 2017, 2019 library transfer the proceeds of sale to its bank account. Total 6.17 million represented almost all of the money. Okay. So we have some people who did invest real American dollars into it. Second prong of the analysis, they invested in a common enterprise. They're saying, yeah, they did. LBC holders did invest in

Speaker 5: 1:13:32

And enterprise. Well, cause they were all investing in life.

Speaker 1: 1:13:35

February. They pooled assets. It received from investors and deployed those assets collectively to fund its business operations. So pretty obvious there, third prong, LBC holders, reasonably expected,

Speaker 5: 1:13:46

No profit, which makes sense. If it's going to be an investment contract, you're investing why to generate a profit.

Speaker 1: 1:13:55

Barry led the LBC holders to believe that the value would appreciate based on library's efforts using his website and social media told the public that it would appreciate and value if they grew its functionality, which I think is accurate. I don't think there's anything dishonest about that on its publicly available library, highlighted and publicized its employees, including all of every, they have a quote there that says our goal is to increase long-term value of the protocol which have adopted globally. It will make our operational fund many times more valuable than any short-term bubble. We've already invested. 10,000 working hours into this project will take many more

Speaker 5: 1:14:31

And they can

Speaker 1: 1:14:33

To offer and sell the library credits despite a relatively low price, they sold 10 million LBC to retail investors between 87,500 25,000. They publicly announced an a video posted to its website that they're going to start offering even more to sell. And they're doing so 430

Speaker 5: 1:14:51

Library credits for

Speaker 1: 1:14:54

35,000 were sold to a third-party vendor,

Speaker 5: 1:14:57

Did not register

Speaker 1: 1:14:58

Sturtz offer, did not register its sale of securities. And so these are the claims they've won unregistered offerings. What do they want for relief, permanent injunction. They want them to stop being able to, to transact

Speaker 5: 1:15:08

In that currency. They want it

Speaker 1: 1:15:11

To discord its ill-gotten gains and

Speaker 5: 1:15:14

They want to stop them

Speaker 1: 1:15:17

For participating directly or indirectly in any unregistered digital asset security offering. So signed off on by all of these sec,

Speaker 5: 1:15:25

The people.

Speaker 1: 1:15:28

And here's what Odyssey is saying back about this. We are reaching out to you today. I got this email two days ago on Tuesday, we are reaching out to you today as part of our continued effort and commitment to transparency. They filed a complaint against us saying that this constitutes unregistered security offerings. First and foremost, it's important to know that this complaint is not aimed at you. It's at the status of the library. Credits SCC is seeking to stifle innovation, accessibility, creativity that are inspired by block chain companies also fails to acknowledge the concerted steps taken by library, to comply with the law and to conduct its business in a forthcoming and transparent way. They've operated in good faith. They've sought to comply with the rules, the know your customer and anti money laundering principles.

Speaker 5: 1:16:13

And they're asking

Speaker 1: 1:16:14

For your help. So lastly, if you want to go and help go over here and say help

Speaker 5: 1:16:20

LBR Y

Speaker 1: 1:16:21

Save crypto.com. You can sign their petition there.

Speaker 5: 1:16:25

They want you to help them fight. So

Speaker 1: 1:16:27

Blockchain industry survives. And I certainly support that. So if you want to support them as well, go join, go to help. L B R Y save crypto.com

Speaker 5: 1:16:38

And maybe, maybe

Speaker 1: 1:16:39

The sec will come and do a census. I like this technology. I know that there are kinks to work out here, but I do absolutely think that it's necessary,

Speaker 5: 1:16:47

That we continue to allow

Speaker 1: 1:16:50

Them to thrive and develop. And it's difficult

Speaker 5: 1:16:52

To do that in a highly regulated

Speaker 1: 1:16:56

Situation. All right. So we've got some questions, myths.

Speaker 5: 1:17:00

His faith has sent a few over. All right, we're going to go through a couple of these.

Speaker 1: 1:17:06

These are just generalized questions. Let's fly through them. When also bring in the fact that he had COVID to block valves and taking them

Speaker 2: 1:17:12

Meth as well. And farmer's daughter.

Speaker 1: 1:17:18

Yeah, I think that is absolutely going to come into play, but it's probably going to be part of the defense

Speaker 2: 1:17:24

Case in chief. So they've got their own expert witnesses who are going to come in and they're going to

Speaker 1: 1:17:28

Absolutely go through that toxicology report at some point in time. Actually, the government's going to have to answer to that. If they're going to be introducing that as an exhibit, next question up we've got,

Speaker 2: 1:17:40

My slides

Speaker 1: 1:17:40

Were not working today, says can the defense have a reenactment of the scenario? So one where some people were doing an example and Floyd was still able to move in neck and head without reduced breathing issues. So you're, you're sort of talking about a demonstration in the middle of a trial and I don't, you know, theoretically yeah, you can do that. The example that I've explained here before is when officers will get up off of the stand and they will demonstrate the field sobriety tests in a DUI case. So they'll actually, you know, stand, do the one leg, stand the walk and turn, they'll do

Speaker 2: 1:18:09

The, uh, uh, the pen test. They'll

Speaker 1: 1:18:12

Sort of walk you through it. They'll demonstrate it for you. And so, you know, oftentimes what will happen is defense lawyers and attorneys will introduce motions to limit what you can do to limit what is allowed. And so I'm not sure if that issue has already been addressed in this particular trial,

Speaker 2: 1:18:27

But I presume that it would be right. Yeah.

Speaker 1: 1:18:30

You know, Scott Adams, I think posted on Twitter the other day, that if he was the defense attorney, he would do the closing argument as the lawyer. He would just, if you're the defense attorney,

Speaker 2: 1:18:40

You just lay there and you have

Speaker 1: 1:18:42

Derek, Shovan just come and put his knee on your neck. And you do your closing argument in front of the jury panel as that sound. So we've got a J bone 86 says, what are your thoughts on the paramedics testifying that the crowd was being unruly? I think it's a good fact for the defense.

Speaker 2: 1:18:56

If Shovan the reason why he didn't lend

Speaker 1: 1:19:00

To George Floyd, his excuse or his justification, depending on how you look at this

Speaker 2: 1:19:04

Is going to be, it was a dangerous situation. I was not worried about it.

Speaker 1: 1:19:10

George Floyd, I was worried about the safety of the officers. We were performing our duty. We had to conduct an arrest. The crowd got unruly. They were basically a threat to us and our lives and our safety. We are trained as officers to protect ourselves above anything else in the world. If we're threatened,

Speaker 2: 1:19:25

We, we don't change gears. Paramedics show up and say, yeah, we also felt threatened the environment.

Speaker 1: 1:19:32

It was very bad. So that is a concerning thing for the prosecution. It's sort of lens weight to the defense perspective that this whole situation was serious, which is exactly why we couldn't it get up off of George because it would have destabilized the environment Ryan says, is there a way that defense can highlight the exploitation of George Floyd's drug use to prove a motive to execute a suicide by cop operation? That's a complicated question. Let's do that one more time. Is there a way the defense, so this is Eric Nelson. Can they highlight the

Speaker 2: 1:20:03

Quotation of George Floyd's use to prove a motive

Speaker 1: 1:20:08

To execute a suicide by cop operation? So the exploitation of his drug. So can they talk about his

Speaker 5: 1:20:16

Drug use? Uh,

Speaker 1: 1:20:18

Yeah. The, yes, they can talk about his drug use. And I think that they're, they're already trying to do that is proof of compensation to the girlfriend required from a third party

Speaker 5: 1:20:26

To illustrate external,

Speaker 1: 1:20:28

External influence to prove such a motive. So you're asking if the girlfriend got paid and that might jeopardize her testimony,

Speaker 5: 1:20:36

Uh, if they had

Speaker 1: 1:20:38

Evidence of that, it might be appropriate to ask the judge about that. And you certainly want to address that before you just sort of lunged at her with some evidence of that. I would say because the judge might have issues with that, but yes, the general rule here is you can impeach somebody and their credibility. So if they went out and found that, yes, she got paid a hundred thousand dollars to go testify a certain way. Yes, you can impeach her over that. And there's no question. Um, but you gotta, you gotta have some basis for that. How can former similar encounters with police beside it as evidence of such a motive continued to be clear. I want to see the whole truth of the situation come to light, considering all possibility that officer Shovan made gross errors in judgment and where George Floyd had ulterior motives above and beyond what one could expect to occur during a typical encounter with,

Speaker 5: 1:21:23

With police officers. Okay. So how can a former similar encounters be cited as evidence of such motive? So you got

Speaker 1: 1:21:31

A lot of questions in there, Ryan, I'll be honest, I'm having a little bit of trouble sort of following them because there's, I think there's separate issues, separate questions, but how can former similar encounters with police? There's a rule under the federal rules of evidence. If you want to look this up, it's called rule four Oh four B that's where they're talking about prior bad acts. So that this is where they're trying to get similar encounters with the police about George Floyd's incident in 2019 into court. So they can talk about it. And so you look at that rule rule four Oh four B, you can also look at the federal rules of evidence.

Speaker 5: 1:22:00

Um, uh,

Speaker 1: 1:22:02

Look, look in there. You're going to see things like motive, intense modus, operandi, and some other elements that, that say that you can talk about that other stuff it happened previously. It's not this specific case we're in trial on this case, what happened on May 25th. But now what they're saying is you can go back and look at other things. If it fits a certain category, motive is one of those things that's excluded under the rules we have spoilers says, can you talk about some of the differences, if any, between your opinion of how this trial is compared to the MSM court TV analysts.

Speaker 5: 1:22:33

So, uh, I don't know,

Speaker 1: 1:22:36

Watch them, so I don't know what they're saying about it. I would be able to analyze that if I watch them at all and I don't even know what they're saying about it. So I just basically, uh, go to different websites for my news. And I almost never watch any mainstream news. Can you believe that? I don't have cable? Sometimes I'll see clips of people. Like I played a clip yesterday of Rachel Maddow. I played a clip previously this week. I think of Tucker Carlson, but those are just clips I see on YouTube or on Twitter. So I just don't know what they're saying or what their analysis, but it's probably

Speaker 5: 1:23:06

Awful like the rest of the mainstream. Yeah.

Speaker 1: 1:23:09

Yeah. Which is why I don't watch it. We have news. Now Wyoming says, if you go to an extreme definition of commercial sex, what is the difference between dating, paying for dinner, drinks and prostitution? It's a good question. It's a really good question where exactly does that line

Speaker 5: 1:23:23

Yeah. Crossed, right. Okay. Matt Gates says he's a gentlemen, right? Expended. A lot of expenses on dates with women. Hey,

Speaker 1: 1:23:36

If you're a guy, you know, you know how this goes, right? You got to pay for dinner and open the door and do all that stuff.

Speaker 5: 1:23:42

If

Speaker 1: 1:23:42

Something happens later that night as a result of your time

Speaker 5: 1:23:45

Charm and wit, is that prostitution cause you bought dinner. I don't think so.

Speaker 1: 1:23:53

Yeah. Jeremy Murrieta says a good comparison to simplify how blockchain works is. Think of a peer-to-peer network as in file sharing or music sharing blockchain uses multiple users to verify transactions. That's a good summary. Thank you for that, Jeremy, what else do we have? I think that was our last question of the day and our PowerPoint wasn't working. So I apologize that those were sort of lumped in together at the end of the program. They're supposed to be interspersed between the, the clips between the segments that we do, but that's all right. So we're going to get things back together. We'll be back here tomorrow doing the same thing before we do. I want to say thank you to a couple people here. All of you who are supporting us over on locals, where those questions just came from, you can support us there by going to this address down here at the bottom, called watching the watchers.locals.com. And let's say thank you to those of you who are already supporting us over there. Big thanks over to my Fox and miss faith. Joy. Of course, we also have hack consulting, saw a couple of names today, just X, U X a. We got chairman of the board in the house. We've got grandma, Brenda, we got Rolf 77. I want to say thanks to Nords Fen and drag and Bama Likud. We've got news. Now. Wyoming saw him today. Good to see you. We have CSEC. We have ruler law. We have Jeff Langston in the house and then Patto signed up yesterday. What's up paddle. Welcome to the show. Welcome to the program. Thanks for supporting us and hello to spoiler Jr. For and honey Brown, who also are supporting us@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. If you want to join, you can get some of these great things over there. Great copy of my book, free copy. PDF is available for download, grab a copy of the slides that we went through today. Sign up, share some links, have some good conversation with people. Get a copy of the impeachment party templates. If you want to impeach somebody it's very easy to do so you can also get a copy of my existence system. Personal productivity tools is a free template that you can download, meet great people and stick around

Speaker 5: 1:25:44

And get to know each other. That's what it's all about. All about rolling.

Speaker 1: 1:25:50

And so I want to thank you for being with us today. We are going to be back here. Same time tomorrow, quick reminder, I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group. So if you know anybody, anybody at all, who's been charged with a crime and needs a little bit of support. We can do that at our firm. We love to help good people. Who've been charged with crimes to find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. And so if you happen to know anybody who needs help with a DUI or domestic violence or any misdemeanor, felony charges, restoration of rights, being allowed to vote again, possess a firearm. Again, any of those things we can help with, we're very good at what we do. We're passionate about it. And so we would be honored and humbled. If you trusted us enough to send a referral our direction, we'll make sure we take very good care of them. And that is it for, from me. We'll be back here tomorrow. Same place, same time, 4:00 PM Arizona time, which is the same as Pacific time right now, which means it's 5:00 PM. Mountain 6:00 PM central in Texas, 7:00 PM out there on the East coast. And for Florida, man, we are going to hop on clubhouse right now. So there's a link in the description below and folks, there is now Twitter spaces. So clubhouse, maybe we'll just move it on over to Twitter. I don't know what's going to happen, but we're going to be there right now for about 10 minutes or so. I'll see you back here tomorrow. Everybody have a very lovely evening sleep. Very well. See you back here. Same time, same place. Bye bye.