Chauvin Trial Day 20, Capitol Hill Case Bail Victory, Ghislaine Maxwell Case Updates

The government continues presenting witnesses and evidence against Derek Chauvin for the killing of George Floyd in Day 20. Defendants charged in the January 6th Capitol Hill Protests claim abuse and win a victory over bail in the D.C. Circuit Court. Ghislaine Maxwell’s defense team hit with massive document dump and other updates. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Government’s LAPD Use of Force Expert Witness Sgt. Jody Stiger is back on the stand.​

• Sgt. Stiger reviews the Use of Force criteria elements with Prosecutor Schleicher.​

• Defense lawyer Eric Nelson introduces clip of George Floyd allegedly saying he “ate too many drugs.”​

• BCA Special Agent James Reyerson is brought in to discuss Derek Chauvin’s physical size and weight.​

• Ryan Samsel, an alleged Capitol Hill Protestor charged with a crime on January 6th, is claiming that D.C. guards beat him last month, causing him serious injury.​

• Department of Justice indicates that the matter is under investigation.​

• Capitol protestor defendants win in bail ruling case in Court of Appeals decision over bail.​

• Judge Robert Wilkins says prosecutors failed to specify allegations of dangerousness.​

• We review the 21-page opinion in USA vs. Eric Munchel in the D.C. Circuit​

• Prosecutors in Ghislaine Maxwell’s case reveal they disclosed more than 2.7 million documents.​

• Review of the letter from U.S. Attorney to the Court regarding a subpoena by Maxwell’s lawyers against the law firm representing Epstein’s victims.​

• U.S. Attorneys also inform the court about Maxwell’s conditions inside federal custody.​

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

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

CLUBHOUSE AFTER PARTY DISCUSSION:​

• No Clubhouse today!​

• 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 #UseofForce #ExcessiveForce #CapitolHill #CapitolHillRiots #CapitolHillProtests #January6 #GhislaineMaxwell #Maxwell #Epstein #EpsteinDidntKillHimself #Bail

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Mueller. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group and 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 the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we're back in business, we've got date 20 of the Derek Shovan trial. And so we've got a lot to get you there. And I mean, a lot, like I was watching it today and I have just been clipping like a maniac. So we're going to get through all of the witnesses that were presented today. We've got a little bit of work to do, to finish up with Jody Steger, who was the guy who was testifying yesterday at the close, had some more testimony from him today, which was very interesting. Then we're going to transition. We had some forensic chemists and toxicologists come into court today and talk about those pills, those mysterious bills that were sort of floating around George Floyd's vehicle and even the vehicle, even the back of the squad car. And so we've got a lot to get into there. So stick around for the Shovan and stuff. We're going to jump around. We're gonna jump right into that right out of the gate. Then we're going to transition a little bit. We're going to, we got an update that we got to get through on these Capitol Hill cases because the DC medical examiner just came out today or recently and told us how certain individuals died. And so I want to go through and just sort of check in on those cases, what's going on with them, because there are times in this country where certain segments of our population, certain defendants in particular society just deems to be expendable. It's just garbage. Those people are garbage. We're just going to throw them in the trash, forget about them and move on. And of course, we're not going to let that happen here, whether it's at Shovan, whether it's the Capitol Hill people, whether it's Golin Maxwell, we're going to talk about everybody because we believe in the principles of justice and the presumption of innocence. So we're going to talk about the Capitol Hill cases. There was a court of appeals ruling out of the DC circuit. You may remember on this channel, I have been hyperventilating myself about some of the bail, uh, regulations, some of the bail rulings that we got out of the DC Capitol Hill cases. And so a DC circuit court agrees with me, said that a lot of this was nonsense. And so we've got an update on that. Then lastly, we've got a big update on Golin Maxwell. In fact, she's got a big update as well because the prosecution is now indicating that they may be disclosing something like 2.7 million pages of documents in her case, a sex trafficking case, the 0.7 million documents. What, what is in there. So we're going to talk about that. We've got a ruling from the judge or a couple of letters back and forth from the U S attorneys to the judge. And we also have the U S attorneys updating the court on Glen Maxwell's health. How she do it, because remember her attorneys have said that she's losing her hair losing weight. And so the judge has told the government that they have to update the court every so often about her condition. And they just did that. So we've got an update on that as well and much more because of course you are a part of the show. You get to ask questions, at least if you're over on locals, you do. And the way that you do that, as you go over to locals.com and find our community called the, watching the Watchers community, it's right over there. You can get a copy of the slides that I'm about to go through. We've got a lot of clips, a lot of material, a lot of meat in these slides. So if you want a copy of those, go over to locals.com, look for our community, watching the Watchers. And as we're going through the show today, if you have a question, a comment, a criticism, anything you want to leave over there, there is a live chat happening right now. And you can go on over there, ask your question and miss faith is going to add it to my slide deck, and we'll be able to answer your questions. And so let's get into the news without any further ado. Derek Shovan still on trial. Today is day 20. The government is still presenting its case in chief. And so let's take a look at our trial board to see what was going on today. Move myself over here to the left today. We had a lot of activity from three different prosecutors, one Steve[inaudible] who was really handling most of the witnesses this morning, Mr. Matthew Frank was handling most of the, the government witnesses this afternoon. And then we saw this woman over here. I still don't have her name. I'm going to get that though at some point and update my slide. And she was handling the last witness of the day. Then we, we saw these individuals testify. So we have the use of force expert, which Jodi Steiger was the person who was testifying at the close of the day yesterday. And then first thing this morning that was followed by another use of force expert, have a little bit from him. Then we spent some time listening to this woman who is a vehicle forensics person. So she's an expert. She was responsible for processing the vehicle that George Floyd was in, as well as some of the squad car that they tried to get him in near the conclusion or about the middle of the incident. Then we hear from the government chemists. And so this woman came in and talked about these magical pills that they found that suddenly, uh, you know, sort of came out after a second round of inspection by government officials. And then we also have this private chemist who closed out our testimony today. And so we've got a lot to get into and I want to start off by discussing the, uh, the gentlemen that we started hearing from yesterday. Uh, Jody Steger, Steiger, I think is how you say his name. And he is an expert witness from LAPD. And so they brought him into court yesterday and he is sort of this private expert witness that the government is hired to come in and say, Hey, what's your opinion on a lot of this use of force stuff. So he was testifying a lot yesterday and we were, we're picking up today based on what he's doing is he's walking us through a lot of these policies and procedures that, you know, kind of police agencies across the entire country follow because we have one Supreme court, one constitution. And so you can't have a police department that runs their department like the United States and another one that runs themselves like China or something, right. They would be in violation of the Supreme court rulings. They would be in violation of our constitution. They, they they're, they're not equal. So they all sort of

Speaker 2: 6:16

Have this. They STEM from the same origin. And so this guy comes

Speaker 1: 6:22

And he's not part of Minneapolis or Minnesota in general, but they bring him in from LAPD. Who's a use of force expert. And he's talking about this case called Graham versus Connor and these different factors that are incorporated into police manuals and use of force procedures and things like that. And so we're picking this up with that conversation. And so what is happening right now is this prosecutor, Mr. Steve[inaudible] is now asking him questions. This is the direct examination portion of this trial. So these are friendly people. This is the government's witness. This is a government prosecutor, and they're asking

Speaker 2: 6:52

Any questions. And what you're going to see him do is pull up literally a screen

Speaker 1: 6:56

From the manual from the Minneapolis police department use of force and the code of conduct manual. So they're going to look at a document and then this prosecutor is going to clip out a specific part, and he's going to say, Hey, well, what about these three things? What about these three factors? And I want to just frame out sort of what's happening, uh, in his mind or behind the scenes. Just a little bit. So in law school, there's a concept that we talk about when we do an analysis, when we're analyzing legal issues. If you're a lawyer, if you're in law school, you know what I'm talking about? You know, where this is going. It's the Iraq formula and many people Iraq, what

Speaker 2: 7:27

Like the middle East? No, I R

Speaker 1: 7:29

A C it's an acronym for doing legal analysis. And so the, I stands for issue. What's the issue? What are we talking about? R stands for the rule a for the analysis and C for the conclusion. And so this is just kind of a very simple framework that you are sort of taught when you're presented with a difficult legal question that needs some analysis, you say, okay, well, what's the issue? What are we talking about? Well, in this case, in the George Ford case, we're talking about the cause of death. And in this witness in particular, we're talking about use of force, excessive force, objective reasonableness, and those types of legal concepts. And so what they're talking about here is basically

Speaker 2: 8:03

What we're going to do, what he's going to walk this witness through

Speaker 1: 8:07

Is an analysis based on three factors. So they're going to talk about these three excessive force factors. And they're going to say, okay, if the issue here is whether Derrick Shovan used excessive force, how are we going to analyze it? That's the issue? That's the I in the Iraq? Well, what are the rules? So how do we determine whether he did actually use excessive force or he was in violation of their internal policies and procedures? How do we analyze that? Well, we look to the rules. The issue is that he violated the rule is, well, where do we look? We look to the manual. We look to the book that they have on this thing. And so that's

Speaker 2: 8:37

Exactly what Steve Slusher,

Speaker 1: 8:39

The prosecutor is doing. He's going right to the rules. And you're going to notice in this next clip, that there are three different rules. There are three different guidelines or three different factors that they're going to apply or analyze, which is the,

Speaker 2: 8:52

It's the application of the rule to the

Speaker 1: 8:56

Facts. It's the analysis portion of it. And so he said, okay, we know what we know. The issue is about excessive force. We know the rule is one of these three things. How about the analysis? And so this witness is applying the rules to what happened back on May 25th of 2020. And then you're going to see at the end, he gives us a conclusion. And so we have three different factors that he's going to do a very quick analysis on, and he's going to take every one of those sort of those, those mini analyses and draw a conclusion that answers the issue, Iraq issue, rule, application, or analysis, and conclusion as it was going to do that very briefly. Then what you're going to see is Mr. Nelson, come back out and really expand the scope of this thing. Remember how many times we've talked about this scope about where both sides want this to go here? The prosecutor is saying, Oh, look, we have three rules. We have three guidelines. So that's it right? That's it you're done. Did he do that now? If they didn't do that? No, they didn't do that. No. All right. So our analysis means that Derek Shelvin did in fact use excessive force. Nelson comes back out and says, no, no, no, it's not just those three rules. This is a way bigger thing than just that. And I want to show you how he does it, and it's pretty dang masterful. So this is the prosecutor who's going through this framework with this witness. Let's take a listen in.

Speaker 3: 10:10

So there's the form and highlight the three bullets look page. Now at the very top, it says from Minneapolis conduct, use of force policy and procedure manual section five dash 300 series. Is that right? There it is. And you see the different Graham versus Connor factors outlined here that you previously testified about. True. Yes. And you've already spoken, uh, as the first factor of the severity of the crime issue that changed during the restraint period. No, the crime was still that Mr. Floyd was in possession of a fake$20 bill. And I'd like you to focus that on the second factor that is whether Mr. Floyd, uh, pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others at the time during the restraint period. No, he did not. Why not? Because he was in the prone position. He was handcuffed. He was not attempting to resist. He was not attempting to assault the officers kick punch or anything of that nature. Have you ever communicated intent to do so? No, I did not. I didn't hear any verbalization of any threats towards the officers. Did he ever indicate whether or not he had the ability to do so? No. He did not. Uh, can you comment as to the number of other officers on the scene present at the time and how that would relate to any opinion you have regarding whether Mr. Floyd presented a threat? Yes. So, um, another factor that's considered, uh, when evaluating a use of force is a number of officers versus a number of subjects. Uh, in this particular instance, there were actually five officers on scene, uh, three officers that were using body weight on Mr. Floyd. And there were two additional officers that were on scene as well. And in terms of the threat, there's a descriptor here and that is, it needs to be an immediate threat. Is that right? Correct. And so on your analysis, Mr. Floyd, in order to pose an immediate threat would be able to presently cause some sort of harm, is that correct? Yes. Immediate meaning it's happening right now. Now focusing on the third factor, and that is whether Mr. Floyd was actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Uh, could you describe to the jury, your analysis as to that third factor? Based on my analysis, Mr. Floyd never, uh, was not actively visiting at the time that the, he was in the front position, nor did he communicate to them that he was attempting to resist or evade them.

Speaker 1: 12:07

All right. So pretty easy, right? Pretty simple analysis. He says what the issue is or excessive force use of force violating a protocol, a police departmental protocols. What's the rule goes through and you'll notice, right?[inaudible] you may have missed that. So I wanted to give you a little bit of a heads up, but he said, okay, let me, let me open up this document, go to the second page. And he just goes right in and he highlights the three bullet points that he referenced three times goes back, says, what about severity? Did the severity of the crime getting any worse? Well, no, not really. George Floyd, allegedly the, the initial, the initial crime, there was counterfeiting, uh, submitting a counterfeit$20 bill that didn't get worse as this unfolded. Now you could argue that maybe it did, maybe there was some additional disorderly conduct or an additional resisting arrest charge. So you could actually make that claim. Right. You could say that, that there was a series of new crimes that were committed when he did not get into the back of the vehicle. He was refusing a lawful order, disobeying a police officer. However they phrase it there. Now he's saying it didn't get any worse. That's fine. I don't want to, you know, have qualms about that. But if you could make the argument the other direction, he also says, was he immediate an immediate threat? No, he wasn't an immediate threat. Right? That's another rule. That's a second rule. Immediate threat. No, I mean, he, he could have been until he was in handcuffs and he had four officers laying on his back, but he was no longer an immediate threat. Right. So, okay, great. We got that one. Now we move on to the next one. Was he actively resisting? Well, no. I mean, he passed out after about four minutes. He wasn't even conscience conscious anymore. So obviously that factor doesn't fit either. So should he be, have been using any force at all? Well, not, not really. Right. According to this next statement here he is,

Speaker 3: 13:46

Sir. Do you have an opinion to a degree of reasonable professional certainty? How much force was reasonable for the defendant to use on Mr. Floyd, after Mr. Floyd was handcuffed placed in a prone position and that resisting? Yes. My opinion was that no force should have been used once he was in a position.

Speaker 1: 14:01

Okay. Very easy. Right. So you, you do your analysis, you know, what the issue is, should use a force have been used? Well, we looked at the three factors. No, obviously not pretty easy now. Very narrow. Okay. Because we know that there's a lot of other words on that paragraph on that page, we just looked at the three bullet points. What did the paragraph before that say, what did the paragraph after that say, how about the page before that? Or the page after that? They just pulled out three factors, did a brief analysis on it and came to a conclusion based on the rules. But what if the rules aren't exactly right then your application of the rules to the facts are going to lead to a bad conclusion, which is exactly what Mr. Nelson is talking about. So you're going to see here, what does he do? What's his defense. And he just reads the rest of the document. He just and reads the rest of it,

Speaker 2: 14:52

Provide some context and he's expanding the scope of the analysis. So here he is in court this afternoon.

Speaker 4: 15:00

So again, you've reviewed the Minneapolis police department policy that incorporates Graham versus Connor, correct? Correct. And within the Minneapolis police department policy within the Minneapolis police department policy, um, I'd ask the court to, uh, I would like you to publish exhibit one Oh six. I have one Oh six. There is an exhibit one Oh six. There is the incorporation of Graham versus Connor. Yes. All right. Now the authorized use of force in the state of Minnesota exists primarily from a state statute, correct? Yes. And then that state statute, in terms of the police department policy has to be consistent with the Graham versus Connor factors. Right. Right. And it's fair to say that there's more to the analysis of Graham versus Connor than simply the severity of the crime, the immediacy of the threat or the act of resistance, right? Yes. In fact, what the ultimate, uh, police department policy says here is because the test of reasonableness under the fourth amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. It's proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular face case, including those three factors. Right. Not limited to those three factors, correct. After we discuss those after the policy discusses, those three factors, the policy goes on to read that the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer. Correct? Correct. On the scene, correct? Correct. Rather than with the 2020 vision of hindsight. Right. Right. And the reason that becomes important is this next paragraph, which reads the calculus of the reasonable of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split second judgements in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. Great. That's what that one says. Yes. And that's, this is the Minneapolis police department policy. Correct. And then it concludes by saying that the authorized use of force requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each case. All right. So ultimately the analysis of the reasonable, the objective reasonableness of any case, it has to be a consideration of all of these thoughts that are contained within the policy if they apply. Yes. And this is not an exclusive list of factors that apply. Right? Correct. Because ultimately it's, what's called the totality of the circumstances, right? Yes. So we have to look at the entirety of everything that's going on, right? Yes. We have to look at the subject's actions as well as the officer's actions. And to clear your mind, Allison, I look at the actions before, during and after with officer knew at the time, things of that nature.

Speaker 2: 17:26

All right. So this is such an interesting thing that's happening right now. I can't even explain it, but this is the police department's policy working against the government right now, which is such an interesting thing. So yes, the way that the analysis was done by this witness makes sense. If you want to be very narrow

Speaker 1: 17:50

And reach a particular

Speaker 2: 17:51

Conclusion, but that's not

Speaker 1: 17:53

How the police write their policies. They don't want that to happen because typically these are being used against the police department. These are being used against the department, generally speaking, right. This is a police department policy. So they want to write them in a way that their institution is somewhat protected. And so, yes, they're going to give us three factors that you should analyze, but they're going to give us a bunch of escape routes. What, right. Don't you know, we just heard Mr. Nelson go through all of them. He talked about reasonableness and about other factors and it's the totality of the circumstances analysis, which encompasses anything and everything. And we have to deal with this a lot as criminal defense attorneys, we say, yeah, but judge, he lied about that. And he lied about that and he lied about that. So there's no way that he could make a reasonable observation that our client did what he claims they did. And they just come in. The cop says, well, no, I mean, technically I didn't have that or that or that, but based on the totality of the circumstances, suddenly I think that I was justified. I had enough probable cause to do whatever, you know, nonsense I just did. And the judges just go, yeah, that sounds good. Totality of the circumstances, pretty reasonable expectation. That sounds fine. So you get to do whatever the hell you want. And so, and so the police department policies are written in that way. They're written to give them a bunch of escape hatches and pressure relief valves so that they, if they are in a situation like

Speaker 2: 19:11

This in this case, Derek Shovan is, was a former cop and he's on the outs. But the same policies that protect the police, generally speaking, are still good.

Speaker 1: 19:22

I to protect him because they're written with all these holes in it, it's not as cut and as black and white as this is, it's not as cut and dry. The prosecution wants to make you think that, but these are written specifically to not be that way so that when somebody shoots Briana Taylor, when some maniac cop has fire in his gun, just through apartment buildings that he gets off, he doesn't get charged with

Speaker 2: 19:42

Anything for that grand jury indictment, the whole thing, Oh, no charges. Why? Because he had

Speaker 1: 19:49

Escape patches. Now he was still on the inside of the blue shield of silence on the blue, inside the blue code. So he was still within that energy shield that protects him against any criminal liability. Derek Shovan got thrown outside of that bubble. And so now he is no longer technically protected by the gun

Speaker 2: 20:07

Bureaucracy, but he still,

Speaker 1: 20:09

No, this was operating under the same set of policies and guidelines, which are written to be so one-sided it, they're virtually impossible to breach because they have all of these escape patches. Well, you know, hindsight is 2020, and we got to trust the officers who were on the scene, uh, objectively reasonable. It wasn't what's that, that standard we should, yes. Hold to that standard, but take in all of these other factors. And so you can just sort of craft whatever you want. The policies are designed this way. So what the prosecutor's trying to do is really narrow that in and Mr. Nelson is blowing it up. Oh, well, am I right? Well, here's an escape patch that you idiots put in your own policy. So we're going to use that. And we're going to use that one and we're going to use that one. And this is just standard. This is just how it works. So they're using their own policies against them, by reading from the document. This wasn't anything that, that Eric Nelson or Shovan had to create or go get somebody to twist the words on. And you'll, I didn't mention this, but before this happened, Eric Nelson was going to go in and ask that, that witness about the, the Supreme court case specifically. And there was an objection and the call, the, the judge kind of called them off to the side. They had a sidebar and he came back and he changed his questioning just slightly. So he didn't go into the case law. He just read the rest of the document because the case law may have been outside the scope of the direct examination. So he may not have been allowed to ask about that. He didn't need to, he didn't need to go in and cite all of these different Supreme court cases. All he needed to do was just read the rest of the police report, which gives them all of this scape patches, all of the leveraged, all of the, the, the ability to maneuver. He just reads, it, reads it right back to him. This is your own policy. It's talking about all these things that it says I can do in fact, and he gets his own witness to go. Yeah. All of the different totality of the circumstances. He finished his sentence. He finished Eric Nelson sentence. He said, it's really not just about three factors, right? It's more about the totality of the circumstances because he knows. So not a good day, not, not a good strategy there. My opinion. Now this was also a interesting segments of the trial because during his questioning, Mr. Nelson, Eric Nelson, the defense lawyer is also asking him specifically about something that George Floyd said in the clip itself, because he's reviewing a lot of the body cameras. He's reviewing the use of force and he plays this clip and the prosecutor doesn't object. And there's no, no conversation about this. Eric Nelson is saying that George Floyd said, well, let's let, let's see if you haven't heard it yet. Let's see what you think about this. Here. It is.

Speaker 4: 22:49

I'd like to, uh, publish, um, part of the body-worn camera. It's officer King's body-worn camera starting at, um, 20, 2101. Yes. Any objection like you to see if you can tell me what Mr. Floyd says in this instance. Yes.

Speaker 5: 23:23

[inaudible]

Speaker 4: 23:25

Hear what he said and now I can make it out. Does it sound like he says, I ate too many drugs listening.

Speaker 5: 23:37

[inaudible]

Speaker 4: 23:38

I can't make that out. No. Okay. So in the chaos of a situation,

Speaker 5: 23:46

Things can be messed, right? Yes.

Speaker 6: 23:54

Let that hang out there. Did he say ate too many drugs, ate too many drugs? Did he say that well? Or did he say something like, I ain't do any drugs. This is like Yanni versus Laurel. I ate too many drugs. I ain't do any drugs. What do you think? So here is what I have done. I have taken that clip. Just that clip. I have it played at regular speed. Like we heard it in court today. I have it slowed down by 50%. Then I have it sped back up again. So I'm going to play it right now. I'm going to turn the volume up just a little bit. Ask yourself, what does he say? Does he say I ate too many drugs or I ain't do any drugs. Pretty close. Let's take a listen in and you be the judge.

Speaker 5: 25:02

[inaudible]

Speaker 6: 25:26

That's a tough one. We're going to have to see what people say in the comments, I suppose. So get those queued up there. Ate too many drugs or ain't do any drugs. I don't know. I don't know. It's a good one. Well, next up, we've got this guy, James Ryerson. He is with the Bureau of criminal apprehension and he was the next witness who came out today. So we have the eight to any drugs thing. Now we get an answer from him actually. So he listens to the same clip and we're going to see what he has to say about it. But he is somebody with the Bureau of criminal apprehension. He had a lot of testimony today. I'm going to read a synopsis from him because we got just so much more to get to. He's a senior agent from the Bureau of criminal apprehension testified on Wednesday that Derek Shovan kept his weight on a handcuff, Florida Floyd, four minutes longer after Florida was no longer talking or moving, which we already knew right there. They're showing this stuff. We've already known. Having earlier reviewed various video sources regarding the encounter. He said that Chauvin's knee went on the back of his neck after eight, 19:00 PM. He felt silent after 8:24 PM. And he says, does it appear that officer Shovan is using his weight to hold Floyd down? The special agent says, yes, it does all obvious stuff. We don't need to spend much time on it. He said that the weight was still on Floyd for two and a half minutes later. After when paramedics arrived before the midday break, he says they met in Minneapolis, which with one of them going to the scene, he went to the city hall. He took a full body photograph of Shovan, which I'm going to show you in the next slide, which was shown to the jury. Matthew Frank asked how much the average, uh, how much the officer weighs and she'll show me it as a buck 40, he then added that Chauvin's duty belt and his gun would add another 30 to 40 pounds to it. The prosecution spent a fair amount of time talking about the knee, talking about the pressure. And we talked about this yesterday, about the knee cap and about sort of adjusting your body weight so that you can pinpoint some of that, right? You do this, some of this in martial arts with your elbows and your knees and your shoulders. And it's something that they're spending a lot of time on today. We already know that. So it wasn't that interesting to me, but this is the image that they took after of Shovan right after the incident. And you can see, right, he's got some body armor on, he's got a belt on, he's got a gun. He's got, you know, all of the fittings, handcuffs and so on. And so, yeah, maybe he does have an extra 30 to 40 pounds on his, on his body. And so yes, that is an individual that would be 140 pounds plus 30 to 40 pounds, 170, 180 pounds, which is

Speaker 2: 27:44

It is

Speaker 6: 27:45

What it is. Right? And so not much really interesting testimony there. Then we change gears and we meet Mackenzie Anderson. That's this woman here. She is also with the Bureau of criminal apprehension. And she is a forensic scientist. She is somebody who does the processing of the vehicle. And so she gave us a little bit of a tour around the vehicles today. So she specifically, we started by going into George Floyd's vehicle. And you'll notice that this was exhibit one 42. Let me move myself over here. These are marked on the bottom. So I'll move myself up to the top. But exhibit one 42, we'll notice that there is a, a packet of Airheads over here, which are delicious, but we also have a pill right here in this little bit of air, this little area of the dashboard. So this one

Speaker 2: 28:28

Within Floyd's, uh, vehicle, and this is, uh, exhibit one 42. Then we have another angle here.

Speaker 6: 28:37

And you're going to notice that the PR this is the prosecutor's line of questioning. So the, this is the government asking her these questions. So she is the person who processed the vehicle. So everything gets impounded, gets transferred over to her. Obviously somebody has to be in receipt of that. They got to go through the vehicle, make sure everything is properly cataloged and organized. Pictures are taken so that the evidence is preserved, then that what they do is actually seal the vehicle up and they, they put crime tape on it. And so it's sort of like, you know, when you order door dash now in the era of COVID, everything's kind of sealed up and you go, Hey, it's this was packed by whatever. And you break the seal. So that way I know that the driver has not gotten into my food and same thing here, they they're sealing up the vehicle in a way that they say, we know that this

Speaker 2: 29:17

Is being protected, that people

Speaker 6: 29:19

Are not just opening coming in and out of here. And so they, they ha they have to catalog it, seal it up and just preserve it until the case is resolved. So this is the prosecutor who's asking these questions and walking us through this, and this is not good information for the prosecution, in my opinion, but you're going to see how they are trying to fix it a little bit. And we already saw some of this previously. So let's continue to go through some of this. So here is, uh, I think this is an evidence number 48 or 46. We have. And so the prosecutor, once again, is walking us through this and we zoom in and you're going to notice that they call this out. This is a Suboxone packet, which is a prescription drug that people will take when they are addicted

Speaker 2: 29:59

To opiates. We already knew

Speaker 6: 30:02

That we already knew that George Floyd had an opioid problem. We already knew that his girlfriend also had, uh, an opioid problem and that they had sought treatment on a number of different occasions. We also know that they were buying drugs or had previously bought drugs. We don't know about that particular day, but we know previously that they had from Maurice hall because

Speaker 2: 30:23

Of the fact that, well,

Speaker 6: 30:26

It was in the video that we all saw, but he was also somebody who has, has very recently invokes his fifth amendment, right? He's not, he does not want to be incriminated by testifying, which is good advice, but other people have implicated him and Floyd's girlfriend herself so that they bought drugs from him at previously. So they're on Suboxone. And we know that the government has to deal with this really bad fact that he's got 11 net and Floyd had 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl in his blood, along with methamphetamines and other substances. So how do they deal with that? We've already seen how they're going to

Speaker 2: 30:57

Deal with it. They're framing Floyd

Speaker 6: 31:00

As a recovering addict, which is the right theme for, I think this, this area of the trial, right? This was somebody. Yes. We know he was an addict. Addicts don't deserve to be murdered just because he had an opioid problem or a fentanyl problem doesn't mean that he's a bad person who deserved to be executed by a police officer is their argument. So they're sort of embracing that bad fact, Oh yeah, we know their drugs. We know that this is, this is all coming out. In fact, we're going to show it to you. We're going to show you around the vehicle. And we're going to show you the fact that he's trying to recover from the drugs. As you can see, here's Suboxone,

Speaker 2: 31:34

It's right there along with some lemon heads, which are less

Speaker 6: 31:39

Favorite candy. But we have that in, in picture 46 and 47. We've got over here, Suboxone again, right? These are prescription drugs. They're for people who are trying to get off to a sort of wean off of the opioids, it helps taper down some of the cravings on the way out. And so they're just walking us around and next up we get this image. So this is evidence marked number 48. And we can see here two pills, in fact, one and two. And so they put them together. Here's a different angle. So you can see both those there, they look like homemade pressed pills. To me, you look like this. I mean, honestly, this looks like some even potentially like marijuana residue. If you just look at it, but you know, who knows what that is, but this definitely, they look like homemade pressed pills. You can see sort of the irregularities there on the pill itself. Doesn't look like, you know,

Speaker 2: 32:28

Uh, uh, something pressed professionally. And this is

Speaker 6: 32:32

Part of Floyd's vehicle. So we're going to get into that because we have two forensic, psycho, uh, not psychologist, forensic who are going to testify about the testing that they did on those pills and what their conclusion are. But before we get there, this same witness takes us over to the police vehicle. So now, remember George Floyd, this is where this all started in this vehicle, but then they pulled them out. They tried to put him in the back of the police vehicle and she's responsible for the same thing. There she's responsible for inventorying the vehicle and making sure that everything is properly documented and cataloged. So she takes us around the vehicle and here is a picture of the inside of the back of the squad car. And we can see a shoe here and we can see a harness over here. And so this is one of the first pictures that she took, but they eventually moved stuff out of the way. And then we see something that looks like this. So here, now she marked on the vehicle with these different stickers areas where there was blood, or it looks like some bodily fluids. And we also will notice that once the vehicle was once the, uh, the shoe was moved out of the way, we see another pill there, Hey, that's a whole nother pill. And so the theory is this pill is either magical or it entered the back of this vehicle from Floyd's vehicle because Floyd was the person who brought it in otherwise, where did it come from? Right. And she goes through and she tells us specifically more about some of her testing. And then she gives us some conclusions on this. And here she is in court testifying this afternoon.

Speaker 7: 34:08

Now the strap has been removed and we see some other items here, correct? Correct. This was after the strap was removed. And this, this denotes the four locations on the rear passenger seat, bottom, where blood was indicated. And I collected samples from each of those four areas. So as we've seen them, there were in my calculation, seven different stains, six of which presented, we tested positive as blood, correct. They were seven that presumptively tested positive for blood and one additional for a total of eight.

Speaker 6: 34:35

Okay. So that was just like a clip of her testimony, but basically she goes on and she continues to say, yep, those came from Floyd, saliva on the pill came from Floyd. And so essentially you can go look it up on the star Tribune, but they're reporting that. Yeah. I mean, it's looking like the DNA evidence shows that the blood in the back of the vehicle and the pill itself had Floyd's saliva and DNA on it, which explains how that pill got there. And that is not a good fact for the government, right? Especially if they're going to be, if the defense is going to come out and be saying that this was a last minute ingestion type of situation, and they've got priors on that, they've got the 2019 case or something very similar to that happen. So this, you know, now they have to deal with this. The government has to deal with this. This is not a good fact for them, but they have to call it out. If they didn't bring this to the jury's attention. And Eric Nelson, the defense brought it to their attention. They would look like liars and cheaters, and they would look like they're to manipulate the jury. So they can't keep that stuff out. They got to talk about this stuff. It's very bad facts, but how are they going to try to now fix this? Well, let's talk about the analysis of it. So what if there's a pill? So what what's in it, that's where we get to our next witness, who is Brianna Giles? This woman here, she's a toxicologist. And so she's is a forensic chemist. Uh, I actually don't know if her official title is as a toxicologist, but she's a chemist. She works probably at the forensics toxicology department of whatever crime lab she's a part of. And they do analysis on bodily samples, bodily fluids, and other types of evidence. And so what she did is she tested the pipe. One of the pipes that they received and what she find in there, it was marijuana. There was THC in there. There was no evidence of the marijuana, no evidence of the actual green leaf, but there was remnants and residue of THC, which means it was a drug pipe. And so that's kind of how her testimony started, but then she walks us through the analysis of the pills. And so the way that this work is the prior witness was a person who received the vehicle. Did the inventory, did the photographing, the cataloging of the evidence. She seals that sucker up impounds all of the pills in pounds. The evidence transfers it over to this gal. This gal Ms. Uh, Brianna Giles then is the chemist who does the analysis and she works for the government. So we're going to hear from her, then we're going to hear it from a private chemist who also does her own analysis on it. So we've got corroborating reports. So let's take a look at Ms. Giles and see what she can tell us about the testing procedure and the pills,

Speaker 7: 37:12

Actually two pills in item 48. Yes. And did you test them at separate times? Yes. Okay. When you initially tested them, um, can you describe for the jurors of the condition of item 48, at least one of the pills? Well, no. Sorry. Did the two pills look consistent with one another? Yes. And so, can you describe for the jury as though the appearance of the pill when you saw both pills up here? Uh, the same, uh, both whites around, uh, with marketing's RP on one side and 10, over three to five on the other side. And you mentioned earlier pharmaceutical markings. What did you mean by that? The markings arche one zero three, two, five. They were had a Mark or a logo on both sides of that one. Now in your job, do you have to become familiar with how manufacturers, Mark their pills? Someone? Yes. And when you saw these markings, did you recognize them as anything? I did not. So they're just markings on those pills? Yes. And so it's not like you recognize these as marketing's were aspirin or something of that nature. Correct. And, um, so initially you only tested one of the pills. Why was that per our policy at BCI? Typically when we receive multiple tablets and admission, uh, we only will analyze one of that population if they're all similar, unless it is requested that additional tablets are analyzed. And did that happen here? Yes. Who requested that you, do you remember who requested? She tests? Both pills.

Speaker 6: 38:31

All right. So we've got a basic overview on the testing process. What she did. It sounds like these had some numbering, some labeling on them, some markings on them. So she guided us through the process, pretty standard stuff. Now, here is what she concludes.

Speaker 7: 38:48

First. He was looking up markings and upon looking up the markings in the database, uh, uh, the material contained, I followed that up by scraping off a portion of the tablets, um, and putting it into liquid. And that liquid is then injected onto a gas chromatograph, mass spectrometer. Or do you see us now? You indicated that the markings on the pills indicated, Oh, I'm gonna butcher it if I try it, but that they can tell you what oxycodone in your experience, in your training, in this field, uh, do you know whether sometimes, uh, homemade pills are given those same marketings to make them look legitimate? Yes, that can happen. Yes. And, uh, so in this case you got the initial indication from the marketing's, which you proceeded to follow through with the testing, correct? Yes. And, um, you adjusted both of those pills, correct? Yes. And did you follow all the standard procedures you need to do when performing that kind of testing for your laboratory? Yes. And what were the results of the testing? The tablets contained methamphetamine and fennel. And are you able to at the BCA lab to quantify how much methamphetamine or if I know one of those pills? I mean, yes. For fentanyl? No.

Speaker 6: 39:58

All right. So very, very interesting testimony from her, right. Coming out and owning it while we're in the pills, methamphetamine fentanyl, can you quantify them the meth? Yep. Fentanyl? No. So we know that now jury knows that now. And the question that I have is does that matter? I think the answer is a resounding yes. The question is how much does it matter? In my opinion, from my perspective on this in the world, fentanyl is a highly, highly dangerous molecule. And it feels to me like most people know that we hear stories on a regular basis of like, you know, dozens of people just dropping dead around the country. And it's pretty indiscriminate. It's anybody who, you know, he can be a high school, college kid, 50, 60 year old people dropping dead from fentanyl. And it feels like most of the, the zeitgeists of our country sort of recognizes that everybody's sort of in touch with this, that fentanyl is a very dangerous molecule, stay away from it. And that even a little bit can kill you. And this is why people are dropping dead. They think that they're getting something that has been laced with some fentanyl, even a tiny little bit. You see some of those images and the memes going around the public service announcements, you know, you have a penny and you have just like three little specks of fentanyl. And they're like, Hey, this, this amount of fentanyl will kill you. So if, if we're even talking about the F word here at all, and somebody's dead, it's pretty easy. I think to connect the chain there to connect those dots. So she just come out and told, she just told the jurors that two were all right there, meth and fentanyl, and they were fake pills, right. They were trying to pass themselves off as aspirin and oxies, but they weren't, there was something much more serious. And what she's talking about here is that you really can't well in the next clip. So alright, in this clip, she just finished. And she said, we can quantify the amount of meth, but we can't quantify the amount of fentanyl. So she's talking about sort of two different, uh, two different problems or two different analyses that are happening. So she uses the same methodology that we use for DUIs and other drug cases. It's called GCMS gas, chromatography, mass spectrometry. And it's a, it's a, it's a highly technical testing method that will quantify how much of something is in something. So the example would be any DUI case. They test your blood, how much alcohol is in the blood that we know there's alcohol in there, but we don't know how much of it is in there. So two different things. One is the quality or the qualitative test what's in there. What's going on with that? The next is quantitative. What is the amount of that? So, yes, we know that there were out, there was alcohol in your blood, but how much of it, that's where we do the GCMS testing. And that gives us the quantification amount here. What you're saying is we can quantify the methamphetamines, but we cannot quantify the fentanyls. And you're going to see that carry over into this line of questioning with Eric Nelson. So very short cross examination from, from him today on her. And he says, specifically, can you say, it's, it's fentanyl? She says, I basically can't confirm. I can't confirm or deny it. I can't say that it is. And I can't say that it isn't here is Eric Nelson today,

Speaker 4: 43:12

Just to be clear, item 48 came from the center console of the Mercedes-Benz, but were identified as coming from the center console of the Mercedes Benz. Correct. And that's what was reported to you? Yes. And the other items, 51 52 53 and 54, they came from the backseat or they were identified as coming from the backseat of SWAT three 20, correct? I can't speak to 54 51 52 and 53. Yes. They were identified coming from vaccine spot three point. Yes. And in terms of, um, the, is it fair to say that there was some evidence that didn't meet your laboratory scientific, uh, threshold or scientific standards that a different controlled substance was potentially pressed? There were indications of other substances. I can't speak to whether they are controlled and non-controlled substances. And those were brought to the attention of everybody involved, right. For business purposes. Is it in my notes? Okay. And that was fine though. I can't confirm because it simply didn't meet that laboratory requirement. Yes. In terms of quantity, right. The testing I did did not have any type of quantitative measurement, but in terms of whatever other markings you may be looking for, right. Whatever guidelines you can't, you can't say it was or wasn't that high enough.

Speaker 2: 44:32

Okay.

Speaker 6: 44:33

So I think what's happening here and they're not getting too technical here for a good reason because the, the jury, his eyes would glaze over, but they're, they're having a conversation about the difference between sort of qualitative and quantitative. So she's being coy about this. And I think she probably knows that it's phentenol, but she can't say that because, but because scientifically you can't prove it based on the test that she did. And so, you know, they, they typically will do this, you know, let's say somebody gets arrested for a DUI and they don't really know what that person is on. It's like, they give him a breath test. It's not alcohol, but they know that person is impaired, but they got to dig in a little bit further and they can't identify what it is. Is it cocaine? Is it methamphetamines? Is it fentanyl? Is it, uh, you know, any other opiate opioids, prescription drugs and anything, right. There's a, there's a whole cocktail of drugs that it could be. And it may not even be one of them. It may be a handful of other things kind of mashed in there together. And so what they, what they'll typically do is they'll do sort of a, an initial screen and they'll say, well, look,

Speaker 2: 45:27

We know that these drugs have

Speaker 6: 45:29

Certain properties. And so if we chemically test them doing a certain baseline test, then that's going to give us an indication of what it could be. Right. This is in the opioid class of drugs. We don't know specifically which one, but it's in that general category, it's like

Speaker 2: 45:44

Soda, what kind of soda I'll have a Coca-Cola

Speaker 6: 45:47

Well, not anymore, but you know, I'll have a Dr. Pepper these days, right?

Speaker 2: 45:51

So it's, it's, it's a broad, broad identification of it. And so she can't come out and say, it's

Speaker 6: 46:00

Fentanyl because it could be fentanyl, but it could be a number of different things. So she can't conclude that it is, but they know it's in

Speaker 2: 46:05

There. The reason she can't

Speaker 6: 46:07

Quantify it is because they didn't do, it sounds like the quantitative test. So she can't say how much of that thing that we think is in there is actually in there. So it's a lot of science, sort of techno mumbo-jumbo, but that's what's going on. So they bring in this next expert witness who then does come in and she's able to quantify it a little bit more. Now this is somebody with a private lab. The reason why the government is now is not willing to come in and testify about any of this is because if she's on record saying, you know, sort of, uh, unwinding how the crime lab meets their thresholds and what some of the quantification and how all of that works. And then she might be held to that in future cases down the line. So she's just going to say, listen, we set a baseline threshold. This does not meet that threshold. Therefore, I can't

Speaker 2: 46:50

Talk about it. Right? And so like, if this

Speaker 6: 46:52

Were well, let, let me, let me leave it at that. So she

Speaker 2: 46:56

Is sort of speaking

Speaker 6: 46:58

As a government official and being coy about what she can testify about because she's a government person and they don't want to open her up and expose her to cross examination from defense attorneys throughout the rest of the state. Right. If she gets into that a little bit and breaks that down, how all this works and how they quantify it. And then, then that may damage her credibility moving forward. Right? What if, what if she's called in as an expert witness on other DUI cases and it involves fentinol and she comes back in and she just got beat up by a defense attorney talking about how they quantify, quantify, and qualify certain drugs. So there she's just done. I don't want to talk about it. So they bring in somebody

Speaker 2: 47:35

Else to talk about it.

Speaker 6: 47:37

And this is this woman now. So Susan ne she's also a forensic chemist, but she is with a private company. So they bring her in testimony is pretty quick. And this is her ultimate conclusion. So she's going to give us some information about the quantities of the drugs that are in those pills. And she's going to give us some relative comparison about those drugs and how they relate to some of the other cases that she sees. So this is Susan ne she's a forensic chemist from a

Speaker 2: 48:02

Private company. Oh, wait,

Speaker 6: 48:04

I have this somewhere. Let's see if I can find this clip. I clipped it. I probably did not.

Speaker 2: 48:09

It, I was skinny.

Speaker 6: 48:12

And here we're going to save that for tomorrow. But basically what she does is she comes back out and says that it's there they're pretty low levels. So I think the takeaway, if I remember correctly is it's, she says it's less than 1%

Speaker 2: 48:23

Fentanyl in the pills, but that's actually normal, right? It's it shouldn't be like 80 to 90% in a pill. She says, it's like 1%, but that's normal because it doesn't take much fentanyl.

Speaker 6: 48:34

Most of the other stuff is

Speaker 2: 48:36

Filler stuff as to methamphetamine.

Speaker 6: 48:39

She says that those levels are in

Speaker 2: 48:41

Fact low. They they're they're much lower than normal. So if you had to guess on this, there's more fentanyl on these pills than there are, or

Speaker 6: 48:50

Even say it that way. Right? So this is, this is very, this is very, very tricky language that they're using. So she's talking about percentages and relative concentrations, across cases that she's seen.

Speaker 2: 49:02

And Mr.

Speaker 6: 49:05

Nelson doesn't even cross examine her. So she's done. We're not going to hear from her tomorrow. Very brief statement. I did clip it. I don't know why it's not in my slides, but I'll figure that out tomorrow. But that was the conclusion of Derek Chauvin's trial today. So we're going to hear, of course, different interpretations of expert witnesses from the defense. They're going to bring in their own forensic people to come in and talk about all this stuff. What, okay, so you, you also tested that. What is your analysis? What is your conclusion? And then the jury is going to be able to listen to it. They're the ultimate fact finders, and they're going to decide how to interpret

Speaker 2: 49:36

That data and how to render a verdict.

Speaker 6: 49:39

So we're going to stick with Derek Shelvin until we reach a conclusion. So we'll be back here tomorrow with more of those updates. And so let's take a look@somequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And for some reason, our slides are just not sinking up. So I'm having to,

Speaker 2: 49:56

To take a quick minute and go over to miss faith and her

Speaker 6: 50:01

The slides and see what's going on. We have Lassie 91. So these questions come over from locals.com, watching the watchers.locals.com is where you can ask these questions. And this is from Lassie 91. It says, I found a use of force witness from LA to be more argumentative than Genevieve Hanson. Why didn't the judge ask him to cooperate or call them out? It seemed like he ever answered every question.

Speaker 2: 50:21

Yes, it can

Speaker 6: 50:23

To qualify it. Are there any special rules for expert witnesses? If I was on the jury, this have annoyed me. That's an interesting perspective there Lassie. I didn't, I didn't get that same feel from him. And I watched a lot of his testimony. I didn't, I didn't get that argumentative feel from him from him, which is why,

Speaker 2: 50:39

Which is why the judge probably

Speaker 6: 50:40

Didn't scold him. I mean, I think he was answering questions. Yes, it can. Yes. I, you know, you sort of just disregard all of the rest of that. Yes. But now we don't care about that. Yes or no. Yes. Okay. Fine. You can explain it. Not asking you about that. Yes or no. Right. And that's why, what Nelson is doing with him is, are called leading questions. And so he's allowed to do that. And if you have somebody who's trying to qualify everything you just said, okay. So it can happen. Great. Next question. Oh, that also can happen. Perfect. Right. And so I think that that is what Nelson was doing, but you know, you bring up an interesting

Speaker 2: 51:12

Point, the jury's level

Speaker 6: 51:14

Of annoyance and whether they get tired of hearing the same thing over and over and seeing the same thing over and over, which we have seen a lot of, quite frankly, right. We've seen a lot of the knee, the weight, the pressure, a lot of the emotional stuff.

Speaker 2: 51:27

At some point we're in two weeks. Now, at some point they're going to be asking themselves, all right. What about the blood results? What about some medical testimony about what actually killed him? And we're getting close to that. But you know, at some point you got to think about that. Is this becoming too duplicative? Not legally, but just because the jury doesn't want to hear about this anymore.

Speaker 6: 51:46

Right? They're, they're tired of seeing a man die on video

Speaker 2: 51:50

Over and over and over again. That can be very grading on anybody. We have. My Fox says long

Speaker 6: 51:57

Question for Mar Fox is I have a feeling this will come up tonight.

Speaker 2: 51:59

Do you not think it's objective really unreasonable to suggest

Speaker 6: 52:04

Because the crowd is screaming at you to render aid that rendering aid would somehow increase the likelihood of violence insuring

Speaker 2: 52:10

And suing rather than continuing

Speaker 6: 52:12

To sit on top of what appears to be a deceased person. And is in fact, as per medical expert testimony is a deceased person, which is more likely to inflame tensions. The idea of the defense has that it's unreasonable to provide aid to Floyd because the crowd was screaming to provide aid and was somehow a large enough threat to warrant doing the complete opposite seems extremely unreasonable to me, objective unreasonable, even ridiculous. You might say ridiculous. You might say, I think that this is Mr. Nelson's weakest defense for Mr. Shovan

Speaker 2: 52:39

Your thoughts? It's a good question. You know, I, I think

Speaker 6: 52:43

You're onto something. So I think you're kind of talking, you know, this is, this is a, I think a matter of interpretation and perspective. It's a great question. And I actually don't disagree with you.

Speaker 2: 52:51

I think that anybody who is a

Speaker 6: 52:54

Regular lay person, anybody who's a juror is going to want to know why they were on his neck for now

Speaker 2: 52:59

Nine minutes. Why didn't they help him? There were a lot of other people out there who could obviously clearly

Speaker 6: 53:05

See that what was happening was not right.

Speaker 2: 53:09

They had the wherewithal to even shout at the cops and say, Hey, what the heck are you guys doing? Get off of them. You're killing him. He's dying right in front of you. Right. We all saw the video. Why didn't they render aid?

Speaker 6: 53:19

There needs to be an explanation for that. I do not disagree with you at all. I think that that absolutely has to happen. And I think

Speaker 2: 53:26

That might be part of the reason why Shovan testifies if that happens, which he probably still won't. We'll see. But it is

Speaker 6: 53:36

Important that people from a humanitarian perspective, understand that. I think that the way that the defense explains that is by prioritizing, right? They have the decision model, the decision matrix. And they're just going to say that they have to prioritize certain things. And in this case they felt threatened there at the time, all of these other officers, after the, after the fact can come in and say, no, it wasn't reasonable. Or, uh, Jody Steiger can come in and say, no. I mean, people shouting at you or calling your names isn't enough to warrant,

Speaker 2: 54:06

Not rendering aid, but they weren't there. And then

Speaker 6: 54:10

The manual itself, as we heard today from Mr. Nelson says, you got to consider the officers who were there at the scene. And so there were four of them who all made a similar judgment right now. Not one of them rendered aid. Why not? Maybe because they all felt like the situation was overbearing on them and that their safety and the safety of their fellow officers was at risk. So they maintain the scene. They prioritize their safety over Floyd safety. And they wait for the medical people to get there. The medical people get there, guess what? They don't render

Speaker 2: 54:39

Aid either. They say, this

Speaker 6: 54:41

Is dangerous. We got to move out of here. They pick him up, they load them into the back of the vehicle. They move around to a different location as was heard by the medical examiner's own testimony. And

Speaker 2: 54:50

They say at that point,

Speaker 6: 54:52

That's when we started the chest compressions, they hook them up to the machine and the machine starts trying to bring them back. So even they didn't feel safe on the side of the road. So yes, I think that it is a very important thing from a humanitarian perspective that people answer that question, that the jurors understand this and Nelson hasn't presented his case yet he hasn't presented any justification for it. So it is perfectly reasonable model that you think that it is a weak part of the case.

Speaker 2: 55:17

I think that, let me make sure

Speaker 6: 55:19

I answered your question. Do you not, do you not think it's objective really unreasonable to suggest because they crowd is screaming at you to render aid that rendering aid would somehow increase the likelihood of violence and suing. I do not think that that is objectively unreal

Speaker 2: 55:32

Thoughts. I think that it could be reasonable to decide not to render aid, to protect yourself until the situation has dispersed. Okay.

Speaker 6: 55:45

Police officer. So his priority is to preserve his life, his officer's life

Speaker 2: 55:49

And do his job. Jen,

Speaker 6: 55:52

The Vive who's the firefighter. She is saved. She saves lives. Okay. So that's her high priority,

Speaker 2: 55:57

Not the officers. So we have a different perspective on priorities and Nelson and show.

Speaker 6: 56:05

They're going to have to explain that to the jurors. We got deep state in the house says, do you think it was a mistake in strategy by the defense not to emphasize that full Floyd apparently had a mouthful of pills as

Speaker 2: 56:16

He was being arrested. Do you think

Speaker 6: 56:19

It was a mistake by the prosecution to lay out those facts around the drug use in a naked fashion, disconnected from their prosecution theory? So, uh, number one, no, I do not think it was a mistake for, by the defense to not emphasize that he had a mouth full of pills as he was being arrested because they have not gone yet. Right. They're up next, they're coming. And that will, I, I would venture to guess is going to be a big part of their theme moving forward. And do you think it was a mistake by the prosecution to lay out those facts? No, I don't. I think that they have to do this. It's called drawing the sting. Right? We talked about this in a prior episode, but you have to come out with your bad facts and communicate those to the jurors because if they come out and you didn't tell them about it, your credibility goes right out the window. They're going to think you're a liar and a manipulator and a cheater. So it's, it's, you know, they ha they're coming out regardless better to announce it yourself than allow somebody else to do it. Red dragon fly says with the crowd, didn't have another option. Handcuff, three grown men could not get him into the back of a patrol car. They were in the middle of the street and the sidewalk was covered with an angry idiots. Didn't have any options, at least not good ones. Yeah. That's, that's another perspective. And that's going to be their perspective, right? They're going to say we couldn't do anything. In fact, four of us agreed. We waited medical people showed up. They agreed that we couldn't do anything. That's why they loaded them up and moved them around the corner before they started to administer aid LT 13, why are they not bringing up that they were trying to please him by doing what he requested. Let me lay down only way with cuffs on which were already there would be prone. It's all coming out. Like they fight him to the ground. Yeah. I mean, it, it, cause it, it looks like a fight, right? It wasn't a conversation. I understand your perspective, LT 13, but it wasn't like, Hey George, what can we do to accommodate you? Well, I'd like to lay down perfect. Put the handcuffs on and we'll just lay it down here. Right. It was a, it was a very tense altercation that resulted in him, sort of kicking himself out of the other end of the car. They walked him around on the sidewalk side, put them in. He felt kind of flat out of the other side before he was, you know, he wasn't like gently laid down. He was laid down. Right. He was on the ground. And so I understand your, your, you know, your point and it's not a bad point, right. Floyd was saying, let me lay down. Don't put me in the car. Don't, you know, I can't breathe doing all these things and they kind of accommodated. Right. Okay. Here's on the ground. Lay down. We're going to hang out here until medical shows up and he died right in front of them. I understand your point. But it, it, I think the, the way that it actually unfolded was not the same tone we have. My Fox has, I believe a common comment you'll get in the future is that the witnesses seem to be contradicting themselves in testimony, depending on who asks a question, the prosecutors defense asked very specific questions. That lack context, that lack context, much of the time. So don't lend it too much credence in my humble opinion. Yes. So, yes. So that's kind of the point, right. Is, is when you're doing cross examinations, you're trying to contradict, you're trying to get that person to contradict themselves. That's the, that's almost the entire point of cross-examination. And we saw that today with Jody Steiger comes out, Oh, these three factors show conclusively that use of force was unreasonable. Nelson comes back out and says, yeah, but aren't you supposed to take in the totality of the circumstances, including the officer who was there, including these other standards that you kind of failed to mention when the prosecutor was asking you about him, he read the rest of the document. So it sounds contradictory. It's kind of, is it kind of isn't? And so ultimately, you know, the jury has to weigh out these facts, but it

Speaker 2: 59:49

Is, it's a complicated

Speaker 6: 59:52

Thing. And you'll notice, you know, you gotta be very careful with words too. They'll ask a question and, and somebody will sort of, uh, you know, couch it, or they will modify it. They'll put some conditionals on it in order to make it less impactful. So we're going to see a lot of contradictions. That's that's, what's so fun about a trial. We have Patriot must says wouldn't a good counter-argument for the defense be to ask what would be appropriate action in that situation, if they are disagreeing with the amount of force. Well, yeah, I mean, you know, I was thinking about this earlier today. Yeah. We're talking a lot about use of force and they're very unhappy with a knee

Speaker 2: 1:00:26

On the neck, but only in this case, right? Other cases,

Speaker 6: 1:00:30

We see cops get away with everything all the time. Brianna Taylor's cops got away with shooting her. We saw Daniel prudes cops got away with murdering that man, which was about as bad as the George Floyd case, if not significantly worse

Speaker 2: 1:00:43

And happens all the time. Right? Cops kill people all over the place. So what if Derek Shelvin had shot George Floyd?

Speaker 6: 1:00:49

This have happened. What if he said, listen, uh, I felt scared when he was kicking out the other end. I, I thought he was coming after me. I thought his hands were free. Or, you know, I don't even put the handcuffs on him, just wait for a defendant to go bananas and then just shoot them rather than trying to detain them, put them in handcuffs, wait for EMT, all that stuff.

Speaker 2: 1:01:07

Shoot him. Cause cops get away with that every day. All over the country. People get shot. No, no, no right

Speaker 6: 1:01:15

Modifications for that. But if you pull somebody out of the back and you put their knee on the neck, that somehow

Speaker 2: 1:01:19

Becomes murder. So, and I'm not, look,

Speaker 6: 1:01:21

I'm not advocating that. Right. I don't want cops to shoot people. I'm not saying that George Floyd should have been shot, but I'm saying that if we're going to have different conversations about the use of force and standards,

Speaker 2: 1:01:33

Where we have

Speaker 6: 1:01:33

Massively different standards in this country, we see cops all over the place who never get charged with crimes

Speaker 2: 1:01:39

For killing people in much more egregious situations than this one.

Speaker 6: 1:01:46

I'm not real sure. You know, again, these, these cops can come in and just

Speaker 2: 1:01:51

Navigate

Speaker 6: 1:01:51

Through their policies to come to any conclusion that they want. In this case, Derek Shovan is a disfavored person. He's outside of the blue shield. But if they had decided we're going to keep them inside our little

Speaker 2: 1:02:02

Ecosystem, they could manipulate these policies all day to make sure

Speaker 6: 1:02:06

He doesn't get convicted. It happens regularly, probably would have never even gotten indicted. Brianna Taylor's people didn't get indicted, proves people didn't get indicted and the list goes on and on and on. Even when you go to trial, we had the Daniel Brailsford case here. That cop got off. Scot-free not guilty for executing a man with a gun in the middle of a hotel room.

Speaker 2: 1:02:28

Ridiculous.

Speaker 6: 1:02:29

All right. So next up, let's see what we've got. Oh, Sox says, Hey rod, big fan. So do you think a reason for so many prosecutors could be that if the prosecution loses the case, the blame won't fall on just one or two people. That's a good idea, right? Sorta

Speaker 2: 1:02:42

Attribute the blame for that.

Speaker 6: 1:02:46

Not a bad thought. My Fox says, one of the cops asked him, what are you on, man? I believe it was Shovan. I'm presuming. That was said just after Shovan.

Speaker 2: 1:02:54

That context is very important. Yeah.

Speaker 6: 1:02:58

And I think there was some conversation about hoopin and all sorts of stuff. And all of this is going to come out when the defense presents their case, Sasha SEASHA is back in the house. Haven't seen you in a long time. Welcome back. Hope you're all doing well on this beautiful Wednesday. It's finally warm here at snowy Buffalo. In my opinion, people might hear different things based on their bias level, because most people only hear what they want to hear. If you think Chauvin's guilty, you want to hear, I ate too many drugs. If you want him not guilty, you want to hear otherwise. Maybe I can be part of the mine Hunter series. Ha as usual. Love your show, Rob. Thanks, Sasha. SEASHA appreciate you being here. Yeah. It's like Laurel and Yanny or what was the other one? Like brainstorm and something and brainstorm. Remember those?

Speaker 2: 1:03:35

It's kind of one of those eight, too many drugs. Ain't do any drugs. Pretty close.

Speaker 6: 1:03:39

Pretty close. Good to see you. Sasha. No doubt says earlier in the trial Nelson made the point with the girlfriend that he had been clean up until two weeks before the event is Nelson likely to bring up, bring that back up to contend to 11. Nanograms would be more significant for someone that had recently been clean and reduce their tolerance. Good question. No doubt. Right? If you are a regular user of a particular drug, your body builds

Speaker 2: 1:04:02

Tolerance and you need more to get the same effect. If you are clean for two weeks,

Speaker 6: 1:04:08

Tolerance level goes down. Now, if you use at the same amounts, your body can't tolerate that anymore. So that same amount that you

Speaker 2: 1:04:16

Were using maybe last year

Speaker 6: 1:04:18

Or two months ago is now lethal. It wouldn't have been, but

Speaker 2: 1:04:21

It is now maybe that's a, maybe that's coming out from Mr. Nelson. We'll see Liberty.

Speaker 6: 1:04:26

He says, Rob, it was not the best day for the prosecution. I'm more and more impressed by Nelson has me wondering though, do you think attorney general, Keith? No means yes. Ellison is saving himself for Shovan. Uh,

Speaker 2: 1:04:40

Hm. That's a good question. I don't know. No,

Speaker 6: 1:04:45

That's a good question. I don't know what the answer is. I think that would be very fun. It'd be very interesting.

Speaker 2: 1:04:51

Yeah. I agree.

Speaker 6: 1:04:52

Not the best day for the prosecution, but you know, they kind of have to work through this stuff. Like this is th this has to get out and they have to be the ones to do it. And so they're doing that. So it's like, you know, when you get back into the gym, when you start working out again, you've been lounging, just getting fat and unhealthy all Thanksgiving, all Christmas. And you got to go

Speaker 2: 1:05:08

Back in, you're going to have a little bit of a hell week. It's going to, it's going to be rough, but you got to get through

Speaker 6: 1:05:15

It in order to get the benefits kind of what prosecution is doing. They have to get this stuff out. And now they're going to have to transition into more of the cause of death stuff. And we'll see what that looks like. Jay bone says, what are your thoughts on the pill? Evidence not being found until December and the defense, having to request a squad car search, to find the pills in the squad car. It seems like a very sloppy job by the state. To me. I don't see how it's reasonable to not look in the, into drugs in the car after the toxicology report came out. Yeah. So J bone talking about, I think her name was Mackenzie Anderson. She testified today. She was the person who received the car. So she goes in, she's doing an inventory of the car, opens up the squad car, sees the shoe, moves. The shoe, sees a pill. Wasn't asked to look for a pill. She said, well, I'm just, Hey, it wasn't on my list of things to look for. I was inventorying the car. I was looking for other things that was there. I just thought, no, it's just a pill. It may have come off of somebody's shoe may belong to somebody else. No idea that, which is which to me is very sloppy, right? This is something that absolutely should have been looked into. She didn't do that until Nelson comes back and says, Hey, maybe we want to look, look through that again. Then it comes up. It's a big deal that there's a pill back there that allegedly has some fentanyl in it. We're going to hear what Nelson's people have to say about it. Next up we've got, Oh, sock rod question. So could you get around the hearsay rule if someone viewed the video of interviews with other officers afterward and then talked about what they saw on the video, would that be admissible? I've heard this could be a workaround. So, uh, no, no, no. And so the hearsay rules are, are extremely complicated. You have hearsay, you have things that are not hearsay, and then you have exceptions to hearsay. The whole thing is very convoluted. So it just depends on what you're trying to talk about and what purpose it's being admitted for. So there are more rules than that. It's not just, it's not that simple in other words, but, but generally the answer is no right. If, if there's, if there's better, if it's an, if it's an out of court statement that is being made and asserted to prove the truth of the matter, that type of stuff is not going to come in, because you have to think about the best evidence. What is the best evidence of that, that you're trying to get into court? Is it somebody talking about the video or is it the video? It's really the video and that's going to provide more evidentiary value than somebody talking about what they saw on the video. Now, if that person was there and in the video, they're an even better witness because they were there and we can cross examine that person. So there's, there's different rules for video and audio evidence and all that stuff. Good question. Very complicated answer. Next up, we got inky. Woe says doesn't the prosecution have depositions and or prep the witness with their questions before trial. So they know beforehand how their own witness will answer. So you kind of, yes. So they, so not, not really prep, right? You can't prep your witnesses. You can't coach them is where that is kind of going. But yes, you can have conversations about it. You can interview them. And the defense wants to be, to be, this is to see that stuff they want to be available that needs to be available for the defense, because you don't want a situation where people are improperly prejudice, prejudicing a witness. Now I think that there were something like three, 400 witnesses in this case. So Mr. Nelson may not have been involved in all of them or even cared to be involved in all of them. But, uh, presumably he would have been in the ones that he wanted to communicate with. And you've seen this in court, right. He comes out and he says, he was actually talking about this with Jody Steiger today. He said, specifically, how many times have you met with the prosecution? Oh, and you met with him last night also. Right. He knows about it because he was probably informed about it. All right. Couple more.

Speaker 2: 1:08:49

The red

Speaker 6: 1:08:51

Dragon fly says the last scientist must do the 90 to 100% for the cartel. But, uh, yeah. So she was the forensic person. And then lastly, we have Jack Elia says, is it possible that the training of the police to observe the totality of the circumstances were overwhelmed by doing

Speaker 2: 1:09:08

So? And

Speaker 6: 1:09:10

Therefore the public involvement contributed to the failure of the officers to be able to act in a more focused manner because of that training. Yeah. I think you could make that argument.

Speaker 2: 1:09:19

I don't know that that negates

Speaker 6: 1:09:21

Any potential criminal liability, but yeah, you could make that argument, right. Even Shoba can say, listen, I would have rendered aid, but there were 17 people out there screaming at me. And we had the one guy who was saying, you're a punk, you're a B you're this you're this I'll I'll, you know, come at me, I'll hit you. Right? So there were some things

Speaker 2: 1:09:38

Or close threats that were being levied their way

Speaker 6: 1:09:42

At the time. And maybe that caused them to elevate their response and not it render aid. It's one justification. Right. And I'm not saying that that was the right thing to do. I'm not commenting on that. When I make those claims, I'm just sort of exploring the arguments from different perspectives. And that is one that I think might be relevant. So very good questions. Once again, those came all over from watching the watchers.locals.com and we invite you to come and join us there because we got a great community of people and we want you to participate in the show. It's a good platform to be on watching the watchers.locals.com a lot of other great creators over there as well. So go check that out. All right. So that's it on the show of and stuff going to change gears. It's been a while, since we talked about the Capitol Hill protests and the resulting criminal cases that came about as a result of what happened on January 6th, but we do need to dive in just a little bit here. And so we've got a couple things that I want to address. Let me see what's going on with these slides here. So first and foremost, let's jump over here and I want to show you this guy. So this guy posted this on Twitter. His name is Scott McFarlane and he is notifying us that we have this going on. So the DC medical examiner releases the causes of death in the U S Capitol insurrection. So we see here, Ashley Babbitt. This is from them, them, it says Ashley Babbitt here, Oh my gosh, my slides are all out of whack. Ashley Babbitt died of a gunshot wound to the left anterior shoulder. The manner of death was homicide. Kevin Griessen 50 years old. How did he die? Hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease disease, which I think George Floyd actually had. So he had a heart attack and he died. He was 55. Benjamin Phillips also died. Also had hypertensive, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. And the manner of death was natural for him. So we have somebody who was shot by the police. We have somebody who died of a heart attack. Somebody else died of a heart attack. Somebody else Roseanne, Boyland 34 died of acute amphetamine intoxication. So an overdose manner of death was an accident. So we've got two people who died of a heart attack, one person who basically overdosed. And then we had somebody who died because the police shot them and the cause and the manner of the death for Capitol police officer Brian sickening are still pending. And so we don't know what killed him. And so the DC medical examiner apparently posted that today. I saw that by Seth McFarland. And so I got me thinking about these Capitol Hill cases, what is going on with them. And so I want to start with this story over from the Washington post says here that some of the Capitol Hill detainees have been beaten up by the guards. Not much of a surprise there, but here we can see Capitol riot, detainee alleges beatings by the DC jail guards. A man accused of assaulting a police officer at the Capitol alleges the two guards in DC, beat him up last month, breaking his nose, dislocating his jaw and leaving him suffering seizures, which is just absolutely reprehensible. When you're in government care, you shouldn't, you should be cared for and attorney for Ryan Sam cell who's 38 years old, detailed the allegations in an interview yesterday on Tuesday saying he has been told the incident is under investigation by jail and federal authorities. So we'll see where that goes. This is unjustified said, attorney Steven Metcalf. And the way that these guys are being treated is completely unreasonable. It's wholly unconstitutional. And I couldn't agree more. It doesn't matter what these guys are being charged with. All of these guys are still in pretrial detention. They have not been convicted of any crimes. And this is what they're forced to endure in a statement D C D O C said the jail quote takes the safety and wellbeing of all residents. Extremely seriously. We are aware of the allegation made by an inmate and it is under investigation by the DOJ, which is exactly right. This attorney's dead, right? It doesn't matter what you've been charged with. Okay. We have the presumption of innocence in this country and due process, which are two critical components of our justice system and our country in general. And so just because a certain segment of this population hates Derrick Shovan or hate skull and Maxwell or hates the Capitol Hill riders, they still deserve a defense. They still deserve the presumption of innocence and due process and to not be treated in a cruel and inhumane way, pursuant to the eighth amendment. And so getting housed in a federal corrections facility and then getting your jaw, dislocated your nose broken and suffering seizures is not appropriate. It's illegal. It's a crime in any sense of the idea and it's not appropriate. And unfortunately, if you are a person who is in a disfavored class, this happens to you. And some people say it's the Capitol Hill people. Some people say it's, African-American people in inner cities, right? But if you're a disfavored class

Speaker 2: 1:14:19

Gas, you get dumped on and it's not, it's not

Speaker 6: 1:14:21

Right. It's wrong across the board. It's wrong here. It's wrong. When it happens elsewhere. And it irritates me, Lira

Speaker 2: 1:14:27

Gallagher, somebody who is a

Speaker 6: 1:14:29

Spokesperson for the FBI Washington field office at the Bureau is aware of the allegations, but we can neither confirm nor deny the existence. Alright, thanks. Thanks for nothing. According to the Metcalf,

Speaker 2: 1:14:38

The incident, as related

Speaker 6: 1:14:40

To him by the client began the afternoon of March 20th Samso complaint, the guards had taken hours to get him toilet paper, an argument ensued that evening. According to Metcalf, Samsung has moved to another cell around midnight. The lawyer said two guards came to that cell, restrained his arms behind his back with zip tie handcuffs, and beat him to a bloody pulp. Sam cell did not regain consciousness until the next day, according to my calf and as sense suffered seizures for the first time in his life, his nose was alleged, allegedly broken jaw, dislocated vision in one eye damage Metcalf said he saw Samsel by video. Two weeks later, his client's face was still black and blue. And the skin around his wrists was stripped off because he was in zip ties and he was fighting. This is happening in, in, in the United States, in federal

Speaker 2: 1:15:22

Custody. This guy is innocent currently.

Speaker 6: 1:15:26

He hasn't been convicted of anything, not a thing. He's in court judges. Aren't letting them out. Apparently he's alleged to have committed a crime, but he has not been convicted.

Speaker 2: 1:15:35

And he's getting wrecked

Speaker 6: 1:15:37

By guards in DC, in, in America, Metcalf who is representing other alleged writers, said he heard of the alleged beating from them and has spoken to other inmates as well. A second attorney for Sam cell Elizabeth Pascaline said she separately learned of the alleged incident from other attorneys for other defendants in the unit. Metcalf said, he's in the process of learning the facts, including seeking Samsung's medical records and had not reported the incident to the police. But he said his client complained at the jail. According to one of Samsung's, other attorneys had been transferred to a different facility.

Speaker 2: 1:16:09

So why didn't he report to them?

Speaker 6: 1:16:13

He's going up the chain of command in. Okay. So in detention, since late January, Samsung has been there. The bucks County, PA resident is accused of using a barricade to push an officer outside the Capitol, knocking her unconscious on courting. According to prosecutors, Samsel then offered to help the officer back up and said, we don't have to hurt you. Why are you standing in our way? She later collapsed while arresting another rider and went to an emergency room where she was told she suffered a concussion later. According to court records, Samsel attempted to take a riot shield from an officer. She was on parole at the time of the riot. According to court documents, details of the case were not immediately available. Uh, he is charged with assault on a police officer obstruction of justice. He is not contested the detention. Other inmates have complained through their attorneys about conditions in the DC central detention center,

Speaker 2: 1:16:58

But others have alleged, but no others have alleged assaults by the guards. The first

Speaker 6: 1:17:05

Raised by another alleged Ryder, Ronald Sandlin who said on Tuesday, he'd been threatened with violence by the staff here and even making the statement is putting me in danger of violence and retaliate.

Speaker 2: 1:17:15

So that's, what's going on. Not letting them out of custody, then

Speaker 6: 1:17:19

The hell out of him. So that's great. We also have though some good news because there

Speaker 2: 1:17:24

Is good movements. Remember we talked about this previously on the show

Speaker 6: 1:17:28

That a lot of these people who've been charged with crimes and they are not getting bail. They're not being released out of custody. And many of us were scratching our heads, watching these orders come down, Jacob chancellor, the Q Anon shaman, and all these people. Bail denied. You stay in custody for what? For trespassing. They didn't hurt anybody. They didn't kill anybody. You know, these people, a lot of them came in after the fact, many of them weren't even there on January 6th, we talked about two cases. Somebody showed up that night, somebody showed up the next morning. They're both being charged in a lumped in under the Capitol Hill riots, because this is a political prosecution. They're not going to let this thing go. They are. So Jack is so enthusiastic about the power that prosecuting these cases will give them politically speaking, because they're gonna be able to use the Capitol Hill protests as a bludgeon for the foreseeable future, for everything. We already see it, right? White supremacy, this everything,

Speaker 2: 1:18:16

You know, whatever. So as that was happening, we're all scratching our head going, wait a minute, Derek Chauvin's out on bail. Kyle Rittenhouse is out on bail

Speaker 6: 1:18:26

Of other people who are responsible for murder, sex assaults, kidnappings, all these things. They're out on bail and just roaming around the countryside. But little grandma who was just poking around the Capitol building going, Whoa, this is crazy. We're here. This is wild. What's going on. She is a dangerous threat to society and she can not be released from custody.

Speaker 2: 1:18:44

Why? Because it's political. That's all it boils.

Speaker 6: 1:18:48

It's down to. And it's very inappropriate in this country supposed to be equal justice. The scales of justice, right? Not Trump people get blasted and all the Antifa people get diversion, plea agreements, and their charges dropped in dismissed a year later. That's not how it's supposed to work should be equal, but it's not. So even though the Capitol Hill riders were getting dunked on by the prosecutors and many of the judges that exist in our federal system, fortunately there is a judge who recognize when too much is enough. Already enough is enough. So

Speaker 2: 1:19:19

This is him. This story comes over

Speaker 6: 1:19:21

From the Politico, says capital, right, defendants notch, a win at the appeals court and a bail ruling DC circuit court says non-violent participants in the breach may not pose an ongoing danger. Prosecutors are pursuing a massive investigation at the Capitol riot suffered a setback on Friday as a federal appeals court ruled that two defendants currently in pretrial detention may in fact be entitled to release the ruling from the DC circuit is its first. And instead of sprawling cases stemming from the January 6th storming of the Capitol, been eagerly awaited by prosecutors and defense lawyers as a signal of how the appeals court plans to proceed. This case involves a mother and a son who were charged in the riot. Lisa Eisenhart and Eric Muncho may not need to be jailed in advance of their trial because they pose no danger during the

Speaker 2: 1:20:08

Capitol assault

Speaker 6: 1:20:08

District court failed to demonstrate. We're going to read some of that. We're going to go into the actual opinion itself. So I'm not going to cover that here. Other DC circuit judges on the cases Trump appointee said he would overturn how well his decision and instructed her to release the pair with conditions. So we got a concurring opinion. So let's just jump into it. All right. Let's take a look. You're in a Wilkins roads. All right. So let's, let's get to the opinion. So here it is, the United States court of appeals for the district court of Columbia. So this is the DC circuit. The United States of America is the appellee. We have Eric gavel, Michelle, who's the appellant. And they're appealing this up because there was denial of bail. So let's go through this. This is actually really, really interesting. And I want to spend a little bit of time on it. I know it's a little bit of heavy lifting. We got a little bit of reading to do, but just bear with me as we go through it. So this was signed off on by Wilkins, the circuit judge, they're considering an appeal of a pretrial detention order. So remember

Speaker 2: 1:21:02

Any of these guys sort of voluntarily turn themselves in. And the

Speaker 6: 1:21:07

Question is, as the case is pending,

Speaker 2: 1:21:10

Can we let them out of custody? Okay.

Speaker 6: 1:21:13

W what we're typically asking ourselves is this person a danger to the community? Are they going to go out and cause another insurrection? Are they going to go out and kill somebody? Are they going to go use drugs again or commit another crime? Are they going to flee the country? Do they have any local support? And so we, we, you know, th the default,

Speaker 2: 1:21:28

This country is you are innocent unless, or until you're proven guilty

Speaker 6: 1:21:32

Presumption of innocence, reign Supreme, which means that should carry over when you are still innocent until, or unless you're proven guilty. So as somebody who's being charged with a crime, the default, in my opinion, should be,

Speaker 2: 1:21:42

We let them out. They're still innocent.

Speaker 6: 1:21:44

How does the presumption of innocence have any effect or weights? If we just how's everybody who's alleged to have been charged,

Speaker 2: 1:21:51

Charged with a crime. So it should be the default is we're a little bit more lenient with some of this stuff. Let's take a look at what's going on here. The facts as found by the district court have observed

Speaker 6: 1:22:03

There, there was a 50 minute video of the incident. They're going to walk us through it. Eric and his mom were participating at the protest. He previously worked as a waiter. He's been twice convicted for a misdemeanor possession of marijuana in Georgia. Mom is 57 year old resident. She has been employed as a nurse for approximately 30 years has no prior criminal history, right? Uh, a nice nurse on January six, they both went down to the stop. The steel rally, both wore tactical vests. Muncho had a taser holstered on his hip. He also wore his iPhone on his tactical vest. Use it to take video of the day. They marched towards the Capitol. As they approached the Capitol, they milled around, outside and talked with others. They met members of the oath, keepers, a militia and Michael bumps fist with one of them on video, they have the video, the full thing. At some point, while they were standing around someone yelled, they broke the line up there and people began saying, let's go in. We're going straight to the federal prison. If we go in there with weapons, somebody said, so Muncho responded that he would not go into the Capitol. And they suggested that they put them in their backpacks because they had some weapons on him. They moved to a crowd. The backpack was stowed. Muncho stashed a Fanny in the backpack. And so they unloaded their weapons. You can have the only weapon in the Fanny pack was a pocket knife. The government suggested other weapons could have been inside. Perhaps even a firearm. Muncho kept his taser holstered on his hip. Subsequently mom encouraged others to enter the Capitol saying the tear gas isn't bad, repeatedly stated. Let's go in Monroeville and mom pushed their way through the crowd to continue towards the Capitol Montrel followed. So son followed mom often holding onto a strap on her back in route. Mom encouraged a man who claimed to have punched two of them in the face, telling him while everyone else is on their couch. You guys are training and getting ready for it. Next up we have, Muncho told members of the crowd. We're not playing F a nice blah, blah, blah. They entered the Capitol through an open door and stayed inside for 12

Speaker 2: 1:23:50

Minutes. Police officers

Speaker 6: 1:23:52

Were standing to the right of the door, not blocking their entry. While walking through the Capitol, Montrel told members of the mind

Speaker 2: 1:23:59

Don't break. No vandalizing. We ain't. No Antifa. You break it. I break you is what he's saying. Right?

Speaker 6: 1:24:07

Additionally, while inside Montrel and Eisenhardt spotted plastic handcuffs known as zip ties upon seeing them. He said, she shot at zip ties. I need to get me some of them F[inaudible]. They made their way to the Senate gallery, both carrying the zip ties, still carrying his taser. And there are pictures of this guy, right? Muncho in the Senate gallery with the zip ties. I think it's, I think this is that same guy that, that, that image is going around inside the gallery. He chanted

Speaker 2: 1:24:29

Treason, treason. He looked around the Deus and said, I want that effing gavel referring to the Senate gavel.

Speaker 6: 1:24:36

A lot of video here. Eventually they lay, leave the Capitol as they were leaving. Montreal said the nearby officers, sorry, guys, I still love you. On the evening of January six, Metro PD stop months. You'll seize this taser. The next day they pack their car to go home. Both mom and son spoke to the media. They said this country was founded on revolution. If they're going to take away, every legitimate means from us. And we can't even express ourselves on the internet. We won't be able to speak freely. What is America for? I'd rather die as a 57 year old woman than live under oppression. I'd rather die and would rather fight. We've got a sub-note footnote here on January 5th. The police officer observed the taser on Munchin. Alright, so then we

Speaker 2: 1:25:14

Move forward and we see that

Speaker 6: 1:25:19

I dropped my clicker later, Montrel and Eisenhardt returned to Tennessee. They continued on to their home in Georgia. FBI posted the pictures on the internet, asking the public to identify them, which happened on January 10th. FBI agents executed a search warrant on their apartment. They found all of the vest, tactical things and loaded magazines, firearms, all that stuff. Soon after learning about the search Montreal turn himself in. So he wasn't there. He also made arrangements for his attorney to give the iPhone to the FBI. So full cooperation. Mom learned that she was also the target of the federal investigation. She spoke to a local FBI agent every day to determine whether there was a warrant for her arrest. And then when the warrant was issued, she self surrendered. So they both turned themselves in and basically fully cooperative Magellan eyes. Her heart were charged with a number of different charges, unlawful entry, violent entry, civil disorder, conspiracy Munjal, and mom had pretrial detention hearings before judge Frensley Tennessee Frensley. First judge said neither one of them were flight risks, nor did they pose a danger to the community and issued release orders for both the appellants, with various conditions, including home detention, GPS monitoring, refraining from possessing firearms or dangerous weapons and supervision by pre-trial services, which is very common. This is all pretty common. This is even in my opinion, a little bit overkill, but all right, this was a big thing, right? January 6th was a big deal. These guys were in the Capitol building. So you can be a little bit strict on them. A regular trespass case. You just were in a government building. Maybe you wouldn't get all of that home detention, ankle monitoring. Anytime you're charged with a crime firearms, typically go away. Supervision by trust services is pretty clear, right? It's somebody you check in with on a regular basis when your stuff not in violation of the laws, all right, we're going to let you go out. So first judge says, okay, we're going to let you out of custody. Guess what happens? Magistrate judge Frensley then briefly stayed both of his release orders, which means he kind of put the hold on them. He granted them. He said, I'm going to let you out then says, Oh, I'm going to put a stay on those because the government properly appealed both orders to the U S district court. They didn't like that. They did not want them out. Chief judge barrel howl stayed both release orders pending the appeal. So they stayed in custody. Both appellants were going to be transported to DC. Uh, COVID related complications, slow the appellant's transport to DC. So they're not going to let them out of custody. And they're not going to transport them to DC while their transports were pending. Eisenhardt moved to rescind the stay or to conduct an immediate review of her detention, which Munjal joined the government filed motion seeking review of judge friendlies release order friendlies release order. In the meantime, both of them were detained. So all of this is happening. Look at this footnote. So footnote number two, even though judge Frensley had found that the government had not met its burden of proving dangerousness by the standard of clear and convincing evidence, the government sought and obtained an ex party state of that release order that resulted in them being detained for three weeks, without any core, finding of dangerousness, not withstanding the statutes mandate that review occur promptly and the statutory constitutional requirement of a dangerousness finding COVID-19 delays caused the delay in the transport to DC. The record does not indicate why a district court judge could not have heard this matter prior to February 17th. Even if the appellants were in another location, ultimately this issue while troubling is not presented as a ground for reversal in this appeal. So the court is just noticing separately. These people are putting custody. The judge, the underlying judge said, you're free to go. We're going to let you out. You've got to do GPS monitoring, ankle monitoring, pretrial services campus as a firearm. Don't return to the scene, all that stuff. Great, perfect. We'll back here. Mom

Speaker 2: 1:29:02

Has no criminal

Speaker 6: 1:29:02

History. Son has some lower level misdemeanor stuff. Nobody injured. Anybody. Nobody broke anything. As far as we can tell which we're going to get to here,

Speaker 2: 1:29:09

Wait a minute. Of course they should be let out like any other defendant would government, new department of justice, hyperventilate

Speaker 6: 1:29:19

Mode comes back and they have to go out there and appeal this. They do not want that.

Speaker 2: 1:29:22

We'll let them out at all. Higher level court judge agrees says, well, we're not going to let them out while this is pending. That's just going to take

Speaker 6: 1:29:32

Three weeks. So they sit in custody, even though the law says that there has to be a dangerousness finding under the U S code. And this has to be done promptly under the U S code. The government went around, the defendants had an ex parte hearing, meaning that they wanted to ask the court specifically not to allow them out. Probably said, you know, they were a danger to national security or whatever that justifies the ex parte hearing. So they go do that. Judge says, all right, we're going to keep them. So you have two people with a presumption of innocence. Now sitting in custody with no due process at all on February 12th, then a grand jury sitting in DC returned an indictment. They charged Muncho with obstruction and all, you know, all of the different charges said he was armed with a dangerous weapon district court arraignment shul on the indictment government made oral argument in a motion for pretrial detention. During this new detention hearing, the government proceeded by proffer rather than by calling live witnesses. In addition to what has been presented, the government introduced a 50 minute video tape into evidence and proffer that after January six months old was in contact with a suspected proud boys member and was told that he was quote too hot after he expressed interest in joining the group. Following the detention hearing DC judge ordered both of them to be detained. Pending trial

Speaker 2: 1:30:45

Said that their

Speaker 6: 1:30:46

Motions seeking to rescind the stay of the first judge's order are denied as moot. The government's motion seeking review

Speaker 2: 1:30:55

Is also moved.

Speaker 6: 1:30:56

District court concluded that both of them were eligible for detention. Why? Because they were charged with felonies while carrying a dangerous weapon, explaining that the indictment says that he carried

Speaker 2: 1:31:05

The taser when he was trespassing. So that's it right? That's it that's the justification for it. So the district court said that

Speaker 6: 1:31:14

They were not flight risks, but the detention was appropriate based on dangerousness

Speaker 2: 1:31:20

District court

Speaker 6: 1:31:20

Concluded that their history and the characteristics against weighed against detention, but that the nature and circumstances of the charge defenses, the weight of the evidence and the potential danger that they pose weighed in favor of the detention district court, determined that neither was likely to be deterred by release conditions. And we've covered a lot of this, right? We've we've, we've talked a lot about this. Basically they're using that contact or that conduct to justify not letting them out. They're not looking at their priors. They're not looking at any of the, the, the normal

Speaker 2: 1:31:49

In Disha of release. They're just saying no. What they did was so

Speaker 6: 1:31:55

Dangerous that we're not going to consider those other things.

Speaker 2: 1:31:57

And then we see here, mom and son

Speaker 6: 1:32:00

Appealed. They said that the district court erred in, and this is where we're going to sort of come to a conclusion on this, or I'm going to, I'm going to walk you through this quickly. They appealed. We're now in the court of appeals in the DC circuit, what are they claiming went wrong? So let's break this down. They contend that the district court erred in not deferring to the first courts findings. So the first court said they should be let out. Second court said, no. They say that the second court aired this court says, ah, we don't even care about this. Or we're just going to get rid of all this

Speaker 2: 1:32:29

Relevant to this. So that issue is done.

Speaker 6: 1:32:32

Next issue. They also contend that the district court inappropriately relied on a finding that they were unlikely to abide by release conditions because that factor is only applicable in the revocation of pretrial release. This court says also irrelevant. Nobody

Speaker 2: 1:32:46

Cares that doesn't matter. Okay? They say, basically,

Speaker 6: 1:32:48

This is the wrong standard and it's not applicable here. So what's the next issue. All right. So now we know that none of that matters next we're here. They also argued that the charge defenses do not authorize detention, claiming that felonies involving possession of a weapon rather than use, do not qualify for detention. And that the taser is not a dangerous weapon. So they're saying that, Oh, no, no, no. You can only be denied release. If you are using a weapon in the commission of a felony, not being in possession of it, you got to use it in the felony, not just have it on you. This court says don't even care about that. Actually, we did look into this and yeah, you, you can be charged for simply being in possession of a weapon. It does not have to be used. So they're getting the wrong standard

Speaker 2: 1:33:27

There. But even

Speaker 6: 1:33:29

Though they lose on all of these prior claims, they say we also object there. They're also objecting to several other defendants who have gotten a better deal than them. So they're saying that their conduct of those is indistinguishable for them or even worse. And then lastly, they're saying that they contend the district court determinations were clearly erroneous as to the findings of dangerous. And this is the real one that the court weighs on. Right? And let's go through this. So they're saying here that in this case, they found that they have limited. Both of them have limited criminal history. Eisenhardt has none, their history and characteristics, weight against the finding that no conditions of release, what protect the community. In other words, they should be released. District court found that the nature and circumstances of the offense and the weight of the evidence and danger to the community, all weighed in favor of a finding that no conditions of release would protect the community, which is nonsense. As we're about to see the crux of the reasoning. This is why the district court said set said, so the grand jury said that they use force to subvert a democratic election and arrest the peaceful transfer of power such conduct threatens the Republic itself. Indeed few offenses are more threatening to our way of life. So you see how that goes, right? Th th the, uh, the egregiousness of the conduct was so bad that they're not going to let them out. They say immediately

Speaker 2: 1:34:44

Interviews. He showed no remorse. She would rather

Speaker 6: 1:34:47

Fight than die. They were in danger of the Republic was in danger. Nevertheless, we conclude that the

Speaker 2: 1:34:52

District court did not demonstrate

Speaker 6: 1:34:55

That it adequately considered in light all the record evidence, whether they presented, and this is where it's important and identified and articulable threat to the community. Accordingly, we remand further for

Speaker 2: 1:35:08

Fact-finding, which means they're

Speaker 6: 1:35:09

Going to send that back down to the lower-level DC court. And they're going to tell them that they got to dig in and find more facts about this. And I want to just show you, I know this is going long. We've got a couple more things I want to get to. It says here, why is it, why do they need to find more facts? The crux of the constitutional justification for preventative bail and the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an arrestee presents an identified and articulable threat to an individual or the community, then only then a court may disable the arrestee from executing the threat. This comes from a us Supreme court case called Solerno. And you can see this right here. This us means that's a Supreme court,

Speaker 2: 1:35:49

Therefore

Speaker 6: 1:35:50

Order a defendant print preventatively detained a court must identify an articulable threat that is posed by the individual. The threat does not need to be physical, physical violence. It may extend to non-physical harm such as corrupting a union, which may be like, you know, leading an insurrection, but it must be clearly identified. What is the continuing threat? It needs to be articulable

Speaker 2: 1:36:15

And clearly identified. So the question is, is it here, here,

Speaker 6: 1:36:20

The district court did not adequately demonstrate that it considered whether these two pose an articulable threat

Speaker 2: 1:36:26

To their community. Why? Because

Speaker 6: 1:36:28

The district court based its dangerousness determination on finding that the alleged conduct indicates that he is willing to use force to promote his political ends.

Speaker 2: 1:36:35

So it's sort of, it's, it's basically

Speaker 6: 1:36:37

Reading his mind, you know, he was willing to do it in the past. So we're just going to hypothesize that he's going to do it again in the future in making this determination. However, the court did not explain how it reached that conclusion, not withstanding the countervailing findings, that the record maintains no evidence that while inside the Capitol Montreal or Eisenhart vandalized any property or physically harmed any,

Speaker 2: 1:36:58

In fact, the opposite they, they were saying don't break stuff. And the,

Speaker 6: 1:37:02

Since of any record evidence that either one of them committed any violence on January 6th, they didn't, they assaulted no one on January 6th. They did not enter the capital by force. And they vandalized. No property are all factors that weigh against the finding that either pose a threat of using force to promote, promote their political ends because they didn't use force on January 6th. They were just

Speaker 2: 1:37:21

There. The

Speaker 6: 1:37:24

District court says, they say they should. They should reconsider that. If in light of the lack of evidence, the district court finds that they do not. In fact, pose a threat to committing violence in the future. The short the court should consider this finding in making its dangerousness determination. In our view, those who actually assaulted police officers and broke through windows, doors and barricades, and those who aided conspired with and planned or coordinated such actions are in a different category of dangerousness than those who cheered on the violence or entered the Capitol after others cleared the way, which is exactly

Speaker 2: 1:37:56

What we've been saying here. Exactly what we've been saying. Yes, everybody needs to be prosecuted, but there's one

Speaker 6: 1:38:03

Category. I call them buckets here. He calls them categories. I say one bucket of people

Speaker 2: 1:38:07

Who deserve

Speaker 6: 1:38:09

A little bit higher scrutiny and most.

Speaker 2: 1:38:11

So these other people just don't. And this is a good example of that. This is the

Speaker 6: 1:38:16

Last slide from the segment says it cannot be gained, said that the violent breach of the Capitol was a grave danger to our democracy. And that those who participated could rightly be subject to detention to safeguard the community in times of war insurrection. When God, when society's interest is at its peak, the government may detain individuals whom the government believes to be dangerous, but we have a grave constitutional obligation to ensure that the facts and circumstances of each case warrant this exceptional treatment accordingly, we conclude the appropriate resolution of this case is to send it back down to the lower level court for reconsideration on pretrial detention. So very good news for that, the absolute right ruling on that

Speaker 2: 1:38:54

Case and all of these cases, really none of these people should be held just on the basis of their political ideology. If there was some level of dangerousness that's justification, but if it's just, they were involved in a political protest and they might do a political protest. Again, that's not enough.

Speaker 6: 1:39:18

Ham handed is in the house. So these questions come over from locals.com, watching the watchers.locals.com. If you want to submit a question or a comment or even a criticism, that's fine too. Ham-handed says, how do you think the defense is going to use hospitalizations?

Speaker 2: 1:39:31

We're in the wrong segment? All right. Ham-handed

Speaker 6: 1:39:34

How do you think that the defense is going to use the hospitalization of Floyd for an

Speaker 2: 1:39:37

Overdose the previous month

Speaker 6: 1:39:40

As a defense against the argument that sends Floyd is a heavy user. He wouldn't necessarily die from the level of Fenton

Speaker 2: 1:39:46

On his blood. So that's a, okay. So I see what you're saying. So the previous

Speaker 6: 1:39:52

Month hospitalization as a defense to the argument that since Floyd is a heavy user, he wouldn't necessarily die from that.

Speaker 2: 1:39:57

So I think, yeah,

Speaker 6: 1:40:00

I think it's a matter of timeline and interpretation. So I'm not real sure I'm not real clear on this timeline, but based on another comment we got today

Speaker 2: 1:40:07

During this show, somebody said that the girlfriend

Speaker 6: 1:40:09

Testified that he had been clean for two weeks, which I don't remember. I might have missed that though. So if he was in the hospital, let's say it last month, that gave him a little bout of sobriety for, I dunno, the following two weeks,

Speaker 2: 1:40:20

Then this happens. He may have had a relapse, right? I mean, it could have been

Speaker 6: 1:40:25

Just been a timing thing. So I'm not real clear on the timeline, but it's a good question there ham-handed no doubt says with home detention, does it frequently permit going to work? It does actually. Yeah. So home detention is sort of like the way I explain it often to people,

Speaker 2: 1:40:37

All his it's like jail, but kind of at your home. And even in some jail situations, they will let you have a work, work release. So work permits. So, you know, let's say you get charged with a DUI

Speaker 6: 1:40:50

In Arizona. It's your second DUI. You have to go to jail for 60.

Speaker 2: 1:40:54

They're going to let you out for work, but you got to report back to jail. So you leave for work, go back to jail, spend the night, go back to work, can do that six days a week, seven days stay in custody, same type of thing with home detention, except instead of reporting to jail, you just report back home

Speaker 6: 1:41:08

Much, much preferred. Sharon Courtney says, is it totally out of line to call these folks political prisoners? This is the kind of thing that used to take place in Stalin's Russia, guests it's appropriate to call Biden uncle Joe. Yeah. I mean, look, I don't disagree with that. I mean, I think that they are the subject of a very coordinated political prosecution. I'm not sure what

Speaker 2: 1:41:27

You can call it quite frankly. Next step

Speaker 6: 1:41:30

Kelly Sue says, can these folks Sue for rights violations once they are let go, they, they can. I'm not real sure that they're going to get anything out of that. You know, it's going to cost a lot of money. I'm sure there's some lawyer somewhere who's willing to fund this thing. I think it would be a good, a good thing to explore. I'm not sure, you know, I don't do civil lawsuits, quite frankly. I just don't do them. Uh, and we refer any of our civil suits out to other people. So I can't really opine on that, but yeah, I think it would, uh, it would be an interesting exploration and it'd be interesting if there was a, if there was a way to organize everybody and see how many of these things were sort of happening simultaneously, you know, the government has an unfair advantage and a lot of this stuff, they are the ones who were in charge of prosecuting all of the cases, 200 5,300 cases. The defense is a little bit scattered, right? It's more distributed. Every single defendant has their own defense attorney. And so we've kind of, it's kind of hard to tell and synthesize how things are going. Generally speaking, the government knows because they're, they're running one division, that's leading the prosecution, but the defense attorneys are scattered and distribute a little a little bit. But if there was a way to organize that and accumulate gather, all of the complaints could probably make a pretty compelling civil case, maybe a class action, something or other, but that's just not my area of expertise, but good to see you. Kelly, we got underscores. Shades says Sullivan got out fast, paid thousands by media interviews all over can't the other lawyers use that example to help get them off to madness. Yeah. So I think other attorneys will absolutely lean on this precedent as guidance and say, look, you know, you guys, you guys are being ridiculous. I know you're very upset about this. I know this keeps you up at night. You think that the, the, that America

Speaker 2: 1:43:08

Is about to be S uh, seized by the Q1.

Speaker 6: 1:43:14

[inaudible] probably keeps you up at night. I know how traumatic that is, but this is not right. And the judge is correcting that and other defense attorneys, I'm sure it will take that and run wild as they should. Oh, sock says, want to give you and your law firm a big, thank you. I had some prior legal issues. So took your advice and called your firm. You guys were able to answer all my questions and give me great sound advice, and how to handle my issues. Also myth, miss faith did a follow-up with me just to check, to see how we might have

Speaker 2: 1:43:40

Now my went and if I had anything

Speaker 6: 1:43:43

Other questions, great to see people like you do care. Keep it up. Thanks again. Well, Oh, sock. That's so nice of you, my friend. And we didn't even pay you to say that.

Speaker 2: 1:43:52

Did we? You should have added that in there. This message.

Speaker 6: 1:43:54

It has not been sponsored by the RNR law group and I kid. I mean, honestly, that's a very nice thing to say. I'm glad we were helpful. Ms. Faith is amazing. We have an awesome team of people here. I don't just say that. I mean, it's actually true. We have a, everybody's super passionate about helping people and that's taken some time to curate a good group of people. And more importantly, build a culture that is conducive to that environment. There are a lot of other law firms out there that they just kind of run their shop like a mill and people just kind of get ground out. I know that because I used to work at two of them before we started this company to do things differently. And it's nice when I get feedback like that, that it works. And I appreciate that. And, uh,

Speaker 2: 1:44:32

Thank you. Thank you for communicating

Speaker 6: 1:44:33

That. All right. And that was the last one for that segment. Glad it worked out Osaka. Appreciate you being here. You're always here. It's such a nice thing to say. So thank you for that. Okay. Our last segment of

Speaker 2: 1:44:42

The day we are going to be talking about Glen Maxwell. Gold

Speaker 6: 1:44:49

Maxwell is back in the news. We like to check in on her case every now and then, because this is probably going to be the case that just never ends. And it's like really never going to end now because the government has indicated that there are 3 million pages of documents that are going to be going her direction. So this story came over from Newsweek, believe it or not. And I want to go through it, but I want to just frame this out, right? A little bit.

Speaker 2: 1:45:11

Glenn Maxwell, Jeffrey

Speaker 6: 1:45:12

Epstein's number two. She has been charged with several different sex charges for trafficking and underage minors. I think there's a fourth victim that just got added to her and die a superseding indictment. And so she has been in custody since about the middle of last year. And she has some powerhouse attorneys that are working on her case. It's been very interesting to follow along and just see kind of how they do things, because it is extremely aggressive. And right now it's looking like this thing is turning up to a new level, a new notch. The government is disclosing nearly 3 million pages, 2.7 million pages of documents. And I can't even tell you how many documents that is. I have some examples, but I want to just frame this out, right? This is a Jeffrey Epstein case. This is national news. This is something that many people are speculating, might implicate some of the highest people in this world.

Speaker 2: 1:46:00

Like the, I don't know, Prince of England,

Speaker 6: 1:46:03

Right? And other people, even, you know, politicians and some of the billionaires and multimillionaires around this world all could be connected to some of this stuff, which is why people are so interested

Speaker 2: 1:46:12

In this story. But that's not

Speaker 6: 1:46:15

What going Maxwell is being charged with. She's being charged with several, basically trafficking and minors, some sex crimes. These are not crimes of the century. K. These are crimes that happen every day, all over this country. And I've represented people on these types of crimes. I've represented people on sexual assault charges and all sorts of sex

Speaker 2: 1:46:31

Times and all of it. I have never gotten 2.7 or 3 million pages of discovery. Okay. Not even

Speaker 6: 1:46:39

Anything close to that, not even anything

Speaker 2: 1:46:43

With seven figures, even six figures. Okay.

Speaker 6: 1:46:45

I've never gotten a a hundred thousand pages of documents on a assault case. Okay? Not even a hundred thousand,

Speaker 2: 1:46:51

She's getting like 2 million, two and a half million, 2.7 million. It's ridiculous.

Speaker 6: 1:46:57

Let's go into this. This is

Speaker 2: 1:46:59

From news. Newsweek.

Speaker 6: 1:47:02

Calm says Golin Maxwell's prosecutors have disclosed 2.7 million pages of evidence to her lawyers in the Jeffrey Epstein trafficking case. The British socialite is awaiting trial in July. We'll see if that happens on allegations. She groomed underage girls for New York financier to abuse Maxwell. A friend of Prince Andrew denied the original allegations and is expected to enter a plea to a new indictment containing claims from a fourth victim. Later this month, her lawyers have repeatedly complained about her not having enough time to work on her case while in jail in Brooklyn. Now, prosecutors have revealed the full scale of the mountain of evidence in this case, which stretches to within a Stone's throw

Speaker 2: 1:47:42

3 million pages,

Speaker 6: 1:47:46

3 million pages, a letter by U S attorney Audrey Stross reads as the court is aware of the government has produced to the defendant more than 2.7 million pages of discovery pursuant to various obligations. And I want to point this out. There's this, this law firm called Boies Schiller

Speaker 2: 1:48:01

Flexner revelation emerged

Speaker 6: 1:48:04

As the prosecution objected to a subpoena that was submitted by Maxwell's lawyers. So Maxwell wants to subpoena Boies, Schiller, Flexner, and the government is objecting to them.

Speaker 2: 1:48:17

This law firm represents Prince Andrew and Virginia Guthrie and a number

Speaker 6: 1:48:23

Of other Epstein victims. Her team wants to disclose your personal information from the victims, but the prosecution objected to the legal process the defense team had used. So you've got multiple parties, right? Typically it's the USA versus the defendant. So here we use that by a triangle. And now what happened, but what happens is the defendant is now reaching out to the law

Speaker 2: 1:48:46

And the government who is prosecuted.

Speaker 6: 1:48:48

The defendant is now intervening down here to say, Nope, we don't want this subpoena

Speaker 2: 1:48:53

To happen. We want to send you

Speaker 6: 1:48:55

Back. And basically not, not allow you to do that. So among the complaints, Stross requested any evidence be kept confidential to protect the victims, her filing red. So this is the prosecution prosecution saying, no, we want to get involved.

Speaker 2: 1:49:07

We want to w we don't want the subpoena to happen. Why

Speaker 6: 1:49:10

They say, as noted, the subpoena appears to call for a substantial amount of sensitive personal information about the victims. For instance, according to the letter, the subpoena requests, the original complete copy of the victims diary, right? Which is obviously very expensive. So you've got the defense saying, well, we want access to all of this stuff. These victims are claiming that we did stuff to them. And, you know, we, we want evidence about that. We want information about it. Government says, no, you're not entitled to any of that because it's too sensitive. These are victims. Victims have rights to you. Don't you don't just get to

Speaker 2: 1:49:39

Go in and comb through their email accounts, right? They're victims

Speaker 6: 1:49:43

Of a crime. We're not going to add insult to injury there. And so let's take a look at what's going on in the case. This is over from the federal court docket. You can see here a lot of activity over these last couple of weeks, March 29th, we got a letter from Gullah Maxwell to the judge. We have a court of appeals fees, uh, received 500,$5. So they filed a notice of an appeal over here. Then we have a letter from Boies, Schiller, Flexner, which is that the law firm representing other people that's addressed back to Glen Maxwell. So this is surrounding the subpoena. We have a letter by Maxwell to the judge about the second superseding indictment. So they're trying to schedule their arraignments. We have a motion for siegrid Macaulay. So we have a new attorney who's joining the Glen Maxwell team. She's appearing pro hog Nietzsche. Then we have an order, Glen Maxwell. This is her superseding indictment. So we have an S two superseding indictment. We have a status conference scheduled for April 16th. So that's going to be in about nine days. The government is ordered to respond to issues. The court is making logistical arrangements and we'll provide more information when that is available. So defendants, uh, raised an issue on their March 31st letter, which must've been down here. And so the government now has to respond to that and they have to respond by April 9th. So that's three days from now. So what we're going to take a quick look at are going to be two things. Number one, uh, here we have on, on April 5th, we had an

Speaker 1: 1:51:03

Unopposed request for a one-week continuance

Speaker 6: 1:51:05

Of the arraignment. So, uh, there was a letter basically from one of the attorneys saying, I can't make that arraignment. Can you move it a week? So that is uncontested not interesting. Then we have two things that are somewhat interesting. So this here on April 5th was the letter from judge Alison or a motion to judge Alison from the us attorney's office, basically trying to quash the subpoena, trying to, to not allow the subpoena of that second law firm, which is representing some of the victims. But then we also have this letter, which is interesting. So we're gonna read through this one letter by the USA as to Glen Maxwell, that's addressed to the judge. So the, the prosecutors are sending this about the conditions update on Glen Maxwell. So she's in custody and recall at the start of the show, I sort of framed this out, but I said on Maxwell has been in custody for some time. She's been trying to get out of custody. She's filed three requests for bond. All of them have been denied. She's been considered to be a flight risk. Obviously the case she's got a ton of money, ton of assets, different citizenship, a different around the country. Obviously a flight risk, Jeffrey Epstein had the same situation. He's dead now, apparently. And that's not something where,

Speaker 1: 1:52:14

You know, we, we are running out of people on this

Speaker 6: 1:52:16

Case. And so the judge just does not want to risk letting Glen Maxwell out, but her attorneys are putting up a hell of a fight. They're saying she's losing hair. She's losing weight is not conducive to her health. And she also can't even participate in her offense in her defense. And so what they're doing is

Speaker 1: 1:52:30

They're laying out a bunch of appealable issues, right? When Glen Maxwell

Speaker 6: 1:52:35

Trial and she gets convicted of something, then what happens? She's going to appeal ineffective assistance of counsel.

Speaker 1: 1:52:41

I couldn't even prepare for my case. The government had all these very strict, uh, unnecessary

Speaker 6: 1:52:46

Conditions imposed upon me, but not the guy down the hall. It's a violation of my equal protection rights. I'm going to appeal and due process. I mean, they're, they're framing that out now. So this case, this case is not going away anytime soon, but the court is recognizing that her being in custody under these conditions might in fact be problematic. And so they want the government to give them an update. Maxwell is in the government's custody. The defense is saying all these bad things are happening. The court says, all right, government, I want an update from you. Are these things happening? What is her condition? How is she doing? So we're going to read into that before we do. I want to show you quickly this letter, which is the first letter that we were talking about. So as you'll notice down here, that quote says, as the court is aware, the government has produced to the defendant more than 2.7 million pages of discovery pursuant to the government's various discovery obligations, including rule 16. They're also in discussions about the timing of further productions by the government, including material provided to, uh, under us code 3,500. All right. So 2.7 million pages. I wanted to just kind of frame that out a little bit, 2.7 million pages. I have a copy right here of the four agreements. And this book is 140 pages. Okay. Small book, 140 pages right here. You can read this in about two and a half hours, and I have bigger books around, but I don't have them in front of me right now, but I did some math on a couple of important books. So if you have 2.7 million pages of documents, and we know that the nine 11 commission report, which covered, I mean, one of the most consequential things that happened in this country ever in all 300 plus years, whatever, however long we've been around a long time, that book that summarizes all of the government's work gets consolidated down into 595 pages, right? So 2.7 million documents divided by 585 pages. That means Golin Maxwell got 4,615, nine 11 commission reports of discovery, 4,615. It's a lot of books, a lot of discovery. Let's put that in, uh, in Holy Bibles. How many Holy Bibles is that? You know, that book, right? Thick book. Sometimes not even that thick, but the paper is just thin. Can't even you pick up like four pages at a time because they all stick together. Massive lot of material, 1000, 281 pages. So Golin Maxwell got 2,107, Holy Bibles of discovery for a sex trafficking case. Okay. This is, this is a pretty basic thing. Was there a person? Did they get transported? Somebody asleep with them was the purpose of the transportation for the sex of sleeping with them or having sex with them or doing sex stuff with them. Yeah. Okay. Prove it. Get some evidence to prove that up. Why do you need some flight logs? Couple of witnesses, pretty easy.

Speaker 2: 1:55:44

2.7 million pages, 4,609 11 reports, 2,100. Holy Bibles. It's a lot. And it's, it's absurd. Really? And this is going to, you know,

Speaker 6: 1:56:00

It's, it's hard not to get into the conspiracy land about any of this stuff,

Speaker 2: 1:56:03

But it's like, what is the government expect? What is the response going to be here to this? The defense attorneys are going to say 2.7 million pages are out of your freaking mind. What are you talking about? It's so burdensome.

Speaker 6: 1:56:17

It's so it's so much material

Speaker 2: 1:56:22

That they're going to make a whole new slew of claims. And they're probably going to say, man, you're right. We need to review 2.7 million pages.

Speaker 6: 1:56:29

Better. Let our client out of there. Cause we're going to be reviewing this stuff every day, every day, 24 hours a day. So she's got to get out of custody and you know, and the judge wants to trial to start it.

Speaker 2: 1:56:40

I don't know how many pages Glenn can read a day, but can anybody read 2.7 million pages between now and June guessing nuts. Okay. Because, because between now and June, you've got how many days let's call it 60 days. So that means you have to read, I don't know, 60 days, a couple hundred, Holy Bibles, a day discovery. It's impossible.

Speaker 6: 1:57:07

It's impossible. And the government is saying that they're going to deliver 2.7 million pages of documents. It's ridiculous. It makes no sense. And uh, we'll, we'll see where that goes. Now let's, let's leave that one behind 2.7 million pages is ridiculous. Now let's talk about this next document. So this one is six pages, and I want to show you this one. This is being sent by the us attorney's office. Southern district of New York filed on April 6th,

Speaker 2: 1:57:30

Yesterday sent to the honorable

Speaker 6: 1:57:33

Alison Nathan, us district court district court in New York, us versus Gulen Maxwell. Dear judge Nathan, the government respectfully submits this letter to provide an update regarding the conditions of confinement for Glen Maxwell pursuant to the court order on December 8th, this update is based on the information provided to the government by MDC legal counsel, regarding the conditions of the defendant's confinement over the last two months. So they got to give an update and here's what they say. She continues to receive more time to review discovery than any other inmate at MDC. And the defense is going to say, so what we don't care. It's not enough. Specifically. The defendant is permitted to review her discovery 13 hours per day, seven days per week. During the entirety of that time, the defendant has access to both a desktop computer provided by the jail and a laptop computer provided by the government on which to review discovery. Also during those 13 hours per day, the defendant may use the MDC computer to send and receive emails with her attorneys, which is a very nice benefit. We have this per bop policy, all handmade emails are routinely purged every six months in response to complaints from the defendant and the defense counsel, prematurely deleted emails, they have examined the inmate email account examination. The defendant had herself deleted some of her emails and had archived others. That examination revealed no evidence to suggest that MDC, Sadat staff deleted any of the defendant's emails. So they're clear some of that up this discovery review takes place in a day room that is separate from the defendant's isolation cell accordingly. She is permitted out of herself from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM every day. While in the day room, she has exclusive access access to the laptop and laptop and television and a phone on which the place social or attorney calls and a shower,

Speaker 2: 1:59:12

Which is in bed. It's not bad. Defendant

Speaker 6: 1:59:14

Is also permitted outdoor recreation every day. Although she has the option of declining such recreation time. If she wishes, she also has asthma as much time. If not more, as any other inmate to communicate with her attorneys, she receives five hours of video teleconference calls with her counsel, every weekday for 25 hours of attorney calls per week, which is a a lot, but they have a lot to get through at times, unexpected incidents, such as institution-wide lockdowns or short staffing delay the arrival to her call with counsel by up to 30 minutes, which they're going to throw a field, a fit over when such delay occurs. However, MDC permits the defendant to make up for any missed time, either by extending that days call or by permitting extra time on the next call. All of these calls take place in a room where she's alone. No staff can hear her communications with counsel. During these calls, they place a camera pocket, approximately 30 feet away from the door to the room where she conducts the calls. Camera has

Speaker 2: 2:00:09

You full view of the door to the room, but not in the room during the close calls does not capture any sound or video.

Speaker 6: 2:00:18

In other words, the Canberra courts who enters and exits the room, but has not record activity inside. She's also permitted to use

Speaker 2: 2:00:23

The phone to call her attorneys as needed. Counsel. Now has the option of meeting in person and on or about

Speaker 6: 2:00:31

February 16th. That's when they resumed

Speaker 2: 2:00:33

As a result, they're now available seven days per week, they got a Hep HEPA air filter in the area

Speaker 6: 2:00:40

Attorney visiting room. She's also got the COVID vaccine. So Glen Maxwell has a COVID-19 vaccine is fully vaccinated, which is good news. The government understands the defense counsel has thus far declined to meet in person. And instead rely on the calls, email and supplemental phone calls to communicate with their client. The option of in-person visits remain available if they choose to meet with her in person, but that's not what this is about. This isn't really about meeting with

Speaker 2: 2:01:02

Her in person. This isn't even about talking

Speaker 6: 2:01:05

About it. Do you think Glen Maxwell is going to read 2.7 million pages of documents? No, of course not. Neither are her attorneys, but they're going to tell the court they need to, and they're going to make the claim that this is all part of due process and that she is not being granted access to a fair trial if she can't review every single sin sentence in there. So the defense is now saying, okay,

Speaker 2: 2:01:25

She, she needs to show up

Speaker 6: 2:01:28

To every one of these meetings. And if she's late, they're going to make

Speaker 2: 2:01:30

A note of it. And they're going to say, that's denial

Speaker 6: 2:01:33

Access, right in non-access to your attorney. You've got rights to counsel, which is pretty well in our constitution. So this is all about sort of just mucking this whole thing up and they're doing a pretty dang good job. She's getting a lot of benefits that most people do not get under any way, shape or form. The legal mail is processed in the same manner as all mail for other inmates due to the large number of inmates, the volume of mail received. It can take multiple days as noted. She is able to send and receive emails. So they're giving her that option like any other inmate she's padded down by staff, when ever she has moved to a different part of the facility, they include at least two Pat down searches of the defendant per day one. When she moved from her isolation cell to the day room each morning. And once when she returns from the day room to her isolation

Speaker 2: 2:02:15

Cell each night, when she

Speaker 6: 2:02:18

Elects to attend outdoor recreation, she has a search two additional times. Once when she's moved once when she returns, they also conduct a body scan, which is a noninvasive Ms. Machine scan on the defendant once per week to check for any secretive contraband. Because those scans take place in a different part of the facility. She's also padded down to additional times when those scans occurs. Once again, once when she's moved once,

Speaker 2: 2:02:41

When she's returned, she's required

Speaker 6: 2:02:43

To remove her mastering the Pat Pat downs and open her mask briefly so that they can look into her mouth. During the searches, these mouth searches are consistent with policy in the absence of in-person visitation, the defendant has not been strip searched. If she receives in-person visits, then she like all of their inmates will be strip searched after any in-person visit, right? So they can check for contraband. In addition, staff search the defendant's cell for contraband once per day at night, they're required to confirm every 15 minutes that she's not in distress to do so. Every 15 minutes staff point a flashlight to a concrete ceiling of the defendant's cell to aluminate the cell sufficiently to confirm that the defendant is still breathing every 15 minutes, she gets a flashlight in there, making sure she's still breathing at night. Staff has observed the defendant wears an eye mask. When she sleeps limiting the disturbance caused by the flashlight. Additionally staff have observed the defendant regularly sleeps to the nighttime wellness checks. They continue to be full view of all of the searches are necessary for the safety of the institution and the defendant. The government also inquired regarding certain complaints, defense counsel raised in February regarding the food, water and physical wellbeing in response MDC, legal counsel said the government that the defendant's meals arrive in containers that are both microwaveable and unsafe. The meals are heated in a thermal oven. The tap water is provided by New York city. As a result, when the city has conducted maintenance near MDC, the water has been temporarily shut off. During those periods, staff have provided all inmates with bottled water. Water is turned back on. Sometimes it's cloudy or Brown and needs to run for several seconds. Doesn't sound good. Staff have not observed any instance in which the cell did not clear after being run for several seconds. That sounds like good water to drink. Oh, no. MDC legal counsel emphasize that MTC staff, including the legal staff drink the same tap water from the same tap water that the system that the defendant string from, uh, MDC

Speaker 2: 2:04:38

Medical staff monitor her daily weigh the defendant at least once per week. Wait has fluctuate

Speaker 6: 2:04:44

Weighted between the one thirties and one forties. Lowest weight observed was one 33 since then it's back up to one 30. It's never been lower than one 34. Most recently she was one 37.5 she's five, seven lowest weight of one 33 even resulted in a BMI that was okay. B MDC staff have not observed any noticeable hair loss either. So they're responding to that. Receive a COVID-19 vaccine fully vaccinated, and they say that she is physically healthy. Should the court have any questions? Let us know. This is the U S attorney. The prosecutor. Let's take a look at this little footnote over here, following the defense counsel's complaints in February 16th of an inappropriately conducted pat-down search MDC conducted an investigation and found that contrary to her claim. The search in question was in fact recorded in a, in full, by a handheld camera. So they're recording themselves after reviewing the camera footage, they concluded the search was conducted appropriately, and the complaint was unfounded. Legal counsel, further confirmed that all further searches are video recorded. Following

Speaker 2: 2:05:44

This incident, staff directed the defendant

Speaker 6: 2:05:47

To clean herself because they become very dirty among other things. They noted that she frequently did not flush your toilet after using it, which caused the cell to smell. In addition, the defendant had not cleaned her cell in some time causing the cell to become increasingly dirty staff, directed the defendant to clean her cell in response to the smell and the dirtiness, not as a retaliation for complaining about a particular service.

Speaker 2: 2:06:08

So that's, what's going on with Glen Maxwell. Things are going to get interesting in that case. We're gonna see,

Speaker 6: 2:06:14

See what this judge decides to do. I'm not particularly inclined to believe that the trial will happen in June.

Speaker 2: 2:06:20

Um, but we'll see. All right, let's take one.

Speaker 6: 2:06:23

We'll got some questions before we wrap up today. We've got some of these coming in from watching the watchers.locals.com. All right. And we've got some time and in two quick ones, it looks like we've got Sasha Sasha in the house says, Rob, I'm not going to lie each time you present any documents or video on a case. I hear the law and order theme song play after dunk done. Also, I'm sure the defense lawyers for Maxwell can read the 3 million pages in a week. Considering Congress can read the 5,000 page bill in two hours. If they can do it, we can do it just nice, excellent comment. That's like a 9.5 out of 10 comment. Very good comment. A lot of good stuff there. The done done law and order stuff. And yeah. If Congress can read 5,000 pages in two hours, Glen Maxwell's attorneys who are probably like, I don't know, a hundred times smarter than any member of Congress,

Speaker 2: 2:07:10

I can probably read maybe a million pages in two hours. So yeah, maybe

Speaker 6: 2:07:15

A long weekend. And they'll just be able to read through some of this stuff. And then lastly, my Fox says, by the way, calculated, based on a question on locals, 2.7 million pages, what amount to a 900 foot high stack of papers, no crinkles, no air between the pages. That's outstanding. Ma that's kind of what I was to do, but you did a much better version of that. Right? I wanted to kind of hold up the book and say, it'd be like 6,000 of these books, but nobody knows what that even looks like. Right? What does 6,000 books look like? Nobody would even know 900 feet.

Speaker 2: 2:07:46

Hi. So, so

Speaker 6: 2:07:49

Quantify that like what building is 900 feet height? Let's let's let's look, let's look real fast. Let's do this real quickly. 900 foot

Speaker 2: 2:07:57

Tall building. Let's see what we've got here. All right. We've got some 900,

Speaker 6: 2:08:05

A hundred feet would be like 300 meters. Right? And so here we can just poke around on Google images. So 300 miles

Speaker 2: 2:08:13

Or building looks like this from slate. So

Speaker 6: 2:08:19

197 meters, 1,302 feet. So, uh, almost that high. So about three fourths of this building is, is how high that would be. So we've got the stat and the foundation started, the farewell international center is 1300 feet. And so according to my Fox, we got 900 feet. So just slay a slightly smaller than this building. So about 300 meters would be right about here on, on the, uh, sorry. So Glen Maxwell, in other words has a skyscraper of discovery that she's got to read through her and her defense attorneys, all 3 million, 2.7 million pages of them. And that's a great way to, uh, to, to wrap up the program today. Thank you.[inaudible] thank you for all of you who asked questions over@ourplatformonlocals.com. You can see here, the addresses, watching the watchers.locals.com big thanks, big ups to miss faith, joy and to mafia Fox and a want to congratulate, miss faith, joy on her. Uh, her Tik TOK, go, go check out her. Tick-tock good D doing some good stuff over there. And we also want to say thank you to those of you who have been here today asking great questions. Let me get some shout outs to want to know we got the Mariner over here. We have no doubt saw him today. Who else did we have? See the veils. Usually here we have Adavan van Fang, number three, hello to danger mouse in real life. And let's say hi to the people who just signed up. We have deep state in the house welcome deep state. Welcome to the community. We got justice. First. Welcome to you, Rob Frawley in the house. Good to see you, Rob. We got Linco, Lancos in the house. And Mr. Zeus joined up, everybody's chime in over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, which is the place to get a copy of my book, which is right here. It's called beginning to winning how to fight your case and succeed in the criminal justice system. You can also download a copy of these slides, the PowerPoint slides, they're all available over there. The impeachment party documents are still available. They're pinned at the top. The existence systems program is basically done. I have the online course it's built. I just have to work out a couple of the final kinks. So we're going to work those out. And then I'm gonna try to get that launched here very shortly. There will be a nice promo code over on locals.com as well. We share links throughout the day. I'm going to try, trying to be getting better about being a little bit more active over there, but I am so focused on the Shovan that it's hard to do two things, but the real reason is the great people. A lot of great people over there. So go on over there, check us out, watching the watchers.locals.com and that's it for me. But before we leave quick reminder that I am a criminal defense lawyer. That's my day job. I'm here at the law firm are in our law group. We're in Scottsdale Arizona. We've got a great team of people here. We love to help good people who have been charged with crimes, find safety, clarity, and hope in their lives and in their cases so that they can get things back on track a little bit more quickly without as much damage as the system might otherwise like to impose. So if you happen to know anybody who's been charged with a crime in the state of Arizona, whether it's a minor offense, a major offense, a traffic offense, anything in between, we can help things like drugs, DUI, domestic violence, any any, any type of time that you're in trouble with the law. That is really the right time to hire an attorney. And so we can help you clear those cases up, but we can also go back. Quash old warrants restore your rights. So you have a right to vote the right to possess a firearm, apply for some federal benefits. We can remove mugshots off the internet. We can expunge old marijuana cases. There's a lot we can do to help it's remember your reputation is one of the most important things that exist in the world. And so we want to make sure that we can help you protect that. So if you need anything like that, we would be honored and humbled. If you trusted us enough to send your referrals our direction, we'll take very good care of them. And that is it for me, my friends. I want to thank you once again for being here with us, for joining us on this Wednesday, or we're going to be back tomorrow with more Derek Shovan day 21, we're going to see what the government brings, but I want you to be rested and well and energized because we've got a lot more to get into for the rest of the week. And we're going to do it tomorrow at 4:00 PM Arizona time, which is a specific time it's going to be 5:00 PM. Mountain 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM out there on the East coast, Eastern time. And for that one, Florida, man, everybody have a wonderful evening sleep. Well, I'll see you right back here tomorrow,

Speaker 5: 2:12:22

Right?