Chauvin Trial Day 21, Biden Executive Order on Firearms, Katie Hill Loses Lawsuit vs. Daily Mail

Prosecutors gain momentum in the Chauvin trial today after intense questioning with a government expert witness. President Biden announces new gun control efforts with new Executive Order and appointment of David Chipman to the ATF (or AFT). Former Representative Katie Hill loses her lawsuit attempting to punish the Daily Mail for reporting on her sex scandal. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:

• Prosecutors call Dr. Martin Tobin, a renown pulmonologist, to testify about Floyd’s oxygen levels.

• Dr. Tobin explains that Floyd was killed by low oxygen, which shut down his heart and brain simultaneously.

• The cause of the low oxygen, according to Dr. Tobin, was the pressure from Derek Chauvin’s knees.

• During cross-examination, Eric Nelson presses about the scope of the analysis and seeks to expand the scope.

• Mr. Nelson asks Dr. Martin about the time to peak respiratory depression after having consumed fentanyl. 

• President Joe Biden announces Executive Order on Guns to address what he calls gun violence in America.

• The Biden Administration nominated David Chipman to be the director of the ATF – who is he?

• States take action into their own hands as Arizona passes HB2111 which pushes back against federal anti-gun legislation.

• Former Representative Katie Hill loses lawsuit with the Daily Mail over article that exposed her interesting relationship.

• Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco said the photos spoke to Hill’s character and dismissed her lawsuit.

• Review of the order which dismisses Katie Hill’s lawsuit for failing to establish a probability of success.

• 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 #Biden #BidenAdministration #GunControl #2a #ExecutiveOrder #secondamendment #commonsense #atf #katiehill #dailymail #sexscandal #ushouse

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 in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and I to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. And so that's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our very system, with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we're getting close to wrapping the week up and we're on day 20, one of the Derrick Shovan trial. And so today was a pretty good day for the prosecution. Yesterday was not looking so good for them. And today they brought out a number of witnesses. It had some pretty compelling testimony against Derek Shovan in particular, there was one individual goes by the name of Dr. Martin Tobin. And so we want to break down a lot of his testimony because this is somebody who is a very respected expert. He came in, he's a pulmonologist and was talking a lot about the weight on George Floyd's back and on his neck that resulted ultimately in him dying. And so a little bit of, a little bit of an interesting day. And so we've got a lot to break down on that trial. Then we're going to change gears. President Joe Biden announced today that there was going to be a new executive order on guns, firearms. They're coming for the guns as everybody expected that they would. And so we want to go through a little bit of what that involves. We've got some clips from that. We've got some reaction. He's also nominating an individual by the name of David Chipman to be the director of ATF. And so we want to learn a little bit more about this guy and then Arizona is responding. And so we're starting to see some of this dual system that the system of federalism that we have is starting to kick into gear. Arizona just passed and signed into law, a new bill called[inaudible] that is pushing back against federal gun legislation from the state. So I want to share with you what is going on there. Then we can not forget about miss Katie Hill, former representative, who was involved in a bizarre little sex thing going on there. And that's not the issue. The issue is after the daily mail started to talk about it. She sued him. She said, Hey, you're not allowed to talk about that stuff. Even though I wasn't elected house of representative official and all this stuff was happening during my time as a congressperson that she said, you can't talk about that, which is of course insane. And so a judge out of LA ruled against her said, Oh yeah, they could talk about you. And what you did suing them was not such a good thing. We're going to talk about the slap regulations and how that works. So we're going to break down that lawsuit and more, and we want you to be a part of the show. And so if you want to ask a question about any of those topics that I outlined feel free to do, so go over to our platform@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. There's a community called locals.com and we have a group there that's called watching the Watchers and we post the slides there after the show. So everything I'm about to go through is going to be available for you to download there along with a free copy of my book. But the real benefit is you get to ask questions and meet other people and share links and comments throughout the day. So check that out@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. All right, so let's get into the news. Today was day 20, one of the Derrick Shovan trial. We've got a lot to get to today. I want to start by going through the trial board as we always do. And so today we saw that the government is still moving forward in their case in chief. And so we heard from who was here today, we sent, we had, uh, this individual here, this woman's, uh, D did some testimony, Mr. Blackwell was testifying today. I think we heard a little bit from Mr. Frank, but other than that, it was really just the, the, the, you know, the main three that we typically have been seeing, uh, didn't hear much from Steve Schleicher today. And then we're going to notice that Eric Nelson was once again there representing the defense. So that was the board, no new additions, but this is the witness list. And so we're seeing this start to fill up, I'm running out of space, gonna need multiple slides. But today we had the pulmonary doc. This was Dr. Tobin. And we want to spend a lot of time on him because he was very, very compelling. Then he was followed by a toxicologist who came in and talked more about the fentanyl methamphetamine levels, uh, THC that was in George Floyd, uh, blood. After the fact, then we also hear from this emergency doctor who came in his testimony was it was all right, but we're going to go through all of these three today. So we've got a lot to get to, and let's get started just diving right in. Let's start with Mr. Dr. Martin Tobin. So this is him right here, and you can see here, it looks like a very nice gentleman. And he is somebody who is the pulmonary doctor. He's a pulmonary doctor who is part of critical care medicine. And this guy has been around for like 46 years. I mean, he's been around forever and he is so highly credentialed. I couldn't even write it all down. I mean, uh, Chicago, Hines, VA Loyola university medical school, physical on and on and on the list just goes on. And he so credentialed that he even wrote the book. And when I talk about pulmonology, we're talking about breathing and lungs, and I'm not a medical doctor, right? I'm not an expert witness. I'm an attorney. We hire people to come and talk about most of this stuff, I'm going to do my best, but of course, bear with me a little bit. So this is, this is what he's talking about. And he actually literally wrote the book on this. So you can see here, he wrote principles and practice of mechanical ventilation. This is his book, and it's the third edition of this thing. So it's massive. You can see the size here and very nice and effective use of this prop for the jury to say, Hey, look, Oh, we're going to talk about lungs and breathing. Are you the guy who literally wrote the book on this thing? This is like a Bible, right? I'm sure many lawyers use this many other professionals do as well. And so they just paraded it right there in front of the jurors, big, big, massive thick book lectures in 40 countries. Uh, he, he got some sort of an award that is only handed out to one doctor every 10 years and not like in pulmonology, like all the doctors everywhere for everything. And he won the award one, one decade, I guess he's also somebody who founded the first sleep lab in the United States, all sorts of medical journals reviewed and on and on and on. And so the, you know, it's important here because they, they spent a lot of time going through this and that lends credibility to his opinion. Somebody who's been doing a lot of this, been doing it for a long time, obviously very highly credentialed and respected. And so with that, what, the way that this testimony worked, it was kind of, kind of reversed a little bit. So what happened at them started the testimony is, uh, prosecutor Blackwell was asking him specifically for some conclusions, what's your final conclusion about all this? He says, George Floyd died because of low oxygen. And he's very careful with his language. He's very specific about it. And you're going to notice that when we get to Eric Nelson, he gets, he kind of gets a little bit flustered over this. And so this is the final conclusion first. And then what happens is Dr. Tobin is going to guide us through some further analysis. So he's going to then talk about the weight and the, the position and how the body responds. We're going to look at George Floyd's fingers and his legs and all of that, which we're going to explain, but this is the final conclusion first. And then we spend the rest of his testimony, breaking it down and laying some more foundation for why the conclusion was appropriate. So let's, let's listen in, this is him this morning, testifying in court.

Speaker 2: 7:32

So let's talk about your opinions, uh, with respect to this case. Have you formed an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty on the cause of Mr. Floyd's death? Yes, I have. Uh, would you please tell the jury what that opinion or opinions are? Yes. Um, Mr. Floyd died from a low level of oxygen and this caused damage to his brain that we see, and it also caused a pea arrhythmia that caused his heart to stop. And by pea you mean pulseless electrical activity, correct. It's a particular form of an abnormal beat of the heart or an arrhythmia. And it particular department, is this what, uh, some persons might refer to as asphyxia? Yes, it has been called this, fixing it to me. It's not terribly helpful. Just what we're really talking about is a low level of oxygen. Other people talk about hypoxia that again is just a Latin term, meaning a low level of oxygen. So all of this is just really other words for a phenomenon that is a low level of oxygen. Have you formed an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to what the cause is or was for the low level of oxygen and Mr. Floyd? Yes, I have. Would you tell us what that is? The cause of the low level of oxygen was shallow breathing, small breaths, small tidal volumes, shallow breaths that weren't able to the air through his lungs, down to the essential areas of the lungs that get oxygen into the blood and get rid of the carbon dioxide. That's the alveoli at the bottom of the lung.

Speaker 1: 9:08

All right. So pretty simple. He died of low oxygen. What caused the low oxygen? The pressure on his, his, his body really is where this is going to end up, but he says, it's the sh the, the low slow, shallow breasts. He's not able to physically open and close his chest because he's got officers laying on the back of him. And so they talk about this a little bit. They go through and they detail out what negative spaces and how this all works when, you know, basically how your body is sort of moving. And so you're going to see in this next clip, he's talking about the cost specifically and how, how, how is he identifying that? You know, we're sort of working backwards. We know Floyd died. We know, based on his analysis, that there was a, the cause of death was, was low oxygen. While if the body does doesn't have the requisite acquisite oxygen, how does that happen? It's gotta be caused by something here. It's slow and shallow breasts. Okay. So what's causing the slow and shallow breaths. So we're just working our way up. And now he's going to be saying that it is literally the officers who were laying on his back and he goes through, and it's very interesting testimony today, but he's talking specifically about how he's able to observe what's happening inside George Floyd's body by observing some of the physical things that are happening on the outside of his body. And so he goes through and he looks at the fingers that are moving. He's looking at his head moving, he's looking at, at one point, there's a thumb that's trying to push off of a tire. And he's saying a lot of this stuff is happening because the body is just sort of responding. You know, the body has some movements and some things that it does that you don't think about, right? You breathe normally you're, you have some, you know, some, some bowel movements and things that are going on down there that you kind of control, but not really your body's just going to kind of do what it does do, what it does is that right? So it is a complicated thing. And what he's saying here is when somebody is, is suffocating, when their oxygen levels are low, the body is going to the lizard. Brain is going to kick in and it's going to start moving in certain ways that will indicate that it's trying to breathe. And so specifically what he points to are his fingers, moving his head, moving his shoulders, moving. He's saying that breathing starts in your chest, but then it will go out to your lungs, your chest cavity, and then out to your extremities. And so if it's not working internally, it's going to work out, you know, it's, your, your hands are going to try to start moving and trying to sort of create pressure to create space so that you can inhale and exhale appropriately. So at one point he says a line, something like, it feels like you're breathing through a drinking straw, right? Trying to take big breasts in, but because you cannot open and close your chest cavity. So difficult testimony to hear through, to sort of hear the physical description of somebody who is dying from oxygen deprivation. And now, you know, he's saying that the cause is from the officers, the defense perspective is going to be well, there's many other factors here, including we're going to hear from Mr. Nelson here shortly, but very, very interesting testimony. And so this is how he sort of explains it moving forward. In the case of the summit,

Speaker 2: 11:58

That relates to the shallow breathing that resulted in his low oxygen. So there are a number of forces that led to that. He's the size of his breath became so small. And so there are a series of forces higher up, better leading to that. And combining forces that are going to lead to the shallow breath are going to be that he's turned prone on the street, that he has the handcuffs in place combined with the street, and then that he has a knee on his neck. And then that he has a knee on his back on down his side. All of these four forces are ultimately going to result in the low tidal volume, which gives you the shallow breaths that we saw here. And so the air will not be able to reach those air SACS. We just saw in the video where the oxygen is exchanged and the carbon dioxide is removed.

Speaker 1: 12:44

Okay. So four factors, right? And if you recall those, there are four factors that Floyd had nothing to do with it. Those are all the officer's responsibility. It was he's on the ground. In the prone position, he's in handcuffs, got a knee on the neck, got a knee on the back. Who's responsible for all four of those things, Derek Shovan and the police department, not George Floyd, didn't hear anything about, fentinol nothing about methamphetamines, nothing about COVID nothing about heart problems, coronary heart issues. One of the ventricles or something was filled 90%. We heard another testimony. None of that was relevant for factors from this guy. Who's a world renowned expert wrote the book on this stuff, says it was four factors and they go through this. They specifically we'll walk through each one of those factors and explain it. This is a very, very compelling graphic that they posted today. And let me see where I can throw myself over here, but they'll show you that it says here Chauvin's orientation, his, he is near vertical. This was pretty damning image. And so you'll see here. What they're pointing to is his toe is coming off the ground, which leads you to believe that this is the full weight of the knee down on George Floyd's neck. And the other knee on the other side is sort of pivoted and the toes off the ground over here. So it's not supporting Derek Chauvin's full weight is what they're saying. And so they're saying the weight on the neck, he does some calculations is 86.9 pounds. Half the weight is supported by the toes, and he does, you know, the full calculation on it. And what he's saying is this is, I mean, ultimately the cause of death, right? That's what this guy came in to talk about. And so this is a quick example of them going through the toe off the ground diagram in court today,

Speaker 2: 14:24

We've all been, what do we see here in exhibit 43? What we're seeing is that half of his body weight, plus half his ear weight is coming down. That's 91.5 pounds is coming down directly on Mr. Floyd's neck. Is it all we see? And the reason we're seeing that is because the, the, the toe is off the ground and there is no body weight sitting back. He's not hunkering back on his heels. So everything is directed down on his, the, in this place, uh, his shin and he's toe and he's boot is playing no contribution. And were there times also when Mr. Solomon's left knee, uh, was on the back of this appointment? Correct. And when was that? W when his knee is on the back, that's a separate set of forces. It's the same force, but it's compressing a different area. It's compressing inside his chest. And what about the time when Mr. Foy would've had his face smashed directly to the paper when his face is, is into the pavement at that time, like one of the ones I showed you, if it's coming down on the nuchal ligament, it's going to be a huge weight for Mr. Floyd to try and breathe, but he won't be compressing the high profile things at the time that that's happening. So all of these different forces are they're somewhat complex in terms of how they're interacting, but they're all coming to the same point.

Speaker 1: 15:41

Yeah. So pretty compelling, obviously that image is, is not good for Derek Shovan. And you can see there that it is, it looks pretty obvious, right? If you're watching it, the heel looks like it's off the ground. Doesn't look like the boot of Derek Chauvin's foot is touching the asphalt on the street does look like he's kind of putting extra weight on that. Now, Eric Nelson comes back out and says, all right, this is one still frame, essentially from a big, long video. And the weight is fluctuating literally second by second, you know, almost nanosecond by nanosecond. And so he comes back out and he's trying to kind of once again, expand the scope a little bit. So this is the theme that you've seen that I've been talking about. I kind of felt like a broken record, but it's important because this keeps happening over and over again. So in this situation, the government, they pull out one image and they say, look how bad this one is the F there there's no, you know, there's no connection here between the boot and the asphalt and the full weight of their Chauvin looks like it's on the back of Floyd's neck. That is a very bad image, but obviously that image was dynamic. It wasn't like that for all eight minutes and 46 seconds, because there was movement, right? He was moving around, adjusting himself. They were lifting Floyd's arms up and down. People were coming, officers were rearranging. And so the whole situation was dynamic. And Eric Nelson is just basically drawing that conclusions. And all right, so you took one snapshot and you developed this calculation, you said this, this amount of pressure, and in all of that data led to your conclusion that these were the four factors that caused his death. But ultimately you realize that there are many other factors. So the government is narrowing the scope. Nelson's trying to blow it back up and his testimony or his, his cross-examination, I think was, was all right. I think he's a little bit off today, quite frankly. And I wanted to mention this with as much compassion as I can, because this guy is in the middle of his second week of trial, and he's currently out there, cross-examining every single person. And so, uh, we call this sort of justice fatigue, right? He's been going at, in this trial for a long period of time, and he's going to start getting tired. It's him versus the government. And for whatever reason, he doesn't have a big team. I don't know if that's by design, if that is part of, you know, resource, whatever that is. I don't know why he doesn't have as big of a team, but you just have to compare and contrast this a little bit. Eric Nelson is out there responding. You gotta be listening in the middle of a trial to every single syllable that's coming out of every single witness's mouth and ready to rock and roll. So you're amped up to like a level 12. It's hard to run at that level indefinitely. And so the government is doing a much better job on managing this. It's sort of like in a sport, right? People will come out, take a break from playing rest and go back in. The government is doing that. They have different prosecutors asking different questions. Sometimes three of them are alternating every day. You have somebody come in and do the morning. You have somebody come and do late morning, early afternoon. Then you have somebody else come in and do the late afternoon. And so they're all fresh. They're all refreshed. Every night they come out, they've got a handle, one witness, Eric, Nelson's gotta be ready on alert for all of them. And honestly, I think it was showing today a little bit. He got confused over how to say the word respiratory. He kind of goes through and core, and he's like, respiratory, you know, uh, how do I say it, respiratory? And you can just tell he's just tired. It's just pure tiredness. And it kind of feel for him, especially as a defense attorney. Cause I just know how this goes. You have, the government comes in, you know, five cops investigator everybody, everybody ready to go. And it's like me and a client. We're like, Ooh, this is great. You know? So, you know, it's just a David versus Goliath type of situation in general. So I can empathize with Mr. Nelson over it. And I'm not trying to be critical of him. Cause I think he's doing a great job, but you can see it today. And you just gotta be cognizant of that. Right? The jurors can see it. The judge probably can see it. And he's just a little bit off. So here he is during his cross-examination with Mr. Tobin. And he's asking him specifically about this thing that happens for some people who take fentanyl. So now what we're trying to do is we know that this witness just gave us four factors that resulted in George Floyd, having low oxygen resulting in his death, go through those four factors. He says they are all conclusive. They all contributed to it. They're all as a result, they're there, they're their Chauvin's fault, all of them. So Nelson comes back out and he's trying to show that there may be other causes that actually can connect to George Floyd's death. And he's talking about fentanyl, of course, right? We all, we all know this case is about causation. And so phentenol comes into the equation again. And he's saying, Hey, if there is a person who has fentanyl, there's a condition, right? And it's known as wooden chest syndrome, which means that your chest cavity is going to get rigid. And it's not going to be able to expand or contract, which you need to do in order to breathe. So this is where he's asking him about that. And he confirms that. Yeah. In fact, this is a real thing and maybe, maybe it's relevant here. It is

Speaker 3: 20:19

In terms of the use of fentanyl in the hospital setting, surgical setting, uh, have you become familiar with a, uh, what's called wooden chest syndrome? And can you explain for the jury what wouldn't chest, some patients with fentanyl you'd get an increasing chest loss. So the lungs become less elastic, not quite the lungs, the chest wall. Okay. So that would prevent a chest wall tight. Our chest wall rigidity will also decrease the performance of the lungs, impede the ability of the lungs to impact. Excellent.

Speaker 1: 20:56

All right. So that, that sort of the first introduction into fentanyl, then we're going to hear a little bit more about this, this idea of peak respiration and when you can have respiration depression at, at what levels. And so what he's going to walk us through Mr. Nelson now is once again, he's trying, this witness has already identified four causes of, of George Floyd's death. Trying to talk about other potential causes, just to sort of expand the scope a little bit. So now he's talking about, as a result of wooden chest, if you ingest phenom, there could be a situation where you have your respiratory functions are just depressed as a result of that drug. And he's saying, I want you to pay close attention to the timeline here because the timeline is very important. And we're going to hear from another witness. I think the last witness today, Dr. Smock, I think is kinda missing the Mark on this. And so we have to think about this in terms of timeline and the time of potential ingestion. So one of the defense theories here is going to be, we've already seen this come out even before the jury was seated about last minute ingestion that George Floyd, as a result of even, even prior altercations with the police. One of the things that allegedly he does is consumes any drugs that are on him. This comes out from the 2019 prior where a similar situation occurred back then. So if this was last minute ingestion, now, what we're trying to do is figure out when was that ingestion, when did it happen and what happens in between that moment, that the pill goes in the mouth chewed, swallowed, whatever, and the, the, the effects of that, that you would see what's that timeframe. How much time elapses is it? Two minutes, three minutes, 10 minutes. If somebody choose a pill, do they start to feel it 10 minutes, 20 minutes an hour from now or five minutes? Because if it's five minutes, maybe what we saw with George Floyd slowly sort of passing away in front of all of our eyes. Maybe it had nothing to do with Chauvin's knee. Maybe it had everything to do with fentanyl and fentanyl can cause respiratory depression. We got to know, when is the peak of that? When is the peak respiratory depression? When is it going to be the most? So Eric Nelson asks him about it and let's listen and see what he says.

Speaker 3: 23:07

Let me ask him, let me ask you in the form of a hypothetical question. Okay. If partially ingested pills that were determined to contain, uh, both fentanyl and methamphetamine were found partially ingested in the backseat of a squad of the squad car. And those pills had been, had come had the DNA of the, of the deceased individual on them, meaning that they took them. And those pills would have been in his mouth at about two, 18 or 2018. Right. Is it fair to say that you would expect the peak fentanyl, respiratory depression within about five minutes? Right? I mean, obviously it would depend on how much of it was suggested to me that just finding the pills, won't tell you anything about whether any of it was ingested or some of it or anything, but what if there was any amount of it ingested? Yes. The peak would be five minutes. Right? And so if it happened at 2018 or thereabouts, when the individual was in the back of the car, you would expect that peak respiratory depression to be around 2013, right? 20, 23, I'm sorry. 2018 to 20, 23 is beginning to really confuse me. Mr. Dennis, I'm sorry. I think I can actually say it's been a long week. So 2018 is the ingestion point. You would expect peak respiratory depression by 2023, correct? Right. That's the peak meaning that it could continue afterwards. Right. Right. All right.

Speaker 1: 24:40

All right. So you saw that a little bit, right? Eric, Nelson's got there kind of confusing. Some addition, you could hear his voice even, right? You heard him kinda, his voice is trailing off. He's having to clear his throat a little bit. He's exhausted and who can blame him? I mean, he's working his butt off. No doubt about it, but he goes through and he says, yeah, if you ingest fentanyl about five minutes later, from that moment of ingestion, you might actually see max respiratory depression. Well, that kind of lines up exactly with what we saw in the video, right? As soon as he gets kind of pulled out of the vehicle, the back of the vehicle, about five minutes later, he's basically dying in front of us. That's when everybody said at that moment, they should have done something about it. And the defense theory is going to be this last minute ingestion theory. And we now know, based on the testimony that we heard yesterday, that there was a pill that had George Floyd's saliva DNA in the back of the police vehicle. So that might be that very moment, the last moment of ingestion. So the timeline starts to make sense. Now, they, he was, he had pills in his mouth. Maybe he swallowed one or two, who knows if this is the theory, right? Just a theory. And by the time he's pulled out of the vehicle, that was the moment of ingestion five minutes after that, that's when he sort of dying in front of everybody's eyes. Now it's being attributed to Chauvin's knee. That's the government theory. But we can see here that Eric Nelson is just laying the framework for an alternative interpretation specifically here that fentanyl can lead to max respiratory depression at about five minutes later. So as I was watching this cross-examination, there was one question that I want, I was waiting for Eric Nelson to ask him, because I remember watching the video. And I remember hearing about George Floyd complaining about breathing problems before he was on the ground. And so this entire length of testimony was all about the pressure on George Floyd's back when he was on the ground, that led to the low oxygen. As this doctor told us, which led to shutting down of the brain and the heart, which resulted in his death, they actually, there's a step in between that, which was the sh the slow and shallow breathing. What caused the slow and shallow breathing. The officer

Speaker 4: 26:45

Was on his back. So we know

Speaker 1: 26:48

George Floyd was having a difficult time breathing at that moment because he said so, and because the doctor had some other indicators from his feet and his hands. So

Speaker 4: 26:57

My question would have

Speaker 1: 26:58

Been where I doing the cross examination. And I don't think I heard Nelson bring this up because he actually brought it up later today with a different witness. So I think he just missed it and try to get it out of another witness later down the road, I tweeted about it and I was listening to answers, watching some answers come in and I didn't really get a good satisfactory reason as to why he didn't ask it. And nobody who sort of corrected me and said that he did, and I missed it. I listened to these things very quickly as I'm doing other stuff. So sometimes I miss stuff. And it's, it was, I think a pretty important question. But my question is George Floyd was breathing or complaining about his breathing problems before he was on the ground. So if he was doing this while he was in the back of the vehicle, and he's saying, I can't breathe, and there is no pressure on his back then what is causing

Speaker 4: 27:44

Those breathing problems? And the, my, my initial question was, well, did he?

Speaker 1: 27:50

He actually, that actually happened. Am I remembering this correctly? That he said this before he was on the ground, that I couldn't breathe. So I went back and I looked this up and you can see that on July 7th, 2020, this was filed in the state of Minnesota. And we have the same CR

Speaker 4: 28:05

Number here. And we're going to notice

Speaker 1: 28:07

That there are timestamps. So if you remember the video and I'm gonna play just a quick clip of it says, he says, I'm not a bad guy at about 10 minutes in. This is from officer King's body

Speaker 4: 28:15

Camera. And so he's saying

Speaker 1: 28:17

Con Kung is saying, take a seat, George Floyd says, please, please. No inaudible. He says, take a seat. George Floyd says, I can't choke. I can't breathe. Mr. Officer, please, please. And they're in the middle of an altercation right here in this transcript. He says, fine. George Floyd says my wrist, my wrist, okay. Okay. I want to lay on the ground. I want to lay on the ground. I want to lay on the ground. He says, you're getting in the squad. Car says, officer lane. I want to lay on the ground. I'm going down. I'm going down. I'm going down,

Speaker 4: 28:41

Take a squat. They tell him,

Speaker 1: 28:42

He says, I'm going down, bro. You were about to have a heart attack and, man. Get in the car. He says, I know I can't breathe. I can't breathe crosstalk at about 10, 18. So we've got two areas where this is happening. He's saying right here, I can't choke. I can't breathe. Mr. Officer, that was right at about 10, 10. Then we have it again. I can't read it about 10 18. And I'm going to play you from, from about 10, 10 to one Oh five. Uh, no, for, for about 30 seconds. So now this is, this is a clip from that, from this transcript. And so you can see, you can hear it from, from yourself and listen, this is not when he is on the ground. This is he's in the car. Now the contrary here, the, the explanation that the government certainly would pose is that he is fighting with officers, right? They're there he's really freaking out right now. And so maybe that was the cause of him not being able to breathe. And so their explanation would be, well, he couldn't breathe then because they were doing something. But then he couldn't breathe on the ground because they were doing

Speaker 4: 29:35

Something else. Right. Or he couldn't breathe. Then the defense will say, because he had fentanyl

Speaker 1: 29:42

In his system and he couldn't breathe later because he was dying from the fentanyl in his system. And so you're going to see how both sides are going to manipulate this. But, but Mike, that I would like to have known how that particular witness was going to answer this. What was causing his breathing problems before he was ever on the ground. This is the clip from the video,

Speaker 5: 30:02

Please. No joke. I can't breathe my peace man. All right. So now, okay, so nobody's honest.

Speaker 1: 30:26

So that's enough. So nobody's on his chest, right? He's in the back of the car. Nobody's laying weight on him. He still has his handcuffs. And we heard him say about three times I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe. So my question would have been to him. I actually probably would have played that clip just like I did and showed him the transcript. And I said, Hey, nobody's on his chest. There's no knee on his neck. There's no knee on his back. He's not in a prone position. Okay. So three out of your four factors that you just said resulted in his death were not there. And he was already claiming that he had breathing problems. So let's just back this up a little bit. What was causing those breathing problems at that moment? So what would his response be? Well, it was the anxiety. It was the paranoia. It was some of the physical altercation that was taking place. That's one explanation. George Floyd could have been making it up, right? He could have been lying about it. Maybe he wasn't having any difficulty breathing, but he was lying. As we've already heard from other people who have been officers and government witnesses out there saying that oftentimes people will do that. When they're under arrest, they'll say this is hurts. This is broken. Take me to the hospital. Don't put me in handcuffs. Don't put me in the back of the vehicle, please, please, please. They make up a bunch of stuff. My back hurts. My leg hurts. My head hurts. I have asthma. I have, you know, whatever. So was he, was he being dishonest then? And then he became honest. When he was put on the ground that he couldn't breathe and the officers are supposed to be able to decipher between that or should there be an even standard across the board? Maybe they just don't respond to those types of requests or complaints from prospective defendants, which is, I think while we're going to hear further down the line. So this was a question that I wanted to know an answer to Mr. Nelson, didn't ask it. But he did come later on in the day and address it with a different witness because somebody probably told him, Hey, it's an important question. Expand the scope. So we kind of missed that a little bit, but that's all right. He cleaned it up later. So our next witness is Daniel Schmidt. This is, this guy kind of looks like the monopoly guy, very pleasant, fun, friendly guy. Today. He is from the NMS labs. He's a forensic toxicologist and you know, they're toxicologists. So they talk a lot about nanograms per milliliter and different levels of intoxication and things like that. So this was not that interesting testimony, but I want to show you what the government was attempting to do. So in this slide, you'll see this guy went through a bunch of different slides and the government knows that they got to deal with this fentanyl fact. And the fact that the toxicology report came back 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl, other remnants of methamphetamines metabolites for both of those drugs, THC, nicotine, uh, other stuff, right? We're all in there. The government has to explain that because that's going to be the crux of the defense attorney's case. They're going to come out and say, yeah, I mean, need back, whatever neck, whatever this guy had, massive levels of fentanyl in his blood. That's what killed him, had nothing to do with Shovan. Shelby could have been on the other side of the street doing cartwheels. He would have died anyways, because of the amount of drugs that he took. That's what the defense is going to look like. So the government has to deal with that. And what they're trying to do now is wrap some context around this thing. So they're saying, all right. Yeah. We know 11 nanograms per milliliter. That's so what, you know, everybody's throwing around this number. Like that number is three times the amounts of what would kill an average person know everybody's it'll kill a horse. So this guy comes in and says, well, not really. And the government puts this slide up in front of the jurors and he goes through and he says, listen, at our lab, we've analyzed 2,345 DUI cases. These people were still alive. Right? All of them were alive. They're all driving around all over the place. And he says Floyd's level was down here in this kind of really low threshold. He says, yes, look, 48% of the cases that we saw, they had less or equal than five nanograms per milliliter, very low. Most of them, about half of them were about that level. Then there was this little higher tier from about 5.1 to 11 nanograms per milliliter. All of these people were still alive and driving. And then Floyd kind of in that next category, right? He's in that third tier where it's 11 to 15 nanograms per milliliter. So about 10% of the cases. And then we see this whole slice of pie right here, where everybody in this slice has a level that's higher than George Floyd's way higher, right. 16 to 20, 21 to 26, 26 to 50, and even greater than 50 that's right. 2% of people can have a level that's almost five, uh, just over about, about five times higher than Floyd's level. Right, right around that level. 2% of people driving around.

Speaker 6: 34:56

So

Speaker 1: 34:59

Is level what their argument is trying to convey is not enough to kill you. There are people who are driving around all over the place with it. So, so what, right. George Floyd was an active user. Somebody who had been on and off fentinol again, on and off, uh, was on Suboxone. We saw some of those wrappers in the vehicle from the photographs yesterday. So they're just trying to expand this a little bit and just layer on yeah. He had 11 nanograms, but look at all these other people. So do they, they drive around just fine. And here's a clip of him explaining that

Speaker 6: 35:32

Flights level to the driving population where individuals were alive. Um, his level was

Speaker 7: 35:38

Within a quarter of pie of the DUI cases that, that NSF has received. Is that right? And you indicated that those levels, um, for drivers were found in 53 cases higher than 50 nanograms per milliliter. Is that right? Correct. So it doesn't mean as we're alive and essentially driving at that time. All right.

Speaker 1: 35:58

Yeah. And he goes, yeah, pretty amazing. These people are driving around at 50 nanograms per milliliter. Yeah. That is, that is pretty amazing. And you know, Floyd's level was in here high, but not that high, right. It's in there, but it, you know, three fourths of the pie are lower, but a good portion of the pie are higher. And so they're just wrapping that around saying, look, obviously people can drive on this stuff. People can function perfectly well with 11 anagrams per milliliter. So that can't be as a consequence, the cause of death, then they do the same thing with methamphetamine. And you can see here, they're trying to show now. I never thought that this was even going to be an issue really. Uh, the, the, the meth levels were actually quite low. And so they're showing you that he's down here under, you know, five to 20 nanograms per milliliter. He was 19. And so he's at the bottom 5.9%. So very low. Obviously everybody else is much higher. And when we were doing the original defending Derek Shovan video, that this is the same conclusion that I reached. It was the, you know, the studies that I found also supported that, that this basically was just too low to really matter now in conjunction with a whole slew of other drugs. Yeah. Maybe that does matter. But, uh, but generally speaking, I thought that, that this was, uh, was appropriate and they presented that today. Then they spent some time talking a little bit more about this sort of this concentration. So I want to explain this before I show you Eric, Nelson's cross-examination here. So they, they do this calculation. They bring this doctor out or this toxicologist out. And, and they asked him specifically about the relationship between the drugs. And so when you take a, a pill of anything, your body is going to metabolize it, it's going to go into your stomach. It's going to digest. And your body's going to process the active ingredient in that. And then you're going to have remnants of this. So, so with marijuana, for example, you have active THC, then it'll dissolve sort of into hydroxy, carbon carboxy metabolites. And oftentimes those will show up in tests. And so what they're, what they're trying to do here is show you the relationship between the active metabolite and the inactive metabolite, and sort of develop this ratio that the body will naturally produce. Right? If you take a certain type of substance, it's going to metabolize into remnants and you should be able to see a ratio between the metabolite and the active ingredient and come to a conclusion. So what they do is they do that here and they use this government witness to go through a chart that looks like this. And they say, this is the mean level of fentanyl. And these are in post-mortem cases. So these people did die samples from peripheral blood, which is different than sort of post-mortem blood, which is which, which has different characteristics. And so now you have the mean level they're saying is at 16. So 16% are 16 per milliliter, the median levels at 10. And then this is the North fentanyl. So this is the metabolite that's taking place. So this is active fentanyl. This is the metabolite. And they're trying to develop this relationship here. And the reason why this is important is because this is how they address the last minute ingestion theory. They're saying, Oh, no, the ratios were were where they should be. We don't see a real high level of active metabolites and no process metabolites. Eric, Nelson's now going to come out and explain that this is maybe not the best way to analyze this issue, because you could have a slew of active metabolites without any processed metabolites. If you ingested something at the last minute, because let's say, for example, in this hypothetical, George Floyd took that, took those drugs at the very last minute, spit one of them out, or, you know, choked up one of them when he was in the back of the vehicle, we heard him say the word choke a semi-good justed pill comes out, allegedly in the back of the vehicle. So what his body have time to process the active phentenol metabolite into nor fentanyl in nine minutes after he dies, they test the blood. So they're just going to see active metabolites, not the process metabolites. So this is Eric Nelson, who's going into this and you can see what this is really is framing out the last minute ingestion theory. So he's trying to get him to say it, it is possible actually, right? If you took something at the last minute, you'll see some imbalances and ratios. And so this is him in court this afternoon.

Speaker 3: 40:17

So I just want to make sure that I understand, and the jury understands the difference between fentanyl and Norfund. Okay. Okay. You would agree that fentanyl is the active ingredient, or when you, when you report the fentanyl concentration, it's the active ingredient right now, when a person ingests any, essentially any substance controlled substance, it doesn't have to be an illegal drug, the body metabolizes that, correct? Yes. And then the body eliminates that right through the natural processes of the body and the elimination of the substance results in what's called a metabolite, a grid. And so fentanyl being the active ingredient, nor fentanyl is the metabolite where the breakdown correct. And included in this particular case, you discovered a fentanyl concentration of 11 nanograms per milliliter, right. And a fentanyl, a level of 5.6. Yes. Um, now you testified on direct examination that that could be one of two scenarios occurring there, right? Yes. One scenario is that a person took a certain amount of a controlled source of fentanyl and enough time had passed to eliminate that, correct. Correct. Or to break it down and have that metabolite being present. That's one there. Right? The other scenario, as I understand it is someone took some at initial dose began to break down and then the person took more that into the active ingredient. Is there, but it had not yet broken down. Right? Correct. So it sort of either, and you described it, I think, as an acute ingestion or a non-acute ingestion. So a person, when you have fentanyl that it will break down the North fentanyl. And, but you could still take more fentanyl. So you could still take fentanyl while the first fentanyl was breaking down. Right. Um, so, uh, put it into a context of people who may consume alcohol. Right. I have a beer at my alcohol concentration is going to rise to a certain level. Right. Whatever, based on the alcohol concentration, I grade it and my body will essentially immediately begin to decrease and eliminate the alcohol. Right. But if I have a second beer, I'm adding more alcohol causing my blood alcohol concentration to rise. Correct? Yes. And that's similar with all substances, including fentanyl in general. Yes. I mean, so alcohol is eliminated a fixed rate over time. You can, there's only so much, you can eliminate with time with drugs, some drugs it's a little different, but some drugs may be faster. Some may take longer. Right.

Speaker 1: 42:48

All right. So essentially what he's talking about here is sort of the absorption curve. So if you have the amount of whatever drug you're trying to analyze on the Y axis on the vertical, on the X, you have time. While when you sort of like in, in Nelson's example, when you drink a beer, you have zero blood alcohol in your body and your body is now processing it through your stomach and your blood alcohol content goes up. At some point, you're going to hit peak absorption. You're going to absorb everything that's in your body and your body's going to start dissipating it. Then it's going to come back down. So you have like a little bit of a bell curve there. Now what he's talking about is rather than going all the way back down, it goes back up again, right? Because you just ingested more drugs. And so, you know, if you're somebody who's drinking a beer, you're going up. And before you start going down again, you want to pound another one, right? So you go keep going up. And another one and another one until you hit max capacity and you call it a night. So he's talking about some sort of that same thing. What the government is trying to do is talk about just kind of one ingestion at some point. And then that was the end of the story. Not really. Now we're talking about this last minute ingestion, and this is where things get a little bit tricky because you're starting to see that these government witnesses now are making observations based on sort of a big expanded scope. And specifically, you know, we're, we're, we're watching this happen almost in real time, kind of dynamically between witness to witness. Some are focused very narrowly on one specific incident. Like the, the prior witness today, Mr. Tobin, not tubing Tobin was talking specifically about the weight on the back of Floyd and his neck and his back, right? That's it kind of a very niche narrow focus about that. Didn't talk about any of the other breathing incident or issues that he had before that. And what was kind of focused on one key issue, then we're going to get to this other guy, uh, next, who is Dr. Bill smock? Dr. Bill smock now is brought in. He is an emergency medicine physician. He's a forensic medical guy. And he is talking about sort of eliminating the, all the alternative explanation. So they bring him in. They want to talk about 10 signs of excited delirium, where one of Chauvin's defenses is no, I didn't kill him. Other things did, could have been excited. Delirium could have been an overdose, could have been a heart attack, could have been anything, but it wasn't my knee or my back that's for sure. So this guy comes in and start sort of whittling those away. Say not wasn't excited delirium. Nope. Wasn't an overdose note. Wasn't anything. It was in fact Chauvin's knee. So this guy's coming in to do some of the cleanup damage here, and he goes through 10 signs of excited delirium. And yesterday we talked about the concept of Iraq, right? Issue, rule, application, or analysis and conclusion. So what's the issue. Did George Floyd dive excited delirium? That's the issue? What's the rule? Well, you need six of these are required for a diagnosis that somebody died of excited delirium. So they go through, they do their application that we know what the rules are. You need six of these. They just go through, they apply them to the facts they say, did George Floyd seem unaffected by pain? No, he was screaming out in pain. Did he have very rapid breathing? No, he couldn't breathe at all. Was he sweating? Nope. Didn't see any of that either. Right. And so they kind of just go through and whittle this all down and they eliminate excited delirium. Their conclusion is Nope, didn't die of excited delirium. And so this is his final opinion on that. And, uh, and his fentanyl overdose. So this is the prosecutor. I think Jerry Blackwell who's back now asking him about it.

Speaker 3: 46:02

Well, actually the various, uh, videos, uh, the George Floyd's encounter with the police on May 25th, multiple times. Can, can you tell the jury from having looked at those videos, can you tell by looking at that alone, whether George Lloyd was suffering from a fentanyl overdose, those videos and we go through them, what is his respiration? Did he's breathing, he's talking, he's not snoring. He is saying, please, please get off of me. I want to breathe. I can't breathe. That is not a fentanyl overdose. That is somebody begging to breathe. And so if, uh, if a person is suffering from a fentanyl overdose, would you describe that person then as alert? No, sir. They're not going to be alert. They're going to be sleeping. Would you describe them as oriented? Uh, no. They're going to be, their brain is going to be in sleep mode or not breathing mode.

Speaker 1: 46:55

So isn't that kind of what we saw though. I mean, he kind of was awake then was sleeping. Right. He was responsive and then not responsive. So couldn't that be from fentanyl? So he sort of, he's kind of missing the connection there. He's sort of just drawing a conclusion based on a certain set of observations that prove his conclusion, because if he's analyzing the second part of the video or the transition part of the video of that timeline. Yeah. So you can make the argument that the first four minutes, George Floyd is alive and well and active and responsive. But if we match the up with the prior, uh, witnesses, testimony that you'll reach peak respiratory depression, about five minutes in, after the four minutes, we start to see a transition happening in front of everybody's eyes. Floyd, Floyd is dying. So could an alternative explanation be in fact that it was the fentanyl reaching peak depression of his respiration or was it Chauvin's knee. But so this guy then is just picking the first four minutes. He's responsive. He's not sleeping. And therefore this cannot be a fentanyl overdose because if somebody dies from a fentanyl overdose, we see sleeping and other issues. We didn't see that here, but we did for the second half of the video during the transition. And so he kind of just glossed right over that, which I didn't think was, was appropriate. But then Nelson comes back out. And now he's talking once again about the difference between drugs and metabolites. I think this is this clip let's listen in.

Speaker 3: 48:25

So I just want to make sure that I understand and the jury understands the difference between fentanyl and Norfolk. Okay. You would agree that fentanyl is the active ingredient. W when you, when you report the fentanyl concentration, it's the active ingredient right now, when a person ingests any, essentially any substance controlled substance, doesn't have to be an illegal drug, the body metabolizes that, correct? Yes. And then the body eliminates that right through the natural processes of the body and the elimination of the substance results in what's called a metabolite. The great, we already watched this. And so

Speaker 1: 49:01

W why am I playing that again? All right, let me, let me play this clip. So this is him now talking about a potential that somebody could die if they had multiple things going on in their body. So, um, you know, Eric Nelson is now bringing them out and saying, all right, listen, you had a conclusion that this was not excited delirium. This was not fentanyl overdose. And you had your explanations. Why your observations about what you saw in Floyd's case don't match the clinical criteria for justifying that explanation as the cause of death. But what if you start combining all of these things together, right? So we know that you just ran through excited delirium that by itself, if we analyze that, and only that wouldn't apply and same thing with fentanyl, if we applied that, and only that maybe it doesn't hit the criteria, but what about if we combine meth and fentanyl and even heart problems? Is it possible that maybe those could complicate the situation a little bit more? And so here, here is Eric Nelson,

Speaker 3: 50:03

Floyd maintained, uh, or stated that he could not breathe well in the prone position. That is correct. He stated that before ever being in the prone position as well, correct? Several times, correct. At that point, when he stated that he can't breathe and he's in the backseat of the car, there was no one on his back. Right. And do you know whether at that point, there's any evidence to suggest that there was a respiratory depressant, such as fentanyl on onboard in the system? No, sir. Um, have you been advised, I mean, I know you prepared a report, have you been advised that, um, partially ingested pills were located in the back seat of squad three 20 and they contain Mr. Floyd's DNA? Yes, sir. And you were advised that, uh, those pills over a co methamphetamine and fentanyl combination, that is correct, sir. People who have their respiration suppressed as a result of Sentinel don't necessarily all the time die, right? That is correct. Hopefully treating, uh, people in the, ER, you have treated people with cardiac diseases. Yes. Ram. And in terms of, uh, your treatment of people with cardiac diseases, have you encountered people who have a combination of methamphetamine and Sentinel? Yes, sir. I am. And obviously every single person is unique, correct? Yes, sir. And you've experienced people who have cardiac disease, fentanyl, and nothing ketamine who pass away. Yes, sir. Necessarily from those, but maybe something else. And, but sometimes it could just be from those. Right. Would depend on the case. Look at that. You treat people with COPD,

Speaker 1: 52:06

Just look at that face right there. He does not like Mr. Nelson. He is not happy about that question. He just had to admit. Yeah. Maybe it could result in people dying. It doesn't like it. Look, look at that. You son of a Nelson. Hmm. Now let's take a look@somequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. These are questions that you can ask and be a part of the show. So head on over there to watching the watchers.locals.com. All right. So first question comes from LT. 13 says, Robert, maybe it's just in the movies, but can the defense re-enact any on the neck like Steven Crowder. I saw that also. They can't prove the pressure on the knee. Could he have had the pressure on his other knee the whole time? How far in advance? You have to give the other side of the presentation defense that he got breathing experts presentation last night. Sorry for all the questions like this OJ 2.0 for me. Yeah. I know it's, it's, there's a lot. It's like trying to drink from a fire hose. So let's go through these quickly. Can they do the knee on the neck? So, yes. I mean, they technically could write, this is called demonstrative evidence. And so you'll often see this in DUI cases, they will demonstrate things. So they'll bring in a police officer who will then literally demonstrate how they instructed somebody to perform the field sobriety tests. So they'll stand up in front of the jury and they'll do the heel to toe the walk and turn the one leg stand. They'll do the pen test and they'll perform all of these things right in front of the jury. And so that is allowed, right? It's called demonstrative evidence. There's some specific rules and guidelines on that. So yes, technically it could, could be allowed. Would it be allowed? Probably not. Right. I don't think the judge would ever allow it just because it's probably not really, uh, it's probably too easy to manipulate the evidence and present it in a way that's going to confuse the jury. And you, you kind of don't want both sides to come in and make it make a spectacle of the, of the courtroom. And it may ultimately sort of be precluded from coming in under a rule called rule four Oh three, which says that if anything is overly prejudicial, rather than it is probative, whether, you know, if it's going to answer the facts one way or the other, or it's going to be overly prejudicial, that stuff can not come into court. So I don't know that the judge would let it in. I think it's a very interesting idea. I saw that brought up by Scott Adams as well saying he would have his defense lawyer if he were Derek Shovan he would just have his defense lawyer give his closing statement with his knee on his neck, right there in front of the jury. So an interesting idea, but obviously highly, highly provocative. And the judge would want to weigh the credibility of that. Like, what are you going

Speaker 6: 54:33

To get out of that, that you

Speaker 1: 54:35

Couldn't get from explanations and diagrams and videos. And it would probably be more prejudicial and too provocative that I don't think the judge would allow that to come in. So we also have can't prove pressure on the knee. How could he have had the pressure on his other knee the whole time could he have? Yeah, I think so. And the other way that I was thinking about this too, is to have the defense come in and bring in two scales. Right. And if you've ever wrestled or done any mixed martial arts or any sort of gymnastics or anything that sort of involves the use of the contortion of your body, especially, let's say you have somebody else's arm and you're trying to learn a move about whether you're going to snap it or not. You're going to know that just minor adjustments in pressure, right? If you put somebody in a choke, it doesn't take much to go from breathing, to not breathing, breathing, not breathing, breathing out, breathing out, right. And it's, it's just minor, minor adjustments. And somebody goes from awakened

Speaker 6: 55:29

To out literally that easy.

Speaker 1: 55:32

So you could bring in scales and you could have somebody just put one knee on a scale, adjust their body weight a little bit. You're going to see how almost all of the pressure goes onto the other scale. And you could just sort of demonstrate that way, how far in advance you have to give the other side of the presentation. So those are going to be specific to the rules in Minnesota. There should be rules of criminal procedure that dictate what those rules are. I don't know what they are off the top of my head. Defense said he got the breathing experts presentation last night. So yeah. Um, last minute

Speaker 6: 55:59

Disclosure, I think he got a,

Speaker 1: 56:03

Um, an updated presentation or something to that effect today from one of them,

Speaker 6: 56:07

The breathing experts. So yeah,

Speaker 1: 56:10

I'm not sure what those specific rules are in Minnesota, but the judge, I think, allowed that to happen. So he got an updated presentation. And so the judge is sort of giving both sides. I think a little bit of leeway on this good questions. Blaster brain says Giles. Cory was crushed to death via increasing amounts of heavy boulders over the course of a few days in 1692 in Salem what's co Giles, Corey was crushed to death via increasing amounts of heavy boulders over the course of a few days in 60 92 in Salem. Well, that is an interesting fact right there. Interesting fact, I wonder why nobody asked the expert witnesses about that flag drop N J says New Jersey has so many loopholes for sovereign citizens like police judges, retired cops, still a huge disconnect understanding why there is a difference between ex-military and police veterans handling firearms. It still takes six months to purchase ammo rifles going on 10 months to get a handgun permit. And that's a long time. Wow. New Jersey. Wow. That's crazy. My Fox says this again is a case of very targeted questions. Prosecution came back and basically confirmed in the witness's opinion that he didn't change positions practically, anytime at top of Floyd, he wasn't just dancing on Floyd's back or getting off of him, et cetera. Yeah. And so, right. I mean, yes, yes and no. I mean, I think that that really, you can just, just a simple weight. I mean, you can just do it right now, right. Just lean a little bit, and you can feel that you're going to lose your ballot. You know, we're very, very complicated, physical creatures, all these very complicated points of leverage. It's why wrestlers and mixed martial artists train their whole lives in order to manipulate the body. And so I can see, you know, I could see myself getting on the ground and reenacting that and being able to put almost no pressure, but look like I was putting pressure, but almost putting no pressure. And I could also put my entire body weight on that knee just by adjusting my weight. And it probably wouldn't look all that different, but I'm not going to make a video about it. Like Steven Crowder. All right, here is Jay bones says when you are questioning expert witnesses that are highly qualified, says as a physician, how do you go about your cross exam? Do you actually try to go hard at these types? Or do you want to rely more on your exports to refute? I thought the state presented a solid case for Shovan causing the death today. I agree with you J bone today was a very strong day for the prosecution. Very good experts, very compelling testimony today. And it's a very good question. And so it kind of depends on what you want to accomplish and what kind of case you're working on and how you, how many resources you have really, uh, when I was a brand new lawyer, our clients couldn't afford, or my, my, my first DUI trial ever, which I lost was, was a case where we could not have an expert witness and we needed to use the government's witness. So in that type of situation, I went very, very hard against the government's witness. Uh, and, and not even hard. I tried to actually use them to be my witness, you know, use them almost like Eric Nelson did with one of the prior witnesses. I think his name was, um, Merlin Mursal Mursal wasn't previously. He was talking to that guy for like way longer than the prosecution was back on. I think that was Tuesday. He almost made him his witness because he was such a good witness. And so there are different techniques and things that you can do in order to kind of carry over the government witness onto your side. But it's, it just depends. It's a very good question. Sometimes if you have your own expert witness, you just let them do the work for you. You bring them in, all right, you heard that guy say all that stuff. What'd he say

Speaker 4: 59:40

About that? Let them go.

Speaker 1: 59:42

Right. So that's another way to do it. My Fox says he could have been lying and then not lying. This is not uncommon. We can't just presume someone is lying and be completely negligent about their wellbeing. When we see them literally degrade right in front of our eyes. So I, I agree with you ma I'm not endorsing what happened, but I do think it's important to note what the police are taught about this, right? Are they support, what are they supposed

Speaker 4: 1:00:04

To do? How do they respond

Speaker 1: 1:00:07

To that? So is the policy then to listen to every single complaint from an arrestee or none of them, or are they supposed to distinguish between the two? Okay, he's lying now, but now

Speaker 4: 1:00:18

He's not lying. Or

Speaker 1: 1:00:20

Is there a blanket policy? I don't know the answer to that yet, but I think that Eric Nelson is probably going to tell us that it is the don't respond to it. If it's low priority, relative to your other priorities, in this case, their case is going to be that it was due to the

Speaker 4: 1:00:35

Potentially

Speaker 1: 1:00:36

Dangerous situation that they were in. And that's going to be the justification for why

Speaker 4: 1:00:39

They didn't act. Even though I agree with you, they should've checked on Floyd, right? Maybe they did. Maybe there was nothing they could do. We don't know yet.

Speaker 1: 1:00:48

The jury hasn't told us, they're the fact finders right now, the government is presenting their case. The defense is going to present their stew. So we are, and the jury is going to decide what happens. So, you know, everything that's being presented today, it's the government's version of what

Speaker 4: 1:01:03

They say happened. It's not

Speaker 1: 1:01:05

What actually happened. It's their opinions of it. They can bring in somebody who's been around for 200 years, who basically invented lungs. I think Dr. Tobin like invented them back in the 16 hundreds when lung lungs first made their appearance in our society, which is very nice day, but he invented them. He comes out and testifies about it. That's still his opinion.

Speaker 4: 1:01:25

It's not a fact. Okay. It's

Speaker 1: 1:01:27

His interpretation of what he saw. And he's a pulmonologist. So I've said this before, but people in specific areas of expertise are going to find

Speaker 4: 1:01:36

What is within their wheelhouse. It's like, ask yourself, do you have any plumbing leaks at your house? No. Right? You don't. If we brought a plumber, a plumber into your house, he's going to

Speaker 1: 1:01:51

Find a leak because all houses leak. I used to build swimming pools. Before I went to law school, I was in construction. I actually actually go out and

Speaker 4: 1:01:57

Build them. Right. And we would just say, Hey, every pool leaks, okay.

Speaker 1: 1:02:01

It doesn't really leak, but it leaks every pool leaks because you can send in somebody who's a particular expert in a particular field, sending a plumber to a house. They're going to find a leak, send in a pulmonologist to a death. They're going to find a breathing problem. They're going to find that that's what caused him to die. Just like, right. I don't know what's going on with me, doc. You go to a kidney doctor. Oh, it's your kidneys. Those are, those are the problem. Go to a dietician, stop eating that garbage, go to somebody who's in AA, cut out the alcohol and the wine on the weekends. Everybody's going to find what they want to find. And so can make the argument that that same thing is happening here

Speaker 4: 1:02:37

With this guy.

Speaker 1: 1:02:38

And the government is going to bring out their own witness. It's going to have, I'm sorry. The defense is going to bring out their own WIC witness. Who's going to present the exact opposite of this. And so we can't

Speaker 4: 1:02:48

Just presume things, baby.

Speaker 1: 1:02:51

Uh, once this is an adversarial system, we've only heard one half of the argument today. We have N Y renal MD. So to answer Robert Miller handcuffing him behind his back can cause decrease breathings in asthmatic for example, so he could have had issues to start. So that's a very good point, doc, thank you for bringing that up. And I agree with you actually, right? And I, and I think that was one of the four factors that Dr. Tobin was mentioning. He said, handcuffs behind the back. That's one, but the other

Speaker 4: 1:03:18

Three knee on the back knee on the neck

Speaker 1: 1:03:22

In a prone position were not present when he was in the back of the car. Why not next? We got Patriot Musk's as, are we taking into account that he tested positive for COVID-19 I don't know if he did, or if that would make a difference in respiratory problems. So they did mention that a little bit today. I think that largely this was a sort of a recovered COVID situation. He had COVID previously not sure how active it was, but yes. Right. I mean, there could be some ramifications from that. There was some testimony about it today, but I just don't recall what it was. Cause I kind of glossed over it, but yes. Right. We know that COVID impacts your ability to breathe impacts your lung function. Many people are speculating. We don't know what the long-term effects of this stuff are. Although Dr. Tobin did mention that. He said, we do know how long his work, and this is just a typical viral issue. And so he didn't really opine too much about that, but I'm sure that the defense attorneys and their expert witnesses will, mafic says all three doctors today covered fentinol ODS. If I recall correctly, all of them said, ODI patients go into a coma, not just stop breathing after struggling to breathe. And then flat-lining all right. So that's the thank you mom for that. So they're going into comas, according to Moz interpretation of the testimony, and I'm sure that Eric Nelson's defense experts are going to talk about the opposite of that. All right. Our last question is from Seoul under siege says, did I show mosque the question? All right. There's ma we got soul under siege has how responsible is Shovan for Floyd's death. Considering Mari sold him at dangerous fake pills and Floyd swallowed a dangerous amount upon arrest while we don't know that, really, for sure, we speculate that Floyd ingested something, but we don't know how much or what it was. We can sort of speculate that it may have been a dangerous amount, but that has not been, been even argued yet. And of course it has, it shouldn't have been because it is not the defense's turn right now.

Speaker 4: 1:05:11

So what you're

Speaker 1: 1:05:14

Question is really getting to is the cause, and both sides are trying to flush that out right now. Government says it will.

Speaker 4: 1:05:21

The name defense says it was the drugs. So

Speaker 1: 1:05:26

Good questions. Thank you for those today, coming over from watching the watchers.locals.com. If you want to ask a question ever, and be a part of the show, that's the place to do it. We do a live chat before every one of our live streams. So go check us out@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. All right, so let's change gears. We've got a couple more segments to get to today and, uh, we're talking guns, Joe Biden, executive order today on guns. And so everybody has been a little bit concerned about what the new administration is going to do as it relates to firearms. We're hearing all sorts of language about white supremacy and equity here and dangerous to our democracy and insurrections and on and on and on. So we were all just waiting for it. Well, here it is. Joe Biden today, this update comes over from the New York times, says that Biden announces actions on guns and promises. This is just a start. So aren't you excited about that? We're just getting rolling as is to be expected because we have a new administration. They've got several years to make sure that they strip you of your second amendment rights. President Biden on Thursday, took a modest set of steps to address what he calls an epidemic of gun violence, acknowledging that much more needs to be done, pressing Congress to take more aggressive action by closing background, check loopholes, banning assault weapons, and stripping gun manufacturers of protection from lawsuits. So if somebody shoots somebody with a gun, you can Sue the person

Speaker 4: 1:06:44

Who made the gun, right? So sort of like if you get into a car accident, if somebody hits you, you get to Sue Toyota, right? Or not, we've got a long way

Speaker 1: 1:06:59

Go. It says, Mr. Biden seems like we always have a long way to go acknowledging the limitations of the measures. He can implement gun violence in this country is an epidemic. It's an international embarrassment. So we're in a new epidemic now, according to the president. So that's great. Uh, not even out of the first one, but we're already in another one. Justice department would issue a proposed rule to curb their proliferation of so-called ghost guns kits that allow guns to be assembled with no serial numbers. And the intention of the rule would be to requires the components and the kids have serial numbers. I want to see these kids treated as firearms, ghost guns, experts that have become particularly appealing to criminal organizations and right wing extremists. Oh no, there it is. Who want untraceable firearms and do not require any background checks. They often are tied to shootings in States like California, which have instituted strict gun laws. So have any of the recent shootings been ghost

Speaker 4: 1:07:50

Guns? I don't know. I haven't. That's

Speaker 1: 1:07:51

The first time I've even heard of that phrase

Speaker 4: 1:07:54

Guns. All right. I don't know was the shooting

Speaker 1: 1:07:59

That took place in Colorado, a ghost gun, maybe it was, I don't know. Mr. Biden also said he would require that when the device marketed as a stabilizing brace transforms a pistol into a short barrel rifle, it's going to be subject to the requirements. He said that he will also publish a red flag legislation model for different States. So the federal government is going to draft some things that they want States to impose. The measure would allow police officers and family members to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from people who may present a danger to themselves or others. Yeah. The government police officers and wacko family members can come strip you of your rights. So while Mr. Biden can not pass national red flag legislation without Congress officials said, the goal of the guidance was to make it easier for States to want to adopt it and to do so. Now Arizona did the exact opposite. I'm going to show you that at the end of the segment, the department also plans to release a comprehensive report. Red flag laws can stop mass shooters before they can act out their violent plans. Like, uh, like there were, there were several of these cases where I think the FBI already knew about these people. And so there's already been red flags and the FBI just like I don't, I don't know. We're, we're worried about grandma in the congressional buildings. So we can't keep tabs on all these people outside of mass shootings. Gun violence remains the leading cause of death for black men between ages 15 and 35, which makes sense because of all these racist right-wing extremists, apparently, apparently the right wing extremists and criminal organizations are, uh, causing the epidemic. That's resulting in the death of black men. Mr. Biden said his remarks noting that additional funding he proposed for community violence can save lives. They were announced on Thursday. They do not match in scope is committed to the issue. Over the course of his career, he passed there played a key role in passing the Brady hand gun violence prevention act, then authorized 10 year ban on assault weapons. He acknowledged this is just the start. The house passed two gun control bills. We've talked about both of those on the show a lot and neither one of them look like they're going to face or pass the 60 vote bill. He called them the Senate though, to take action. So this is Joe Biden today. Apparently he said AFT AFT, instead of ATF saw this posted over by Caleb hall on Twitter. Here he is today talking guns

Speaker 5: 1:10:12

Today. I'm proud to nominate David Chipman to serve as a director of the AFT. David knows AFT well today.

Speaker 1: 1:10:22

So that's twice, not once, but twice. The AFT is not an agency that I know of. It's the ATF alcohol tobacco firearms. So there's, there's your president. Then we have another one over here. It says, I want, well, what's this one? Oh, here's another clip.

Speaker 5: 1:10:37

Excuse the point of personal privilege we used to say in the Senate, I'm proud that the red flag law in my home state of Delaware was named after my son, attorney general, Beau Biden, our sons, excuse me, Joe, who proposed that legislation back in 2013, I want to see a national red flag law and legislation to incentivize States to enact their own red flag laws. Today. I asked the justice department to publish a model red flag legislation. So States can start crafting their own laws right now, just like with background checks, the vast majority of the Americans support these extreme risk protection order laws. And it's time to put these laws on the books out.

Speaker 1: 1:11:23

All right. So I didn't actually that the daily caller said, he said, I see a national red flaw law. I didn't hear him say that, but, uh, the point is red flag laws. That's great. So, uh, we'll see if any of the States adopt his proposal. I think that some will and most will not any state that is even moderate. Moderately in favor of gun rights are just going to scoff at this. As we're going to see has already happened here in this great state. So next up we got the byte administration announcing you heard from Joe that said that David Chipman, who is a retired special agent from the ATF is now going to be the leader of the AFT or the ATF, whatever agency Joe Biden wants him to be a part of. And we're noticing now that this guy David Chipman on Twitter has his tweets protected. So as soon as he gets the nomination, he locks down ATF, special agent gun violence prevention, advocates. So that's good. So we have a prevention advocate who is a part of Gifford's courage. Who's a Michigander who is going to be dealing with guns in this country. And of course you remember Gabby Giffords was the woman who was shot. She was a congressperson shot down in Tucson here in Arizona. And so obviously, you know, we don't want people to get shot here, but having a gun violence prevention advocate and somebody who's a part of that doesn't bode well for gun rights, if you are dealing with the ATF, so that's going to be great. Finally, they announced in the Biden administration, they're going to be nominating David Shipman to serve as the director of ATF. He worked at Giffords, which advocates for gun bans. So we have a gun banner now in charge of the ATF. He's a fierce gun control advocate. According to CNN, Chipman locked his Twitter account. So people cannot see what he has stated publicly. However, a comparison of online archives to current account appears to show that he has deleted well over a thousand tweets. Isn't that nice. Now, Donald Trump got skewered for, uh, blocking some people. Is this the same thing? Can he get skewered for that? Here is Robbie Starbuck posting on Twitter as well saying, why did Biden's second new amendment, hating ATF nominee, or second amendment hating ATF nominee, David Chipman delete all his tweets and go private. So this one was deleted. This one was deleted. You are, you live a life of immense privilege and unparalleled safety. If this is what you find, scary rifles are supposed to be lethal. The reason the second amendment exists is to protect us from tyrannical government to write tyrannical. Governments are typically well-armed. Your argument is invalid facts matter. So he's just going on a deletion spree. Let's see if we can learn a little bit about him though. Joe Biden plans to nominate ATF director David Chipman. He's a Gabby Giffords, courage lobbyists. If nominating gun lobbyists isn't corrupt required expert in required expertise is so-called ghost weapons and assault weapons. I volunteer at next time. That's according to Aiden Johnson. So this is his profile over on Giffords, courage to fight gun violence. Senior policy advisor Gifford served 25 years as a special agent for ATF. So he's been there for a long time. He disrupted firearms trafficking operations in Virginia. There were supplying illegal guns member of ATS, version of SWAT named special agent in charge community partnership. Two terms on the firearms committee on international chiefs of police often sought by the media originally from Detroit undergraduate degree from American university master's degree from Johns Hopkins university. All right, so that's who that is. Here's a little bit of his background. So from 2016 to present Washington DC, senior policy advisor, courage to fight gun violence. So what did he do? He was a senior advisor to Gabby Giffords and our new Senator

Speaker 4: 1:14:52

Kelly, who is her wife, the advocate,

Speaker 1: 1:14:56

The C group is committed to urging leaders to enact common sense policies that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and reduce gun violence. The Giffords law enforcement coalition is a group of the nation's leading law enforcement professionals dedicated to gun violence profession charged with providing firearms policy training to members of Congress member of the firearms committee. So he's been doing that for quite some time. So he's a gun banner, which is great. Then we have from 2013 to 2017 senior vice-president for public safety solutions, mayors against illegal guns, going back to 2012, you can see this here down here, 2012, moving forward fire Bureau of ATF, 1988 to 2012, government affairs.

Speaker 4: 1:15:39

So very

Speaker 1: 1:15:40

Long time prevention and violence against police emerging use of force issues, reducing gun violence in our communities. As back as far back as 2011, let's go all the way back.

Speaker 4: 1:15:50

And let's see, 1987

Speaker 1: 1:15:52

Office of inspector jet misconduct crime. So this is early stuff, trafficking hundreds of firearms. So this guy has been doing this

Speaker 4: 1:15:59

Right, very, very, very strong anti-gun fella, and now he's going to be running ATF. So perfect, perfect role for him. Let's take a look at this article.

Speaker 1: 1:16:09

Clover from town hall Biden's nominee for ATF director is a major gun control activist who was involved in Waco. It's not pronounced wacko. Okay. Four years Chipman served as senior policy advisor for the Giffords center, both aggressively advocate for federal government to ban most commonly owned firearms. Also part of Bloomberg's anti second amendment apparatus. And during his time as an ATF special agent, he worked at the branch Davidian trial after the government ATF and FBI botched a rate in Waco, Texas bad decisions made by federal agents resulted in the death of 76 people, including pregnant women and dozens of children. I was just a kid when that happened. And I remember that vividly, very fascinating story in this country. One that is reprehensible on behalf of our government. We're going in there and just eliminating a bunch of people in there, regardless of what you think what's going on there. 76 people dead at the hands of our government repulsive behavior, but this guy worked on that. So that's good. So that's good. Good, good, good, good. Good. Here is David hooks, dead David Chipman, who will soon run ATF falsely claimed on Reddit that the branch Davidians from Waco shut down multiple helicopters during the siege. That's a complete lie. Here's what he posted at Waco. Cult members use two 50 caliber Beretta Barretts to shoot down to Texas air national guard helicopters, which now which never happened. Point is it is true. We are fortunate. They are not used in crime. More often. The victims of drug Lords in Mexico are not so lucky. America plays a role in fueling the violence, the violence South of the board.

Speaker 6: 1:17:35

Okay? So

Speaker 1: 1:17:36

Basically the government has total power to do whatever they want. And he just makes up facts that justify the government intruding into places like Waco and killing 76 people. So that's great. Looking forward to this fella. All right, and this is what Arizona is doing as a response. So maybe you'll see more of this from your local officials. Maybe they want to emulate this. Let's take a look and see what's going on here. This is posted by the Arizona Republican party. Our Arizona Republican legislatures are leading, not just talking. And this is from rep Leo BIA Suchi says proud to announce that Arizona citizens now have an extra layer of protection regarding the second amendment. My bill HB 2111 was signed by Doug Ducey yesterday, which is two days ago. Second amendment unenforceable, federal laws sponsor

Speaker 6: 1:18:23

The overview. This

Speaker 1: 1:18:24

Prohibits the state of Arizona from using personnel or financial resources to enforce any us government law that is inconsistent with any laws of this state regarding the regulation of the firearms. Second amendment, the constitution States a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed under the second amendment. The Arizona constitution stipulates that the U S constitution is the Supreme law

Speaker 6: 1:18:47

Of the land and the state

Speaker 1: 1:18:49

Is subject to it. Additionally, the Arizona constitution authorizes this state to exercise its sovereign authority to restrict the actions of its personnel and use its financial resources for purposes consistent with the constitution by passing an initiative. And here, this says, this specifies that pursuant to the sovereign authority of this state, Arizona and its political subdivisions are prohibited from using any financial resources or state personnel to administer or cooperate with or enforce any law order rule, treaty or regulation of the federal government that is inconsistent with any laws of this state regarding the regulation of

Speaker 6: 1:19:27

Firearms. Boom, we'll take it. Nice

Speaker 1: 1:19:32

Job. Their rep Leo[inaudible]

Speaker 6: 1:19:35

For sending it

Speaker 1: 1:19:37

That right back down the government's throat. And we'll see what happens here. I'm not real sure that they are going to be able to even pass any of this stuff, but it's on the radar. And we now have a new director of the ATF who is a little bit out there on certain things and is very, very aggressive with wanting to eliminate guns from you and me. So that's great. Let's take a look@somequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocalsdotcomorwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com is the place to be. And we hope you go over there and support us. This is from Jay bone in the house as the Biden's was embarrassing. This whole thing about gun manufacturers, not being able to be sued is made up nonsense. Gun manufacturers can absolutely be sued. Just not because some idiot uses their product to commit a crime. Yeah. Right. So they're, they're, they're, they're liable for it. They're just not, or they could be liable for it depending on how involved they were in the underlying incident. They're just not guilty suddenly because they manufactured something. Okay. What if somebody smacks somebody in the head with his water bottle and they died as a result of a concussion? It's a big water ball. Is, is Yeti responsible for this? No. Okay. The person who did it is, so it's just, it's just asinine. Meandering. What they're trying to do is open up the flood Gates of litigation. So that gun manufacturers just decide that they're going to do other things. We're just not going to sell guns anymore, or we're going to leave the country and go sell them elsewhere. So it, it we'll see where it goes. We got J bone 86 at the Senate should play videos of Chipman and crew killing children at Waco during his confirmation hearing. Oh yeah, they should. They should. They should. What happened that day was, was ridiculous. Jeremy Machita says the larger problem we face in the U S is the proliferation of racism and fear-mongering by politicians. Yeah. That's a pretty good argument. Kind of work your way up the chain a little bit, right? If the, if the politicians are out there screaming racism, and fear-mongering, maybe that's going to incline people to go and get violent with one another, which may lead to shootings. So good questions once again, over from watching the watchers.locals.com and then our last segment of the day, we're going to be talking about former representative. Former representative, Katie Hill loses a lawsuit against the daily mail. You know, the daily mail. They do a lot of news cover it. Sometimes they get a little bit, you know, into the, some of the tabloid stuff. And sometimes they do some really good, hard news reporting and they inquire and hold our elected officials accountable. That's what happened here in this representative Katie Hill case. So if you recall this, there was a, a big scandal that was developing some time ago, back in 2019. And there were allegations that she, as a representative, as an elected congressperson in the United States, in our federal house, she was doing a lot of inappropriate stuff in her role in that job, daily mail talked about it. They uncovered a lot of this stuff, published it out to the world as a news agency does. And she was not happy about that. Ms. Hill was not. So she sued them because she didn't want to hear about it. She wanted to silence them. Right? This is trying to dissuade people from talk negatively about you and a federal. No, not a federal court, a state judge by the name of Yolanda. Orozco said, sorry, Ms. Hill your lawsuit, get outta here. It's dismissed. We don't even want it in here. You're a public person. You're a compelling public figure. This is a compelling public interest. It's protected by the first amendment. So let's go through this story. This is once again, posted by the daily mail, they posted this with a big sort of victorious feeling. You can just feel the author of this disgrace rep Katie Hill loses the lawsuit against the daily mail over an article that exposed her throttle with a campaign staffer after the judge rules, that the stories were of public interest and protected by the first amendment, which is good news, right? This is, you know, listen, ordinarily, I would not like to try to, you know, kind of dive into this woman's sexual history or sexual past. I don't know. It kind of feels icky when you have to do some of that stuff, done it with a little bit with the Hunter bite and done it. You know, a little bit talking about Hill the first go round.

Speaker 6: 1:23:38

But this woman

Speaker 1: 1:23:40

Is trying to silence her critics who are criticizing her conduct, her official conduct as an elected governor.

Speaker 6: 1:23:47

I mean official, which is so reprehensible. We have to

Speaker 1: 1:23:52

Talk about it because this should not be happening. If you're going to avail yourself of public office in this country, you open yourself up to scrutiny, unfortunately in America that involves some of your sex life. And if you're going to be doing this inappropriate stuff in the performance of your congressional duties, we get to comment about it. We get to talk about it and you don't get to Sue people who talk about it because you breach your oath, your obligation, and your duty to your constituents and to this country. And you don't get to suddenly turn around and Sue people who want to expose that. So we're going to go through this today. Here is Katie Hill. Now an LA judge ruled against former representative Katie Hill on Wednesday, finding that the stories were of compelling public interests, Hill 33. She filed a lawsuit against her. Ex-husband Kenneth herself, and the daily mail.com and conservative news site, red state in December. So she's trying to shut everybody up. The suit, alleged, both media publications conspired to and distributed intimate images of Hill without our consent. In October, 2019 daily mail did publish texts and photographs that showed Hill had been in a throttle, which means three people with her then husband and 22 year old staffer Morgan Desjardins, the photos included a nude picture of him holding a bong and with a tattoo of an iron cross resembling a Nazi symbol on her bikini line. He'll accused healthset of sharing her nude photos with media outlets in an act of retaliation after she ended their relationship. This the couple quietly settled their divorce in October, 2020, a year after Hill was forced to resign over

Speaker 6: 1:25:20

The scandal. That's a lot

Speaker 1: 1:25:22

Going on here for Katie disgrace.

Speaker 6: 1:25:24

Youngest woman has lost the loss.

Speaker 1: 1:25:27

Judge handed down a verdict on a Wednesday Los Angeles, judge Yolanda Orozco throughout the case, finding that the stories about her were of compelling public interest in a ruling. The judge said the arguments, the Hill's arguments were unpersuasive. And we're going to go through that article in a minute, texts and photographs. I'm sorry, that opinion in a minute, published by the daily mail in October, 2019, shocking photos of Congresswoman Hill are revealed showing off a Nazi era

Speaker 6: 1:25:49

Tattoo, right? So this was back

Speaker 1: 1:25:51

From November one of 2019. This is the original story. It looks like updated October 24th and updated November 1st, 2019 posing news on wife sharing. She's been seen in this series of shocking photographs obtained by the daily mail pictured kissing, brushing her young female staffers hair, her young female staffers hair work in Congress

Speaker 6: 1:26:13

As Morgan

Speaker 1: 1:26:14

Deja sardines 22 year old began Anthropol with her husband. They revealed that it was steamy at first, but then he'll left them high and dry smoking. A bong bikini line already saw that there is they posted Hill's naked photos online in 2016 under a thread called would you F my wife and

Speaker 6: 1:26:32

Wife sharing. They began their three-way relationship with the married couples

Speaker 1: 1:26:37

Shortly after they started working for Hill. In 2017, air fare broke down 2019. Congress went woman who is 33 was pictured naked, brushing her hair during a trip. Uh, the, the, the girlfriend's hair, the couple's hair during a trip, the three took to Alaska allegedly funded using campaign finances. So not only are they going to Alaska where they don't, they, you know, they're not representatives there, but this must be

Speaker 6: 1:27:02

The other woman

Speaker 1: 1:27:04

In December last year, daily mail published allegations by Hill's ex-husband that she had sex with three of her staffers had been involved in another throttle before de Jardins and use campaign donations for a quote, sex, cation, and drank and smoked marijuana excessively while serving as a member of Congress.

Speaker 6: 1:27:28

Uh,

Speaker 1: 1:27:28

You know, I was never going to run for Congress, but that doesn't sound

Speaker 6: 1:27:30

Half bad, a little sex cation going on.

Speaker 1: 1:27:35

Not with any congresspeople. No, no, thanks. I'm still out of that game. So Heslop also claimed that a restraining order Hill had taken out against him was an attempt to gag him from speaking to the media. Later that month he'll sued the publisher of daily mail news site, red state, a journalist for the site. And Hill's ex husband claiming that naked photographs of her included in the stories were revenge vendetta. So on Wednesday Orozco ruled that they were an unlawful. And I want to show you this unlawful strategic lawsuit against public participation. So this is called a slap S right here, strategic lawsuit against public participation, citing a law to encourage free speech about matters of public concern, including politicians, without the chilling effects of fearing costly lawsuits. So strategic lawsuit against public participation, slap

Speaker 6: 1:28:25

The name of it. And

Speaker 1: 1:28:26

This is the, this is the idea that there are certain people in this country who have no intention of winning

Speaker 6: 1:28:31

A lawsuit, but they will Sue the hell out of you, knowing that you can not defend yourself, knowing that you do.

Speaker 1: 1:28:37

I don't have the resources, the money to fund a defense. So you have a Congress person like this, who doesn't like what your website said about them. Suing red state suing daily mail, suing her

Speaker 6: 1:28:48

Ex-husband. And

Speaker 1: 1:28:51

The intention here is not that she's going to win the lawsuit, but it's to silence them, right? Or this is the idea behind these slap statutes and what these laws want to protect is that from happening, they don't want people with a bunch of money to come in and just start suing people as a mechanism to keep them from saying things that are otherwise protected. So here, if she's suing the daily mail, what's the reason, well, she doesn't like what they're talking about. So the end goal is to get a retraction, to get them, to remove it from their website, issue an apology, or even maybe monetary damages. Maybe she wants some compensation for this. They defamed her, they made this a difficult thing. They forced her retirement. She's not gonna be able to collect the public salary anymore. Lost a lot of opportunities, probably not going to be a consultant all because they put out this information. So she's suing them to shut them up,

Speaker 6: 1:29:37

To create this chilling effect. So

Speaker 1: 1:29:40

There are laws on the books. So you can't do that. You can't just go file people, file lawsuits against people who otherwise have a protected free speech, right? And the ability to go speak about these issues. You're trying to chill their ability to do that, not going to allow that to happen. So the judge then is walking us through this analysis. And so let's take a look

Speaker 6: 1:30:01

At what

Speaker 1: 1:30:02

We have here, nude images or published in the public interest. We have this Los Angeles superior court judge Yolanda Orozco said the photos spoke to Hill's character and qualifications for office, which she left in October of 2000, 19, less than one year into her first term. Male's website published the pick of the three-way relationships and the health exit ethics committee launched a probe. So a Rezko in this lawsuit or in this order wrote here, the intimate images published by the daily mail spoke to Hill's character and qualifications of her position. As they allegedly depicted Hill with a campaign staffer, whom she was alleged to have had a sexual affair with and appeared to show Hill using a vented illegal drug and displaying a tattoo that was controversial because it resembled a white supremacy symbol that had become an issue during her congressional campaign.

Speaker 6: 1:30:51

So that is in the order. Accordingly

Speaker 1: 1:30:53

Only the images were a matter of public issue in public interest side of the first amendment saying, this is what journalism is

Speaker 6: 1:31:00

About. Judge cited, first amendment grounds, excellent.

Speaker 1: 1:31:05

Ben Kenny house published the image. This, the rest of this is back pain Hill will now have to pay the attorney's fees for losing the motion. Something her lawyer said could bankrupt. The former lawmaker judge replied not a lot I can do about it. Some of our laws have harsh results.

Speaker 6: 1:31:22

Shouldn't have sued him. Yeah,

Speaker 1: 1:31:25

You got to own that stuff. You know, if you're a public figure, you've, uh, you've availed yourself of this scrutiny. Now that you're being scrutinized. You want to Sue everybody and shut them up. No, it doesn't work that way. So let me show you how this works. This is the special motion to strike that was filed by the daily mail. So the daily mail, there was a hearing. It looks like yesterday on March 7th on December 22nd, 2020, he'll file this action against the defendants daily mail, Joseph Messina mail, all these other people, Salem media, and those one through 50 they're asserting causes of action based on these four claims action based on the civil

Speaker 4: 1:32:00

Code, violate another

Speaker 1: 1:32:02

Civil, uh, civil conspiracy code, intentional infliction of emotional distress and action based on the business professional code section against the daily mail and Salem media. So here's the standard then, right? There's there's rules of civil

Speaker 4: 1:32:15

And procedure that exists that same guy

Speaker 1: 1:32:17

Running anti-slap motions in pertinent part. This is what it says a cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the us constitution in connection with the public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike. Unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established, there was a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. All right. So that's complicated. What does that mean?

Speaker 4: 1:32:43

This means that this under this law, if somebody is bringing a lawsuit against somebody else, and

Speaker 1: 1:32:50

That lawsuit is specifically attacking that other party's ability to participate as this as their right of petition or free speech under the constitution. So here we have to ask ourselves, what is the lawsuit addressing? What is it trying to curtail or stop or limit here? Obviously, if we're talking about the daily mail and Salem media, it's the publication of news, which is something that the first amendment obviously protects, right? It's it's freedom of expression and freedom of the press. And we talk about that all the time. So this is trying to impinge on that very fundamental right in this country. And so the statute says, well, you are entitled. If you're the recipient of that law

Speaker 4: 1:33:29

Lawsuit, you're entitled to this benefit. You can submit what's called a motion to strike under the

Speaker 1: 1:33:36

Provisions of the California law. And if you do that, then the only way that this lawsuit can continue forward against you is if the plaintiff. So in this case, this would be Ms. Hill

Speaker 4: 1:33:47

Is able to show that there is a probability that they, that she will prevail on the claim probability. She will prevail on the claim,

Speaker 1: 1:33:58

An anti SLAPP motion, like a conventional motion to strike may be used to attack parts of account as pleaded. The purpose of the statute is to identify and dispose of lawsuits, brought to chill, the valid exercise of a litigant's constitutional right of petition or free speech courts go through a two-step motion to evaluate anti-SLAPP motions. First, to invoke the protections. They must show that the challenged lawsuit arises from a protected activity, which we know yes, right there is here, which is the ability to publish journalism

Speaker 4: 1:34:32

News articles. You got to show that it's within the scope of the first amendment,

Speaker 1: 1:34:36

It's then up to the plaintiff to rebut the presumption. So, so once you show this, once you show it is a protected activity, you must presume the purpose of the action of the lawsuit was to chill the defendants exercise of that first amendment. Right? So then it is then up to the plaintiff. So once daily mail showed, Hey, no, it's journalism. We're allowed

Speaker 4: 1:34:55

To journalists. We're we're we're to journalize over here, right? This is protected under the first amendment. Then

Speaker 1: 1:35:01

Burden goes back over to Ms. Hill. Now she's got to show, Hey, Hey, look, I know it's protected, but there's still a probability that we can win

Speaker 4: 1:35:09

In this thing because of what they did because of the type of conduct that they engaged in. So

Speaker 1: 1:35:15

Then determining whether the plaintiff carried this burden, the court considers the pleading supporting and opposing affidavits and the facts, and then it does its analysis. And so we're not going to go through this whole thing. We basically just covered it. Defendant wants judicial notice of all of this stuff. So the articles, of course, the mail online article press release from the house house committee, congressional campaign service, blah, blah, blah, evidentiary objections, discussion. Defendant's move to strike the plaintiff's entire complaint as an unlawful

Speaker 4: 1:35:43

Slap, which is an

Speaker 1: 1:35:45

Infringement on their constitutional rights. And then they go through the analysis. So the first question was this, a protected activity

Speaker 4: 1:35:52

Is what the daily mail did a protected activity. They say, yes. Right?

Speaker 1: 1:35:59

And they go through this analysis, they're setting a bunch of law and we're not going to go through all of it. Subdivision E four separate categories of an act, which call of qualify for treatment. We've got a lot of stuff going on here. We're going through the California Supreme court. They're doing analysis. We're looking at a California appellate court case. Simmons Bauer media

Speaker 4: 1:36:17

Group, all look a lot of quotes,

Speaker 1: 1:36:19

A lot of quotes. Then we get some applications. So this is all the rural part of what the court is flushing out. Remember, we talked about this issue, rural

Speaker 4: 1:36:28

Alesis and conclusion. All of this looks like a lot of rules. Okay. See these quotes and citations rule another rule. Another one.

Speaker 1: 1:36:37

What are the rules? Here's another one. All right. So now let's do some application

Speaker 4: 1:36:40

Applies. Plaintiff's claims

Speaker 1: 1:36:42

Against it because of a plaintiff's claim arrived from content publication on the mail daily mail website, public forum. Defendant argues that the article reported on sexual liaisons, the plaintiff reportedly had with a young campaign aide and with an officer, her conduct was the subject of a house ethics investigation. They contend over this. Uh, this was all public plaintiff says, all right, we're not going to go through all this because there's a lot here. But basically what the court is saying, yes, this is protected activity. The first prong that we talked about over here is met. Then we move on second prong. What is the probability of success

Speaker 4: 1:37:13

On the merits? Can Ms. Hill succeed again, more rules, lot, lot of rules,

Speaker 1: 1:37:20

Public concern, exception. They're going through a public concern, like a public safety exception. Second cause of action. They go through all the fourth cause of action.

Speaker 4: 1:37:27

And then finally conclusion down here based on the,

Speaker 1: 1:37:32

The court finds the defendant has prevailed on the second prong as to the fourth cause of action. Defendant, special motion to strike is granted as to the fourth cause of action. And so you'll see here moving parties to give notice defendant special motion to strike is granted in its entirety. So the court goes through its analysis

Speaker 4: 1:37:50

And says, Nope, you're not allowed to Sue him for that. And you got to pay fees for it should

Speaker 1: 1:37:56

Have never brought it. This was protected speech you get penalized for doing so very good outcome. And I'm happy to see that that happened. Tim make D says any thoughts when the unconstitutional lawsuits will start. So I'm not real sure what's,

Speaker 6: 1:38:11

What's your

Speaker 1: 1:38:13

Going for their unconstitutional lawsuits?

Speaker 6: 1:38:16

I don't know.

Speaker 1: 1:38:19

There really should be no unconstitutional lawsuits. Hopefully should be a basis in that because we still have the constitution. But, uh, I'm happy to answer your question. If I know what you're talking about, Tim, I apologize that I'm lost. Maybe it's maybe I'm just missing it. We have Sarah Smothers says, can Katie Hill be sued by the people of our state for using taxpayer dollars to go on sex cations? Yeah. So, you know, I think she could theoretically be charged with a crime for that, right? I'm sure there's some sort of misappropriation statute that exists in California, right? If you're taking it for campus

Speaker 6: 1:38:48

Pain, uh, funds for

Speaker 1: 1:38:50

Campaigning and you're going on sex cations,

Speaker 6: 1:38:55

Uh, yeah,

Speaker 1: 1:38:56

Maybe that's a misappropriation of funds and maybe they investigator and her with a crime for that. I don't know. Joe Snow says, I saw Florida introducing a bill criminalizing, the enforcement of federal laws, including the imposition of tax stamps, like for NFA items, transferable machine gun, silencers, and SPRs. What Florida. Cool with me just making a suppressor and not registering it. Can I move there and make a machine gun at this passes? I don't know. Gel. I don't know. I don't practice in Florida, but let me know. Let me know what you find out. Cause that sounds like a good time.

Speaker 6: 1:39:26

Move to Florida. Hang out with Ron DeSantis. Don't wear masks, make machine guns I'm in

Speaker 1: 1:39:36

And on that one. And those questions again, came over from watching the watchers.locals.com and we appreciate your support. Thanks for asking great questions today. And if you want to support the show, that's the place to do it. And so that's what we've got today. I want to thank everybody who submitted their questions on locals and everybody who did not. These are all the great people who support us over there. Big thanks to miss faith joy. And of course, to my Fox, my, I had a couple of questions that I thank you ma we have hack consulting. Who's usually around Chris Owen. We've got cats, 59. Jamie Boyd want to say hi to drag and we have echo house over here. We got, see the veil. Who's usually around. We got danger mouse in real life. Jeff flanks, Austin want to say hi to some new people who signed up last night. Welcome. Welcome to the community. We have Ian from us, one in from Oz, one, Freddy Basti yet welcome to the crew. We got Patriot Musk in the house is that Elan. We got barren sky welcome barren sky. And then yesterday, big hello again to Mr. Zeus, make Linco Rob Frawley justice, first deep state geekdom and all of the others. Thank you so much for supporting us. It really means the world to us, you know, YouTube demonetized us. And we had our 30 days

Speaker 6: 1:40:46

Re application. I did that

Speaker 1: 1:40:48

Back on March 5th. They said, you're going to hear from us in 30 days. It's been 30 days. Hello, YouTube. Hello? Where are you? We're waiting. But they have said, I asked them on Twitter. They're telling us that it's in a queue somewhere and somebody is going to look to it at some point. So in the meantime, uh, we're, we're really appreciative of those of you who are taking that little extra step, going over to locals.com and supporting us. And we're not going to forget about you, right? We are that, that is, we're really sort of transitioning away from some of this, this, these platforms that are doing what they can to make sure that we can't talk about the things that we think are most important. We're seeing a lot of people getting thrown off. A lot of videos, being deleted, even from reputable government officials that are talking about things like viruses and things like elections and things like controversial issues that are very important that make up part of the national conversation, but they don't want you to talk about it at least from one perspective. And so we're trying to build a little bit of a community on a, on a different platform. And I know that takes time. I know that there, you know, it's not as active as a Facebook or as a Twitter or as a YouTube. And I still think it's just that important that we start thinking about maybe congregating with other people who are more predisposed to free speech than some of these other platforms. And so every time you sign up, every time you go over there, you're being a part of that. You're building that with us. And so I'm just grateful for you and for your support. And it means the world to me. And so thank you again to all of you who are doing so if you have not signed up already, the place to do it is@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Not only do you get to ask questions during the show, but you can also download all of this stuff. So you get a free copy of my book. There's a PDF that's over there. This is really for people who have been charged with crimes, but there is a bit of an introductory section about me and a little bit about, about my life. We also post the slides over there. So those are gonna be available for you to download everything I went through today. You can go and download those. You can also get a copy of my impeachment party templates, which we use to impeach Chuck Schumer and Kamala Harris. Hypothetically, of course, right? It was, we were having a fun with that, having some jokes, but it was fun. We also have my existence system, which is available for free to download this whole template if you want. It is also coming out as a course and that's going to be available very, very soon. We have links and conversation that people share throughout the day. And the real reason to be over there is all of the great people. Very, very good community of individuals who I think have their priorities in order about what is important in this country and not just in this country, in our lives as real people in this world. And so I want to thank all of you, watching the watchers.locals.com is the place to do it. And lastly, before we get out of here, I got to remind you that I am a criminal defense attorney, which means I help good people who have been charged with crimes to find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their futures. And so if you happen to know anybody who has been charged with a crime in the state of Arizona, we would be honored and humbled if you sent them our direction so that we had the opportunity to help them. We help with a lot. It can be a DUI, domestic violence, a misdemeanor, a felony doesn't matter. It can be a new, current active case can be an old case. If you have an old warrant that you want to quash, if you have an old conviction you want to clear up so that you can apply and go, uh, restore your rights, you can go vote again or possess a firearm. If you want to possess a firearm before executive order, Joe Biden eliminates them all. There's things that we can do to help with that. So if you've known anybody, we would truly be honored that you send them our way. We'll take very good care of them. We'll make sure that they leave better than they found us. And that's it for me, everybody. Thank you so much for being here. We're going to be back tomorrow to wrap up the week. Last day of the Derrick Shovan trial. Hopefully Eric Nelson gets a little bit of sleep. Tonight, comes back, ready to rock and roll tomorrow because I know we have some new witnesses, some pretty big witnesses I think are forthcoming. So thanks again, everybody sleep well tonight. Have a nice, lovely dinner and I will see you right back here

Speaker 6: 1:44:34

Tomorrow. Bye bye.