Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Chauvin Trial Day 22: Autopsy, Kamala’s Border Crisis Continues, Balaji Srinivasan’s Network State

April 09, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Day 22: Autopsy, Kamala’s Border Crisis Continues, Balaji Srinivasan’s Network State
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Day 22: Autopsy, Kamala’s Border Crisis Continues, Balaji Srinivasan’s Network State
Apr 09, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

Prosecutors march forward with more expert witnesses to explain George Floyd’s cause of death. The Border Crisis continues as politicians in Washington continue to deny the problem. Balaji Srinivasan details his vision for founding a new country on the back of blockchain. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:

• Prosecutors call forensic pathologist Dr. Lindsey Thomas to interpret Floyd’s cause of death.

• Prosecutors present expert medical witnesses to testify about the cause of George Floyd’s death.

• Dr. Lindsey Thomas, a forensic pathologist, testifies that Floyd’s primary cause of death was asphyxia and low oxygen.

• Dr. Andrew Baker, who performed the autopsy and signed the death certificate, explains issues with Floyd’s heart.

• Defense lawyer Eric Nelson cross-examines and probes alternatives explanations for cause of death.

• Washington Examiner reports more than 172,000 people tried to cross the border into the U.S. illegal…. in March.

• Kamala Harris, the duly-appointed Border Czar, has not been to the border in the two-weeks.

• Nancy Pelosi says the situation is actually improving under the Biden administration.

• New York decides to pay undocumented immigrants creating strong incentives to immigrate to New York.

• Associated Press reveals new Intelligence Report offers grim view of global future.

• Review of the list of catastrophic failures resulting from our federal and local governments. 

• Balaji Srinivasan, founder of 1729.com, details How to Start a New Country.

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

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: 

• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/

CLUBHOUSE AFTER PARTY DISCUSSION:

https://www.joinclubhouse.com/event/P9K0B4Je

• 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 [email protected] or tag @RobertGrulerEsq on twitter.

#WatchingtheWatchers #DerekChauvin #ChauvinTrial #GeorgeFloyd #UseofForce #ExcessiveForce #Biden #BidenAdministration #BorderCrisis #Immigration #KamalaBorderCrisis #BorderCzar #UndocumentedImmigrants #ICE #KamalaHarris #Balaji #NetworkState #crypto #decentralization #cloudlandia #beammeup #1729

Show Notes Transcript

Prosecutors march forward with more expert witnesses to explain George Floyd’s cause of death. The Border Crisis continues as politicians in Washington continue to deny the problem. Balaji Srinivasan details his vision for founding a new country on the back of blockchain. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:

• Prosecutors call forensic pathologist Dr. Lindsey Thomas to interpret Floyd’s cause of death.

• Prosecutors present expert medical witnesses to testify about the cause of George Floyd’s death.

• Dr. Lindsey Thomas, a forensic pathologist, testifies that Floyd’s primary cause of death was asphyxia and low oxygen.

• Dr. Andrew Baker, who performed the autopsy and signed the death certificate, explains issues with Floyd’s heart.

• Defense lawyer Eric Nelson cross-examines and probes alternatives explanations for cause of death.

• Washington Examiner reports more than 172,000 people tried to cross the border into the U.S. illegal…. in March.

• Kamala Harris, the duly-appointed Border Czar, has not been to the border in the two-weeks.

• Nancy Pelosi says the situation is actually improving under the Biden administration.

• New York decides to pay undocumented immigrants creating strong incentives to immigrate to New York.

• Associated Press reveals new Intelligence Report offers grim view of global future.

• Review of the list of catastrophic failures resulting from our federal and local governments. 

• Balaji Srinivasan, founder of 1729.com, details How to Start a New Country.

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

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: 

• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/

CLUBHOUSE AFTER PARTY DISCUSSION:

https://www.joinclubhouse.com/event/P9K0B4Je

• 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 [email protected] or tag @RobertGrulerEsq on twitter.

#WatchingtheWatchers #DerekChauvin #ChauvinTrial #GeorgeFloyd #UseofForce #ExcessiveForce #Biden #BidenAdministration #BorderCrisis #Immigration #KamalaBorderCrisis #BorderCzar #UndocumentedImmigrants #ICE #KamalaHarris #Balaji #NetworkState #crypto #decentralization #cloudlandia #beammeup #1729

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and I to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. And so that's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our very system, with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we're in day 22 of the Derrick Shovan trial and it's Friday. So we're wrapping things up. We had two witnesses today, very important witnesses that were talking about George Floyd's cause of death. So we're going to hear from Dr. Andrew Baker, who was the person who actually did the autopsy and signed off on the death certificate. And so we want to break down what happened there. Very important testimony. He was preceded by another woman named Dr. Lindsey Thomas, who had a little bit of a contradictory opinion. So we have kind of the government's own witnesses in a little bit of a disagreement with one another. And so we want to break down what that means and how that's going to impact the final conclusion. Of course, then we're going to change gears. We're going to talk about the border crisis because this is still ongoing. We now have our March numbers. We know that there was something over 172,000 people attempted to come across the border in March in one month. So that's a big number. And so we've got some news about that. Nancy Pelosi of course, is , uh , she's got an opinion one way or the other New York is doing some things. And so we've got to break down what's going on with the border crisis. So that's going to be a lot of fun. Then we're going to change gears and we're going to try something new a little bit on this Friday, we're going to talk about creating a new nation. What happens if you're kind of sick of your country? You just kind of had enough of it. I don't like where it's going. I'm not happy with these people. I want a new one. I want to get the hell out of

Speaker 2:

Here. Well, you might be able to do

Speaker 1:

That pretty soon. We're going to talk about it. And one of the most fascinating people that I've been following of recent of late is a guy by the name of biology Sreenivasan. So we're going to take a look at a new article that he posted late last night and break it down. It's called how to start a new country. So we're going to have a little fun exploring that

Speaker 2:

Idea as is usually

Speaker 1:

The case. If you want to be a part of the program, very easy to do that. All you need to do is go over to watching the watchers.locals.com type that into your web browser. And you're going to find our little community, join the community. You're going to see a live chat right there, and you can join in on the show. You can ask questions, miss faith is right back there in the office, right there. She's clipping those things and she's going to be adding them to my slide deck. Also, you can get a copy of the slides. If you'd like them. You can download [email protected] So let's get into the news, Derek Shovan trial , still moving forward. We're on day 22. Now the government introduced two new witnesses today. And most of those actually think all of them, both of them were questioned today by Jerry Blackwell . So we're going to go over to our trial board and we're going to see that Mr. Blackwell is up over here. And so he did the questioning today. He sort of , uh, had , uh, had the full responsibility today and there were , uh, it was a short day. The judge dismissed everybody relatively early, given the fact that they had kind of a grueling week with a lot of testimony, a lot of witnesses. So we just had two expert witnesses today, and it was these two individuals. You're going to notice that our witness board is filling up here quite quickly. And so we had a pathologist today who came in and talked about one version of George Floyd's death. Then we have Dr. Baker who came in and he actually conducted the autopsy. And so we're going to be spending a lot of time talking about these two people. And so we're going to start with the pathologist . First. Her name is Dr. Lindsey Thomas. This woman here very pleasant woman, and she is a forensic pathologist. And so she's going to tell us a little bit more about her involvement and really specifically what she's being brought into in to do is to just be another expert witness. Remember this all comes down to causation. What caused George Floyd's death? Was it asphyxiation? Was it low oxygen? Was it a heart attack? Was it a drug overdose? Was it something else we don't know? We're trying to get to the bottom of that. So the government is trying to say that this is Derek Chauvin's knee on the neck that caused low oxygen, lowest fixed , low oxygen, which resulted in his fixation, essentially heart shut down brain shutdown . His life expired as a direct result of the low oxygen. And we've gone through this all week. How you step back, step back out a little bit from that. Well, what caused the low oxygen while it was the short and shallow breathing said , Dr. Tobin, well , what caused the short and shallow breathing? Well, it was Derek . Shovan having both knees on his neck and we went through and we saw some very, very compelling graphics and you know, a knee on the neck and knee on the back, kind of moving around. And Dr. Tobin was saying that this is very clear. You look at the body weight, you look at the physics on how Derek Shovan was positioning himself. That leads you to easily conclude that there was too much weight on his back on his neck that resulted in the short , short and shallow breasts, which then resulted in the low oxygen, which caused him to die. And so this doctor is coming in and she is explaining what we see on the death certificate. So why do we need her to explain it? Well, cause she's got kind of an interpretation, right? She's going to come in here and explain what the cause of death was. And we're going to see Dr. Andrew Baker comes in and he has his version of the cause of death. So here is Dr. Lindsey Thomas, and she's listening. I want you to pay close attention here because what we're going to see as this continues to unfold, the government has a lot of different witnesses, a lot of different coming in and testifying about why they believe George Floyd died. What caused it. They better all be in lockstep , right? It better be pretty unequivocal that they know, and they are in agreement about what killed George Floyd. So this is why it's so important to understand and boil down. What are they saying? What is it specifically that they're pointing to? That was the, the cause. And here she is, she's going to start to detail that for us and listen about what she says listen to about low oxygen is fixed . We have two clips from Dr. Thomas, and she's also going to talk about seeing the video and how she processed this whole thing. So this is our first witness today. Lot of testimony, we just clipped out some little , little bits here and there so that we're not trying to squeeze six hours of content in here , but here is Dr. Thomas in court this morning.

Speaker 3:

So if you put all this together, cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating law, enforcements of duel , restraint , and neck compression, what does that mean? Well, what it means to me is that the activities of the law enforcement officers resulted in Mr. Floyd staff and that specifically those activities where the sub duel , the restraint and the neck compression. Okay. And does this then also represent your own conclusion? Yes. A conclusion you have reached that and appending a whole to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Yes. Uh, would you tell us what you reviewed in order to reach this conclusion? Um, all of those things that I mentioned earlier, the , uh, the, again, what sort of unique about this case is that often , um, I would just review the medical examiner case file and that would provide information about what the cause and manner of death is. Um, but in this case, the autopsy itself didn't tell me the cause and manner of death, and it really required getting all of this other additional information, specifically the video evidence of the terminal events to conclude the cause of death and manner of death.

Speaker 1:

All right . So she's basically trying to explain here, what, what, what was the cause of death? So you heard Mr. Blackwell gum out and say, well, it was cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating, subdued by law enforcement, neck compression, restraint , all that stuff. But what does that mean? Well, it means that the officer has killed him essentially. Right? It was , it was, they were, they were compressing him. And how did she get that information? Well, she looked at everything, looked at all the same things that you and I looked at and that's kind of the problem, isn't it? Right. We wanted a medical expert here weighing in on the physiological condition as to the cause of death. Now she's watching a video that everybody else is watching. And the, the, the, the real issue here is the interpretation of that video. People are interpreting it in different ways. This is kind of what the crux of this trial is about. And it's even come up in the defense. They're saying, no, it wasn't on the neck, the knee wasn't on the neck. It was on the neck shoulder blade across the back. And even the prosecution itself is sort of moving the goalpost a little bit, saying the neck area, notice how that's happening now. It's not just the neck, it's now the neck area. And I think a law of self-defense is where I saw that on Twitter. So go give them a follow. I think the attorney name over there is a Branca attorney breakup. And so he's posting over at legal insurrection and he noticed that he said, yeah, notice how they're using the phrasing is changing a little bit. It's going from the neck to the neck area. So the goalposts are moving a little bit. And Dr. Thompson is now coming in and saying, I watched the video too . In fact, I had to watch the video as part of my analysis. I really couldn't come to a conclusion, but for the video. And so she's watching the same thing. The rest of us are watching and all, we're all scratching our heads going, yeah, we know what the video told us. We want to know what you say as a medical examiner. What in your professional opinion is the ultimate cause. And in this next clip, she's going to say the cause of death was the officer's subdued , complicating, neck restraint, all of that language, but what is the manner of death? So we know that according to her, she's saying that it was a bunch of officers on the back of George Floyd's neck that caused the death. If they were not there, he would not have died, but because they were on his back, what was the manner of the death? So how did the body stop working? And so this is what she says. Now, this is very important. What is the primary mechanism? What went wrong in the body? What systems failed that caused death, because her opinion is going to be a little bit different than Dr. Baker's . So here is Dr. Lindsey Thomas telling us what killed Floyd .

Speaker 4:

So focusing in on the mechanism of death here , uh , how is it that the officer's dual restraint and neck compression caused Mr. Floyd's death?

Speaker 3:

So, as I mentioned, I think the primary mechanism was asphyxia or low oxygen. And it basically is Mr. Floyd was in a position , uh , because of the subdural , restraint and compression, where he was unable to get enough oxygen in , um, to maintain his body functions.

Speaker 1:

Okay. You heard it. Primary mechanism, low oxygen is fixie not able to get enough oxygen in oxygen. Oxygenation was the cause of death, according to doc Dr. Thomas. So now we have to talk about different witnesses. Well, not yet. We got some cross examination . I almost forgot. How can we move on without any cross-examination ? So this is Nelson. Now Nelson comes in and we start to hear some interesting , uh, interesting theories about that, the fentanyl concentration and the methamphetamine concentration. So what Dr. Nelson is going to tell us, I remember this yesterday, just to catch you up if you miss yesterday, but they were talking about eight , a toxicology, and the toxicology report, they brought on a different doctor and the doctor was running them through what his crime lab had observed relative to people who were driving under the influence of either fentanyl or methamphetamines saying, yes, we've monitored. We've done all of these different tests, 2000 tests here, 2,500 tests here. Here's what we find there is about a third or fourth of the population that can drive a car and be charged with a DUI at 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl. We saw a pie chart. There was about, I think about half the people who get charged with fentinol and driving are under 11 anagrams . About a quarter of them are right in that area. And about another quarter of them are way higher than that. Even people can be driving somewhere as high as 50 nanograms per milliliter. And the toxicologist was like, yeah, that's amazing. And so what they were trying to do, the government is put Floyd's phentenol concentration in context, they wanted to say, yeah, it was 11. Yeah, that might sound high, but other people can drive. And look, there are there's even data to support this. In fact, a lot of people can drive higher than that level. And people can also drive significantly lower than that level. But just because it's 11 doesn't mean that you just dropped dead. We're hearing this phrase all over the place that 11 nanograms per milliliter is three times the lethal limit I'll kill a horse, right? People are sort of meaning on Twitter. And so what they're trying to do is say, Oh, no, that's not true at all. You can, in fact, you can drive a car up to 50 nanograms per milliliter. If you are somebody who's a serious addict. So they're just trying to sort of wrap some bubble wrap around the drug and the fentanyl toxicity levels in Floyd's blood. And so what Nelson is doing now is he's coming out and he's saying, yeah, but you drew the blood, but he has it . He's not saying this, but we can see where he's going. He's actually asking her specifically. You can, you can imagine that the defense is going to really flush this out, but he's asking her specifically about fentinol and he's saying, Hey, somebody has a heart attack or they're injured. And they're rushed to the hospital. One of the first things they're going to do is they're going to pump them full of saline, right? They're going to give them fluids so that they can start to address and give them treatment. One of the first things they'll do is hook you up to a bunch of saline bags. And so if you, if that happens, you are getting a bunch of fluids pumped into you, and necessarily that's going to reduce the concentration of the drug toxicity in your body. You already have one level, you fill it with a bunch of stuff. It's going to dilute the concentration of the drugs. And here he is asking her about that. She's she, she, she talks a lot about drugs. And she actually says in here that there really is no known safe level of methamphetamine . So he gets her to acknowledge that, although that's not in this clip, I don't believe so. Here she is talking about yes. Sealing might actually result in a lower concentration. So the defense, I think, is going to be a little bit of foreshadowing here that Nelson's defense is going to say, yeah, it was 11 nanograms, maybe, but could have been way higher than that, because it was diluted when George Floyd was , was pumped full of saline. By the time he got back to the hospital. So here is that clip

Speaker 5:

In a, in a case where you have a , um, person who is , uh, experiencing a cardiac arrest, right. And they're put in an ambulance and taken to the hospital for resuscitation , uh, they're often , uh , there's IVs that are placed in a person, right? Yes . And those IVs contained saline and saline can ultimately dilute or decrease to some degree, the amount of controlled substances that would be met as they would be measured. That's a theoretical possibility. You'd agree that fentanyl is a respiratory depressed, right? Yes. It slows breathing and lowers oxygen in the blood. Yes. Does the fact that there's nor fentanyl in his blood mean that he took it some time ago? Yes. But by sometime that's, that's a very vague yeah. Long enough in the past to start metabolizing . Exactly. Exactly. But does it exclude him taking fentanyl more acutely or more recently in time? No . There was no way really of knowing the time .

Speaker 1:

All right . So Nelson's doing a very nice job of cleaning up some of the preceding days, witnesses , bombs that got dropped yesterday. Hey , he's saying, yep . You know, we, we saw a lot of charts and graphs yesterday. We saw the specific ratio yesterday of the fentanyl to, and phentenol basically the government was trying to imply that because the ratio existed as a certain way, that that means that he couldn't have had the last minute ingestion. They didn't say that, but that's where they're going with that. So she comes out, this is the government's own witness, basically telling that that's kinda not how that works, right. There are other possibilities there , or there are other ways I should be. I should be fair to say that you can interpret some of the presentation that the government made yesterday. Next up then what Nelson does is he , he's basically sort of backing out the different variables on the death certificate, which this woman is explaining is a number of different factors that could have related to George Floyd's death. And we don't know yet, because we haven't heard from Dr. Baker, Dr. Baker is the person who drafted that and he's coming up next. So this woman is explaining some of it. And what Nelson is trying to do sort of back out some of the other variables there and saying, listen, yes, we know that this involved a bunch of stuff, right? Pre COVID. He had officers on his back, no question about that. He had heart disease. He had methamphetamines in his system. He had fentanyl in his system. So all of it's messy and it's all, it's all jumbled up, so we can't make sense of it. So let's just back this out, then let's just take all of the other variables out and let's just pick one of those factors, just pick one. And let's see if you saw this one factor, would that alone be enough to convince you that that was sufficient to cause death in this hypothetical situation, ask her that. And he does it here on fentanyl and the meth question kind of walks her through that analysis on different areas, but here is just fentanyl and meth. And here's what she says .

Speaker 5:

And just kind of taking into consideration, removing certain variables, right. You find a person at , at home, no struggle with the police. Right. Um, and you, the person doesn't have a heart problem, but you find fentanyl and met them fed mean in this person's system at the levels that they are at. Would you certify as this as an overdose again, in the absence of any of these other realities? Um, yes. I could consider that to be an overdose and the level of fentanyl in a person. Um, again, in this hypothetical scenario , um, there are deaths certified as drug overdoses, significantly lower than 11 nanograms per milliliter, lower higher. It's it's got a huge range as low. I believe it's 3% or three nanograms per mil . So the ingestion of drugs is unique to that individual's body. Right. Right.

Speaker 1:

All right . So once again, dismantling a lot of what we saw yesterday. So it doesn't matter if some person or a good portion of the population can in fact, drive a car at higher than 11 nanograms per milliliter, because it's irrelevant. It's just sort of independent of any pattern. Fentanyl could impact people differently and different levels and different quantities can impact people dramatically differently. This is why we hear people all the time who thought they took something and, you know , half the half the group dies of fentanyl, the other half, you know, doesn't die here or there , or there's a bad batch and a bunch of people drop dead because this is a dangerous molecule. And it's being manufactured on the black market. Nobody knows where it's coming from. It's all being imported, probably from China and other places around the world. It's a huge, problematic drug. And so that some of the data is still out on it. But she says specifically, if I was presented with a situation where somebody died and the toxicology report came back, 11 anagrams of fentanyl and remnants of methamphetamines and other drugs, yes. That alone is sufficient to justify the cause of death. And so when you combine this with her question or her explanation about how she was reviewing this case, she said very clearly that she watched the videos, right. I had all this information. And if you watch the rest of her testimony, she does in fact kind of go into detail about this saying, ordinarily, I don't get to look at any of this stuff. I just get to look at the, you know, the, the, the medical examiners report or the death certificate or whatever, and make my judgment on that basis. And so my question would be well, if that is, would have been how she approached this case, would her conclusion have differed then if she had watched the video, because for me, what it sounds like is she had enough information to conclude that fentanyl in and of itself alone, without any contributing factors would have killed him. And she could have come to that conclusion, but after she watched the video, she layered on the officer's physicality on top of other factors, and then gave that the highest priority in terms of her. Now, I , you know, I would have liked to see some inquiry on that, but it doesn't really matter because here's, what's happening. We're seeing that the government is now sort of bringing out witness after witness. I think we're at three. At this point we had the doctor , uh , Dr. Tobin, we had the toxicologist and we had , uh , actually had the ER doctor to who talked about some of the breathing yesterday. And then we have this, this woman, we have Dr. Thompson. And so now we're going to change gears a little bit. We're going to talk about Dr. Baker, who is the author of the , uh, the death certificate. And he also conducted the autopsy. So he walks us through everything that he did and the whole process. And we're going to explain that, but before I do, I want to show you about rule six one five. So this is rule six 15 about excluding witnesses from the federal rules of evidence. And I want to just show you this. So let me, let me frame this out a little bit. Before we read the rule, there's a concept called the exclusion of witnesses.

Speaker 2:

So this means that if you have

Speaker 1:

Other witnesses who are testifying, you kind of want to keep them separate. And apart from one another, typically with expert witnesses, this doesn't apply , uh , or, or it can not apply there . There's special rules for expert witnesses, but, but typically I want to just sort of frame this out, right? What we're seeing right now is we have different witnesses from this trial being brought into court, and they're testifying in one manner, way, shape, or form, right ? They're coming into court and they're explaining their opinions. And one of the things that the defense wants to do is make sure that you're getting your own independent recount your own independent interpretation of what a particular witness believes. And so there's a rule that says that you can exclude witnesses from hearing what the other witnesses say right now. Expert witnesses are a little bit different because they're experts. And sometimes they have to be responding to each other and they need to hear, hear from each other. So this doesn't necessarily apply here, but I just want to frame this out, just so you understand this in context, because we have not talked about this rule six 15 says that you can exclude other people from hearing what other people say, the reason why is because you don't want collusion. You don't want people to go, Oh, I heard what that person said. So I'm just going to match his story. And then somebody else hears that and they're going to match his story. And so right now we're talking about different witnesses that have different opinions, different things that they're saying, and I'm not sure if they're listening to each other or not. Right. I'm not sure if Dr. Baker was sitting there listening to Dr. Thompson, or if any of them listened to what Dr. Tobin said or what the ER doctor said or what the toxicologist said. I don't know. Right. And neither, neither do you, as far as, as far as I can tell, I'm not sure that anybody really

Speaker 2:

Knows except them. But when

Speaker 1:

You do that, when you have witnesses that are excluded

Speaker 2:

From each other, that's great because you're

Speaker 1:

Going to have independent stories. They're not going to be improperly biased by other

Speaker 2:

Witnesses. And so what

Speaker 1:

Happens is when you start to bring in a number of different expert witnesses with differing opinions, you're going to notice that their stories just don't match up. The stories don't align themselves

Speaker 2:

Perfectly, right? And so we do

Speaker 1:

This with police officers in regular misdemeanor cases, and you can see how it applies here. So the exclusion rule before I get into, it says a party who is a natural person, I'm sorry , at a party's request. The court must order witnesses excluded so that they can not hear other witnesses testimony, or the court may do so on its own. But this rule does not authorize , excluding any party who is not a natural person, any officer, an officer, an employee of the party, who's not a natural person, a person whose presence, a party shows to be essential to presenting the party's claim or defense. So like, if you wanted to bring in an expert witness to refute another expert witness, they obviously got to hear what they talk about. A person authorized by statute to be present. And here is a notice of the advisory committee. It says the efficacy of excluding or sequestering witnesses has long been recognized as a means of discouraging

Speaker 6:

And exposing fabrication, inaccuracy,

Speaker 1:

And collusion. The authority of the judge admitted the only question

Speaker 6:

Being whether that matter is

Speaker 1:

Committed to his discretion or one of right, the rule takes a ladder position. All right ? So this is saying that it , that it can be

Speaker 6:

Appropriate to seclude people so that they're not colluding. They're not

Speaker 1:

Improper , uh , improperly biasing one another. And so police do this all the time, right? When they show up to the scene of a crime, they separate all the witnesses into different rooms. Then they ask them all questions. Then they go back and they say, well, why did he say what he say ? What did he say? And they , they , they match them all up. So the same type of thing is happening here, right? Whether it's expert witnesses or whether, what the rules are, it really doesn't matter. People are being separated out. We're bringing them back in and we're comparing and contrasting their stories. And so we'll do this with police, right? If an officer thinks that they properly identified our client, and there were four different officers, we'll do independent interviews with each officer, we'll ask them if they've read the other officer's reports. Sometimes they have, sometimes they have, and if they haven't, then what we'll do is we'll go through and we'll say, all right, well, describe our defendant. And he'll say, Oh, he was sick ,

Speaker 6:

But black, Brown hair, blue eyes, whatever. Right. Go to the next cop, 35, six foot seven, you know ,

Speaker 1:

Uh , African-American Brown eyes, all right. Go to the next cop, same thing. Right. And they all are slightly off a little bit. And so now you'll notice that, well , there's , there's, their stories are off a little bit. These two guys said he was six foot. This guy over here said he was five, nine. This guy said he had Brown eyes. This guy said he had blue eyes and you're , you're just comparing and contrasting the different witness testimony. Okay. So I spent way too much time explaining that, and I did a poor job of it. But the point is, what we're seeing now is finally the culmination of this. We see that we have a pattern of witnesses who are being paraded into court. And we see that several of them have testified that Floyd died because of low oxygen. And it speaks the up three of them at this point have said that. And now we're going to hear from Dr. Baker and you got to listen,

Speaker 6:

What's missing. So this is Dr.

Speaker 1:

Baker. Let's meet him. He is the guy who performed the autopsy. He walks us through everything he did. And he's actually, it was actually a very interesting person to listen to your leg . So he walked us through and he said, Hey, we cleaned up George Floyd's body. We washed everything very clearly. We took very, very good photographs. We took photographs before we cleaned them. Then we took photographs after we cleaned them. Then we , we extracted all the, and performed an autopsy as autopsies or performed. And they cut everything out, all of the different organs, they cut through the skin and they peel back the skin. So they can look at any bruising that takes place underneath the skin. And they're looking for the heart even. So he goes through this big, long analysis of the heart and he says, we , we cut the heart open. We take it out. We weigh it, we measure it. We, you know, we slice it open. He details going in and taking little slivers off of the heart, like at a sandwich shop, these little slivers, you analyze them. And it's very fascinating on how he was explaining how they could identify some of the serious heart problems that George Floyd did have. So he walks us through that. He ultimately signed the death certificate and he walks us through it. So the government is just walking us through this. And he describes what a homicide is, right? Homicide. Many people think, Oh, that's murder. Well, he's not really somebody died. And there was another person involved in it . It could have been a factor could have not have been a factor. And so they walk us through the five different categories on how to categorize this. And homicide felt like the best one other ones are accidents. Other ones are suicide. And the other one natural causes and things like that. So they categorize this as a homicide. This of course is the death certificate. And you can see here, it was signed off on cause of death. And we'll notice it says cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating, law enforcement, sub dual restraint, and net compression, underlying nothing is here. Okay? Nothing in this little area. Then we have other contributing conditions. Arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease. We have fentinol intoxication. And we have recent methamphetamine use. The manner of death was the homicide. So he's saying, yes, another person was involved in, in this. And somebody died as a result of it, but this is not a legal term. Then he says signed off on by Dr. Andrew Baker, Hennepin County medical examiner's office, Chicago Avenue. Got it. So we really spent most of the time focused on this, on the explanation of this and this other contributing conditions. And so recall that Dr. Tobin and Dr. Thompson and the doctor or the other doctor, I think the ER doctor all said [inaudible] out low oxygen. So here is Dr. Andrew Baker now being questioned by prosecutor, Blackwell, asking for his explanation about this. What does this mean? Tell us about this death certificate, because we don't know, explain to the jury what you meant by that, because that's complicated language. Can't you just say he died of a heart attack. Can't you just say he was strangled to death. Can you say he died of a six year old ? What does all this mean? Here is Mr. Blackwell.

Speaker 4:

Now in Mr. Flores case enlisted the immediate cause of death as cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating law, enforcements of duel restraint and neck compression. Correct. What does cardiopulmonary arrest me? That's really just fancy medical lingo for the heart. And the lungs stopped the heart. No pulse, no breathing. So with the spectrum, the term , uh , complicating, am I right in the understanding that this term , uh , means occurring in the setting of yes. In other words, cardio cardiopulmonary arrest occurring in the setting of Y enforcement . So dual restraint and neck compression. Correct.

Speaker 6:

Okay. So you , you fleshed that out, right? So cardiopulmonary arrest, heart stops work and brain stops working that's it in , in layman's terms. All right . In the setting of what, while the law enforcement, there was physicality there in the setting of the neck , uh , neck w whatever the language he uses, right. It's very specific. So we need this guy to come in and tell us about it. So that's what he says. Now, in the next clip, he's going to talk about George Floyd's heart disease. And I want you to listen to this because we talked , we just sort of did the same thing. What was the cause of death with Dr. Thompson? She said it was a [inaudible] . What was the cause of death was the compression by the officers. The mechanism of death was this up . So same question here. We just heard this from him. What was the cause of death? Cardiopulmonary arrest by complications from law enforcement? What was the mechanism of death? What re what happened? Dr. Thompson, Dr. Tobin, ER, doctor low oxygen and his fix. Ya let's listen to what Dr. Andrew Baker says.

Speaker 4:

So Dr. Baker, can you tell us how it is , uh , physiologically that the subdural restraint and neck compression , uh , cause Mr. Floyd stat ,

Speaker 5:

In my opinion, the physiology of what was going on with Mr. Floyd on the evening of May 25th is you've already seen the photographs of his coronary arteries so that, you know, you know, he had very severe underlying heart disease. Um, I don't know that we specifically got to it counselor , but Mr. Floyd also had what we call hypertensive heart disease, meaning his heart weighed more than it should. Um, so he has a heart that already needs more oxygen than a normal heart by virtue of its size. And it's limited in its ability to step up, to provide more oxygen when there's demand because of the narrowing of his coronary arteries. Now, in the context of an altercation with other people that involves things like physical restraint, that involves things like being , um, held to the ground, that involves things like the pain that you would incur from having your, you know, your cheek up against the asphalt, an abrasion on your shoulder, those events are going to cause stress hormones to pour out into your body, specifically things like adrenaline. And what that adrenaline is going to do is it's going to ask your heart to beat faster. It's going to ask your body for more oxygen so that you can get through that altercation. And in my opinion, the, the law enforcement subdued restraint and the , that compression, it was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of that, those heart conditions

Speaker 6:

By of his heart

Speaker 1:

Conditions. It was more than he could take that's the government's witness, right? That was Dr. Baker who signed off on the medical certificate. The heart essentially failed by virtue of his heart conditions, which as we know, he just quantified for us. He said, very, very severe heart disease. Only one, very, very severe heart disease. He also said he had hypertensive heart disease. And if you'll notice he brought this up without the prosecutor asking him about it, he says, Hey, we didn't get into this counselor. By the way, you're asking me for a conclusion, but we miss kind of a major part of this thing, which was hypertensive heart disease. Meaning the heart actually weighed more than it should have so bigger heart. And he's got all these major heart problems. He didn't say anything about low oxygen or asphyxia. So now we have two government witnesses at odds with one another. Not really more than that, we got three versus one, which is a big deal. Okay? That is what we start to call reasonable doubt. We have a differing of opinions as to the cause of death. The mechanism of death, low oxygen, or [inaudible] in pretty damning, compelling testimony from the guy who invented lungs, wrote the book on mechanical ventilation, right? He saw what he saw the same way that a plumber finds a leak. You operate, you see what's in your wheelhouse. Somebody asks me about legal problems. The first thing I'm looking for criminal legal problems. Cause that's what I know this guy was looking for a problem. Identify it as a ventilation problem, quantified it as low oxygen asphyxia. That was the cause of death backed up by the ER doc backed up by Dr. Thompson. Now this guy, all government witnesses. Now this guy comes back out, Dr. Baker doesn't mention any of that. It says it was really just low oxygen, not, not low oxygen. It was really just heart problems, severe heart disease and hypertension. So now Mr. Nelson comes back out and Nelson is going to go into some questioning from cross-examination . And he's asking him specifically about these other significant conditions. So remember when I showed you the death certificate, there was that complicated language they're caught at cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating, law enforcement, subdued , neck compression, and so on beneath that there was the other paragraph that said other significant causes. And so here's Nelson now asking him about those specifically, because we heard yesterday that they're trying to minimize a lot of these significant causes, right? Phentenol couldn't have done it. Pete . We know people can drive methanol, couldn't have done it. We know people can drive and on and on and on. So now Nelson is cross-examining Dr. Baker and asking him specifically about those conditions and whether they matter or not. And what is his opinion on that? And here he is

Speaker 5:

In any death investigation, you're trying to determine the cause and manner of death. Right. And in this particular case, you obviously took into consideration the police restrict, right? Correct. But you also took into consideration the heart disease, correct? Yes. As well as the toxicology results agreed. Yes. And you factored those in, in your , uh, in your car , there's the cause and manner of death. Uh , and then there's the second thing that you left blank. Right? And then there's the contributing causes or contributing factors. Yes. The term of art is other significant conditions is what you're getting at counseling . And that's simply just something you have to do for the CDC. Or did you take those into consideration as contributing to Mr. Flores cause of death? So when you put those on a death certificate as a physician, what you're saying is, I think these played some role in this death. They had a contributing condition. I'm unaware of how the CDC would mandate what goes on there. Presumably the goal is you put things on there that you believe are relevant. You don't list trivial stuff on there that didn't play a role. Right . And so if something was significant enough , uh, you put it on, but if it's insignificant and didn't contribute, you leave it off generally. Yes. Okay. And so in your opinion , uh, both , uh, the heart disease, as well as the history of hypertension and the drug , uh, the drugs that were in his system played a role in Mr. Flight's death. In my opinion, yes. All right .

Speaker 1:

Right. That's the government's witness in my opinion. Yes. All of that stuff matters. Now they come back out on rehabilitation , uh , you know, a redirect. And so, you know, they, they, they do what they can to clean that up. But it's this type of fundamental disagreements that is problematic, right. It doesn't matter what they come out and clean up. It doesn't matter what they're able to sort of do here. You have a fundamental disagreement that happened today. The first doctor said low oxygen is fixie up. This doctor comes out, knows his heart, heart failed. It's a pretty big, pretty big discrepancy there. And we'll see what the jury has to say about it. Now, this is the next clip from Mr. Nelson, sort of diving in on this, talking about the heart. Well, what about the arteries and how does methamphetamine impact how the heart functions here is Dr. Baker?

Speaker 5:

Which of the artery supplies? The, the , uh, that first one, the essay node, the Sino, the sinoatrial node, right. I believe it's a small branch of the right coronary artery in most people. And is that the one that was 90% occluded ? Not the branch. I didn't detect out the branch, but yes, the main right coronary artery was 90% narrowed. Um, you're aware also of the methamphetamine that was found in Mr. Floyd system. Yes. Does methamphetamine further constrict the vessels and ventricles and arteries? I don't, I'm not an expert in the specific toxicology of methamphetamine. It is certainly hard on your hearts in the sense that it does things like drive up the heart rate and drive up blood pressure. I don't know if it's a vasoconstrictor , um, but in either way as a general rule for forensic pathology, methamphetamine is not good for a damaged heart , uh , heart with coronary artery disease. Does the amount of , uh, the, or the level of the toxic illogical findings affect whether it's good for the heart or bad for the heart. I don't know that there's a scientific answer to that counselor because I'm not aware that there's a quote unquote safe level of methamphetamine. And , um,

Speaker 1:

Yeah. And he goes on and he says, well, what about the, you know, the, the , the amphetamines that kids take or, you know , uh , even adults take right for ADHD for , uh, attention deficit disorder and those types of things. And he says, well, yeah, that's a different thing. There, there's no safe level of the methamphetamine with is the street drug and all of that. So arteries clogged, you just heard him write 90% on the main coronary artery on whatever side of the heart that was. And then on top of that, methamphetamines, he says, there's no safe level of meth. So it's, it's, it's leading. I would guess the jury's to say, well, these are pretty, pretty, pretty significant contributors to the cause of death. And this is the guy that actually cut the heart open, was slicing it up, right. And was able to look inside and show the jurors, pictures of the heart. Now we didn't see it, but presumably they did. And they were able to see, he describes it. If you listen to the audio about you, see that stuff, that's what you don't want. That's why you don't smoke cigarettes and you eat well. And your doctor checks your cholesterol. Otherwise your heart vessels close 90%, then you're getting it in the middle of an altercation on the side of the road. You've got your adrenaline flowing. You've got some recent drug use. The rest is kind of history. The heart failed, not low oxygen and a [inaudible] , which is directly contradictory to these other witnesses. And this is our last clip. Let me take a look here. What do we have ,

Speaker 5:

Uh, which of the artery supplies?

Speaker 1:

So that was, we already got that one. So now let's talk about bruising. So, all right . We've got a couple of different things. So Nelson is asking him about in this clip, bruising on the back. So he just sort of unwind and rang the bell by contradicting with this expert, the manner or the mechanism of death by re-introducing methamphetamine as a dangerous contributing factor by sort of pivoting, pivoting this away from low oxygen and his fixture back towards the heart failed, right? We're doubling down on that, then he's going to say, well, what about some of the physicality that other expert witnesses are claiming caused this high pressure on the back of Floyd caused by Derek ? Shovan remember, we saw some of that. We saw Dr. Tobin come in and give us some charts, give us some graphics, detailed. The physics of the human body shows , you know , the levers and the pressure points and show the weight coming down upon a person. So now we're talking about that. Now we're not talking about drugs. We're not talking about low oxygen or [inaudible] , we're talking about, well, if there was so much pressure on the back of George Floyd, wouldn't you expect to see some evidence of that this guy did the autopsy. I explained to you that he was cutting open the skin and sort of pulling some of it back. So you could see if there were any bruising or burst capillaries, or however, they identify that under the skin, subcutaneous is , as he said, and they are, he's asking him about this. So if all that pressure was on Floyd's back, did you see any of that when you analyze that? What did you see? And it's sort of an awkward conversation that's happening here, but you get that good part at the very end where they're talking about, well, we just don't see a [inaudible] when there's pressure on the back of your neck. And again, this is contradictory to what Dr. Tobin said, very, very different testimony, competing expert witnesses on the same side of the case, which is not so good for the prosecution.

Speaker 5:

And in terms of, you know, when you think about just kind of the classic strangulation, taking my fingers and my hands, and I'm applying pressure to your neck, even those small fingers , you would expect to see bruises consistent with the size of my fingers, right? Again, in my line of work, way more often than Nazi bruises. Um , you did say consistent with the size of your fingers. That might be true on television shows, but in the real world, there's not a lot of correlation between the size of bruises we see, and the size of the salesman's hands, but we are looking for those telltale bruises. All right . And in terms of, in this particular case , uh, the , the knee, the placement of the knee being a pretty boney hard round object, right? Um, yeah. I mean, it's , it's pretty concentrated right. Under the kneecap, the force. Right . And of course the shin bone is just below the skin, right? Yes . And it's sort of triangular and it's nature, right. On cross section . Yes. And so if a substantial amount of force was being used by the knee or the shin bone on the neck or back area in your line of work, and if that force was sufficient to a 68, him , would that, would you expect to see bruising? I would expect to see bruising, but I don't know that the lack of bruising excludes that you and I kind of just pivoted from strangulation, which is really pressure to the front of the neck, to the pressure of the back of the neck. And that's just not something that I think we see as medical examiners pressure to the back of the neck explaining a strangulation or an S fixation . Correct.

Speaker 1:

Right. So the pressure to the back of the neck, not something you see in strangulation cases of course, or asphyxia cases. So , uh , directly contradicting what Dr. Tobin said about all of the pressure, all of the weight coming down to bear on his back. Now the government easily, I think can sort of push this higher up the chain a little bit. So they're countered all of this would be, well, it doesn't really matter what the mechanism of death was because both of those were triggered by Derek Shovan right. So it's sort of, you're , you're going up the chain of causation a little bit. What was the superseding? Cause what happened before that? So we know that Floyd died could have either been from low oxygen, could have been a heart failure. We know it wasn't a drug overdose though, is what they're going to say, because that would lead to some culpability, some responsibility for that overdose, going back over to Floyd. So they need to connect the cause the manner of the mechanism of death back to something that Shovan did. So if Shovan LEED lean on the back or the neck or the neck area, or however the government wants to call it, and that resulted in low oxygen, fine. If it was the result, the result of the leaning or the kneeing was the heart failing. It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter because the ultimate perpetrator, the ultimate original cause was Derek Shovan. So they may have to try that angle. All right. Anyways, let's take a [email protected] . If you want to ask a question, that's the best place to do it. So Jay bone in the house says, I think after the testimony today, by the medical examiners particular, Dr . Baker, the prosecution's case rests squarely on the testimony of Dr. Tobin, I look forward to seeing how the defense puts together its case in the next couple of weeks. Yeah. It will be very interesting. I , I basically, at this point, what you can do is just sort of make a chart. This doctor, this doctor, this doctor, this doctor, this doctor, cause of death mechanism of death list, all those out, see what's in there, you're going to see one of these things just doesn't belong here. One of these things is not like the others and Dr. Baker is going to be that person. So we have big Jonno says early on after the arrest Chauvin's wife divorced him. Do you think this was a way for them to squirrel away assets and protect them against financial liabilities in the future? Have you seen this before? Um, I don't think so. You know, I don't really know. That's not my area of expertise, big John out . It's a good question. But that would be something for a family law attorney or somebody in that wheelhouse. I don't, I probably , probably not. Right. She's probably just as tired of this whole thing as everybody else. And this was a good justification to just get away from the blast zone. That is the Derek Shovan trial. Good to see you though. John, we got, Baldman says I've heard some legal experts question. How some of the expert testimony from yesterday wasn't allowed to get in that some of it was speculative. Not sure if I'm remembering correctly. What are your thoughts on the nature of the legality of some of these expert testimonies? Yeah, so, you know, a lot of this stuff was fleshed out prior to the trial, starting there . What are called motions in lemonade? And we flushed a lot of this stuff back out. I know lot of people are sort of coming to this trial now because this is the interesting stuff, but a lot of this stuff was fleshed out before the trial , uh , even during jury selection. So remember there was about two weeks of jury selection before the trial even got underway before it even started. And so a lot of these issues about what the experts can say and what they can't say. A lot of this was fleshed out before the trial even started. So when you're hearing these objections come up

Speaker 6:

In court, it's kind of the judges

Speaker 1:

Is operating around the margins. And so you've seen this come out, right? So some people can't, they can't testify about

Speaker 6:

Things that are overly

Speaker 1:

Spec speculative. So they can't sort of guess about what happened in the future, but they can play around with hypotheticals . And that's what they're doing, right. Nelson comes out and says, hypothetically, but he can't say if George Floyd would have done this, then, then what's because that's almost, it's too personal. There's a lot of reasons why they are being very careful about what the experts can say, because you don't want them to spill over and talk about something that they have no expertise

Speaker 6:

In. So they flush out

Speaker 1:

A lot of these rules and really the judge is just implementing them. But it's a good question. We're going to see a lot more of it. Obviously,

Speaker 6:

Maddie Jones says I actually tried

Speaker 1:

The experiment with scales last week and how easy

Speaker 6:

And how it is and how easy it

Speaker 1:

Is to manipulate where the weight is distributed. Do you think it's possible? They do this

Speaker 6:

In court? I don't think so. I'm not, I don't think that we're going to S you know ,

Speaker 1:

No , I don't know. It's a good question, Maddie . So Maddie's talking about sort of an idea I shared on the show last night about

Speaker 6:

Getting two scales, putting some

Speaker 1:

Pillows down or whatever, and just adjusting your ,

Speaker 6:

I mean, you can, you can, you can feel that if you just move a little bit, you can

Speaker 1:

Fall over because your center of gravity is off and I've done a lot of wrestling and mixed martial arts. I know how to maneuver my body around. And so I know that with little maneuvers, if you have somebody in the right leverage, we're in the right points, you can just make some minor adjustments.

Speaker 6:

That person can go from conscience awake to not awake anymore, just with a little squeeze there. And that's it. So you can, you can maneuver your body. Obviously, Maddie Jones tried it. I still don't think we're good

Speaker 1:

To see it in court just because it's a little bit too provocative.

Speaker 6:

It's , it's a little it's. I

Speaker 1:

Don't think that either side would want to try

Speaker 6:

It because it could go, it could go bad in so many ways. I think

Speaker 1:

I , I, I'm not sure that it's the right move for a lot of reasons, but we'll see. Maybe it comes in, I don't know , spoil up says just a general question. Have you ever heard of attorneys using illegal means tapping phones, hacking computers to monitor jurors activities? Would you be surprised to find out it is happening in a high profile case?

Speaker 6:

Is this , would having that information be worth the risk of obtaining it? Good question spoiler. So I have not specifically, well, I

Speaker 1:

I've read about it, right? I've read about attorneys doing improper things with jurors that happens all the time. And judges have to correct that now in a case like this, you know, I'm not sure how, how , uh,

Speaker 6:

How intense it would get, but it

Speaker 1:

Would not surprise me. In fact, I was thinking about this yesterday. I was thinking about when Eric Nelson was going through his line of questioning about how he missing kind of a major

Speaker 2:

Issue that we talked about on the show yesterday. And so I was like ,

Speaker 1:

Wondering, is somebody monitoring Twitter? Are they crowdsourcing some of the public comments? Because I posted a tweet. I'm not saying I had anything to do with this. I I'm not, I'm not going down that road, but I did post a tweet. And I said, Hey, when you were questioning Dr. Toby

Speaker 2:

George Ford

Speaker 1:

Was complaining about breathing problems before there was any of the four criteria on actually there was one, he was in handcuffs, but Dr. Tobin came out, he gave us four criteria. There was a point in time during the video where Floyd was complaining about breathing. And only one of those four factors was in play. He had his handcuffs.

Speaker 2:

So why was he complaining about breathing when they were ,

Speaker 1:

There's nobody on his back. And we'll notice that Eric Nelson asked that question of the next witness. So maybe somebody is monitoring Twitter

Speaker 2:

Or getting,

Speaker 1:

You know, maybe somebody from his office was watching and just said, Hey, hello, what are you doing over there? Ask this question. He came back out and asked it. So a good question. I , I think that it , it , it is absolutely something that

Speaker 2:

Would be worth monitoring to see whether this is inappropriate, right? The judge probably is. Yeah .

Speaker 1:

I had this conversation maybe off the record with these attorneys, because you don't want people to get overly aggressive with the jurors right there . These are people, these are private citizens, they're doing their civic duty and you want to make sure that they're not being harassed in any way, shape or form so that you can protect the integrity of the judicial process. Good question. Next up, we got my Fox says, is it common for attorneys to hire pies , to look into

Speaker 2:

Jurors? I don't think that that's common. I mean, I think that, you know, a PI

Speaker 1:

Is sort of has that negative connotation where, you know, it's like somebody going to your house, somebody is following you to your kid's school

Speaker 2:

Thing like that. And I'm not sure that that that happens.

Speaker 1:

There are yeah , attorneys all the time. Use jury consultants, there's jury coaches. There's, there's all , there's a whole

Speaker 2:

Whole segment of practicing law that is just focused on jurors. I mean, you have

Speaker 1:

All sorts of people who are experts on that. And so that's a different, but that's a sort of a different angle. That's a different approach. PIs . They're really aggressive and almost, you know, almost abusive in some people's understanding of them. And, you know , we use personal or private investigators for other things, but typically not for jurors, they usually go back and recreate the scene of the accident or go take measurements or do a background check, or somebody go investigate in those, in those ways, witnesses and people of that variety, but not jurors, right. Jurors are sort of innocent bystanders who were part of this. Now, if you can find stuff about them on social media stuff that they posted publicly, that is obviously something that needs to be done. And it was done here in this particular case. Good question there though. Ma Fox. All right . And so those questions came over from watching the watchers.locals.com . And if you want to ask a question, that's the best place to do it, and you can also support the show. We appreciate that. So watching the watchers.locals.com , all right, we're going to change

Speaker 7:

Gears a little bit. The border crisis is still well underway. We have our March numbers now, and we know that there was 172,000 people who tried to cross the border illegally. This is according to the Washington examiner. You're going to see this headline that in March, the most people ever in 15 years tried to cross the border. So five times greater than the amount seen last March at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, 172,000 . This was in the first 100 days. And so I did some math on this. So if you have 172,000 people, and we know that a Boeing seven 47 carries 416 people, we can divide 172,000 by 416. And that means that we have 413, seven 40 sevens of people landing in a month in March. So if you divide that 413 planes landing every month by 30 days, that means we've got 13 flights a day just landing in this country. All right. So Biden's first 100 days have been overtaken by the situation at the border, which Republicans have unsuccessfully urged him to declare a crisis. He has yet to visit the Southern border since moving into the white house and has been focused on economic recovery and infrastructure. 97% of the 172,000 people who tried to get across the border came across between between land ports of entry, where border patrol agents work several other thousand were denied entry at the official crossings. Approximately 78,000 were encountered at the Southern border in January, which was higher than normal. Those numbers have only risen since then because , uh , we have a change in the administration. What happened in January, we got a new president, which was higher than normal. Those numbers have only risen since then passing 100,000 in February. Now, reaching levels not seen since George W. Bush Mexican man made up. Most of the people encountered in 2006 versus the tens of thousands of families and children from other countries arriving in high numbers. Now presenting a new challenge for the byte administration, which has been reluctant to detain migrants. And listen, I know that when you start to sort of get critical about the Biden administration, about some of this stuff that people say that you're inhumane and you're a racist, and you're a xenophobe and a bigot. And I understand that I have as much empathy as I can, as I can possibly have for people who want to be a part of this country. I think that this country is such an amazing thing in so many ways, even though I got a lot of gripes about it, I think it's great. And I, and I really encourage our country to think about some of this immigration stuff in a way that will give more people the opportunity to be a part of our country and the American dream. But when we create incentives that cause people to enter into this country in droves, that is not serving those people that is hurting them dramatically. This is causing 172,000 people to pick up their belongings, try to make the migration across the border, get into a country that is not equipped to handle them or integrate them. As we see by children being wrapped up in space, blankets and thrown in huge rooms, filled with other people. This is not empathetic. What the Biden administration is doing. This is hurting good people who otherwise just want to improve their lives, and it's not the right thing to do. So we're going to continue to be critical about it. This story goes on the number of central American children who came across without a parent or guardian Rose to 18,890 in March. Their previous record of 11,000 was set in May, 2019 by the administration in late June, opted not to continue immediately turning away unaccompanied children as had been Trump administration policy for adults since March, 2020 in an effort to avoid the filling government holding facilities with people during the pandemic, as a result, the number of unaccompanied children arriving at the Southern border had surged from 5,700 in January, more than triple that number now. And again, what happened to January? We made significant progress and we have taken action since June 20 said one administration official. We have added tens. We've added thousands of beds for unaccompanied children. We have leveraged thousands of federal government outside volunteers. We have sent millions in humanitarian aid and so on new policies to increase the throughput of kids. The remainder of the illegal crossings were single adults. 99,000 in January. It was 62,000 between families and adults, 103,000 were expelled under the title. 42 policy ahead of being taken into custody by an official said that 28% of single adults and members tried more than once in March to sneak into the country. So it's a big, it's a big problem. And right now it sounds like nobody's doing much of anything about it, which is to the detriment of those poor people who are trying to get into this country, which is a shame because our government created the incentives that is causing them to want to come here, Nancy Pelosi, what is she going to do about it? Does she even think that this is a problem? Here's what she had to say.

Speaker 8:

Uh , I believe I'm glad you asked that question in a larger sense , uh, instead of , uh , quoting the ridiculousness of the Republicans in the Congress .

Speaker 7:

Okay. So that's , um, uh , ridiculous Republicans, I guess, are responsible for this. Uh, this article was over from summit.news says even the white house has admitted. There is a humanitarian crisis on the border. What is good about that? There are now over 17,000 unaccompanied children in facilities that are only equipped to hold a few hundred K not a few thousand, a few hundred. We're talking about a whole order of magnitude higher. The conditions are squalid with illegals, packed together, sleeping on concrete floors. Many are suffering from diseases, including COVID is that good cartels are engaged in people. Trafficking footage has emerged of babies being thrown over border fences. Okay. That is a real thing that's happening. And children are being sexually abused as they attempt to cross the border both by traffickers and other migrants. But thank goodness. Trump is out and Biden is and says the author of this piece, Texas governor, Lieutenant, Lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick

Speaker 2:

Has warned about the president.

Speaker 7:

Reuters has reported that the U S authorities apprehended over 171,000 migrants, 53,000 family units, 99,000

Speaker 2:

Single adults. And so this is just an incentive that this administration put in place. That's resulting in that. Now

Speaker 7:

You may think that it's the right thing to do. You might think that, Hey, we should, America should open its doors for all people. Everybody who wants to be a part of this country should have the opportunity to be a part of that country. You might think

Speaker 2:

I'm not even sure I would disagree with you, right? I want good people to be a part of this country. I want to encourage that to happen.

Speaker 7:

This is not the right way to do it. Changing a policy and encouraging people to, just to flood across the border. They're responsible for

Speaker 2:

That. And

Speaker 7:

They should have to pay the bill for it and New York, what's New York going to do about all this. Well . So cities are now, cities are now also getting into the fray. So according to the New York times, we have a New York times article telling us that $2.1 billion for undocumented workers is a part of new York's progressive shift. When the Corona virus arrived in New York city a year ago, it hit enclaves of undocumented immigrants with a fury, killing thousands, wiping out service and construction jobs, lifeline employments of blah, blah, blah. After a sweeping move by lawmakers this week, New York will now offer one-time payments of up to $15,000, $15,600 to undocumented immigrants who lost work during the pandemic. The effort a $2.1 billion fund in the state budget is by far the biggest of its kind in the country and a sign of the shift States shift towards policies that are championed by progressive Democrat.

Speaker 2:

So they're going to give people 15 grand who lost unemployed or unemployed, even if you're undocked

Speaker 7:

Humana , no big deal. So what's that going to happen? What's going to what's that going to cause to happen? A lot of people are going to go to New York. A lot of people are going to collect the check. A lot of people are gonna want a piece of that 15 years ,

Speaker 2:

They're all gonna flood to New York. New. York's not gonna be able to handle them.

Speaker 7:

We're going to run out of money. They're going to cause their own internal debacle again. And they're going to blame somebody else for it. I'm sure of it. Next week

Speaker 2:

I have this followup Republicans

Speaker 7:

Instantly criticized . The measure is out of touch at a time when many other new Yorkers were still struggling. Some Democrats from swing state districts, upstate and online long Island said privately that a publicly funded rescue program for people who are not in the country illegally could be welded as a cudgel against them. In future elections. Most Democrats would not speak publicly about fault lines in their party, but internal clashes emerged on social media on Tuesday as lawmakers squabbled about eligibility and traded personal insults, which is just outstanding. So New York funds dwarfs a similar relief program in California, where they set up 75 million cash assistance. Last year, they gave undocumented immigrants 501 time payment on a first come first serve basis. So you just got to come and ask for it. You can get $500 hard to quantify the number of undocumented families living in New York, but a left-leaning fiscal policy Institute said Wednesday, the fund could benefit as many as 290,000 people. Undocumented workers could receive 15 grand about 300 per week for last year. Others who prove their residency and identity could be eligible for a loan .

Speaker 2:

Some of up to 3,200

Speaker 7:

Found support among the democratic controlled Senate Democrats are raising taxes and using your federal stimulus dollars to enact a radical agenda, said the Republican minority

Speaker 2:

Leader. All right ,

Speaker 7:

They're calling it. Democrats are calling this a moral imperative,

Speaker 2:

$1 billion

Speaker 7:

In grants and tax credits warnings of a backlash. And

Speaker 2:

It just goes on and on. So,

Speaker 7:

Okay. So that's another way to approach it. Another way to handle this whole thing. And you know, it's just frustrating because I thought that like two weeks ago we were supposed to start seeing

Speaker 2:

Some improvements on this Joe Biden in his glory and wisdom appointed comma

Speaker 7:

Harris as the borders are, she was going to solve all this. Remember that we played the clip in the white house of Kamala go. And , uh , you kidding me? Did you really just give me this border crisis? Nobody's been able to solve the border crisis in the last 30 years, as long as I've been alive, nobody's been able to fix it. You just gave it

Speaker 2:

Joe Biden.

Speaker 7:

I'm grateful for it. Yeah. I'm happy looking forward to solving this issue for you, Joe . And where is Kamala? Nobody knows two weeks since being named the borders , are she still has not visited the border because of course, why would she vice-president Kamala Harris? This article comes over from the New York post. She was tapped two weeks ago to lead efforts to STEM the crisis on the Southern border, but she's still

Speaker 2:

Not visited Laura . She held the press conference on March 24th ,

Speaker 7:

President Biden, named Harris to head up the diplomatic effort and reach out to leaders in Mexico and central America countries saying

Speaker 2:

She speaks for me. But so far she

Speaker 7:

Has only phone Guatemalan president Alejandro and Mexico's Andres. Yeah .

Speaker 2:

Manuel Lopez Obrador to discuss the ,

Speaker 7:

The root causes of the crisis. She talked to Giamatti on March 30th and Opendoor on Wednesday about increasing humanitarian assistance to the Northern triangle countries and STEM the tide

Speaker 2:

Of migration. They agreed to continue

Speaker 7:

To work together to address the root causes

Speaker 2:

Of migration, including poverty,

Speaker 7:

Violence, and lack of economic opportunity. So the white house, instead of in her first two weeks as are , she has traveled to Connecticut, Chicago home to California over the Easter weekend, presided over the swearing in ceremonies touted the administration's Corona virus stimulus package and the COVID response visited vaccination sites. Lunched with the president, attended a cabinet meeting, held listening sessions with faith leaders and small business owners or public schedule

Speaker 2:

Showed, asked that the white

Speaker 7:

House press briefing on Wednesday about when she might travel to the border. Jen Saki said there were no trips on the schedule. No, of course

Speaker 9:

Not. Why would there be, she doesn't

Speaker 7:

Want anything to do with this. She wants to distance herself as much as humanly possible from the border. Cause she's not going to fix it. She's caught between a rock and a hard place. If she does something to reduce the tide of people coming across the border, that's going to require some things that look like Donald Trump, right? Some, some policies that create disincentives for trying to come into this country. It doesn't want to do that less. She'd be labeled a racist, so she's not going to do that. So the only thing you can do is

Speaker 9:

Just

Speaker 7:

Place a couple of phone calls and make sure you don't get within a hundred miles of the Southern border in any way, shape or form. She says, I don't have any traps trips or to outline or preview what our focus is on is on solutions and ensuring we have more beds. We're making the processing more efficient and effective. And that we are addressing this in a humane way that keeps these kids as safe as we possibly can. She said central Americans looking for refuge from the Northern triangle countries like El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala have taken these policy moves as well as the overwhelmingly more welcoming tone from Democrats is a sign that Biden is inviting them to cross the border. And we've played clips of that. That's not even a question. The next day, March 26 , Harris traveled to new Haven secretary of education and same day or on that same day. Federal officials told the post that a nine year old Mexican cook girl drowned from the previous weekend while trying to cross the Rio Grande river in the U S Harris had no public schedule over the weekend. On March 28th, it was reported that according to leaked documents, the byte administration predicts the surge of unaccompanied children crossing the Southern border will smash records and continue for the next six months, but they don't wanna do anything about it. White house said the number of miners could sort of 26,000 a month dwarfing. The 16,000 crossing right now said Axios. So it's just, this is going to go on and on and on, on Tuesday Harris toward a vaccination site in Chicago, before she returned to DC, March 22nd, she planned to visit the border. Harris responded not today before letting out a belly laugh, but I have before.

Speaker 9:

And I'm sure I will. Again,

Speaker 7:

Kamala, let's take a [email protected], Liberty or death in the house. Good to see you Liberty on this lovely Friday. He says, my wife is an immigrant, a legal immigrant that came here before she even met me. Immigration wants everything, but a sperm sample for her to get her citizenship. Mrs . Liberty took a look at this and gets that they are being put in line in front of her when she did the right thing or the right way. Yeah, she should be. She should be right. The country set a standard. There are a bunch of people who are not following that standard. Your wife followed the standard. It's the right thing to do. I don't blame her for being upset about that. Oh, sock in the house says , Hey rod , big fan of the show. I think if Prez , vice pres and members of Congress were required to take in some immigrant

Speaker 6:

That are crossing into their personal home is probably fixed in a day. Yes, no, maybe. Yeah, of course it would . Yeah , because they don't have to deal with this problem. Every everybody else does. Right. They live in their

Speaker 9:

DC

Speaker 6:

Bubble away from the rest of the world and they don't have to deal with this stuff and listen, they don't even want to go see it. Okay. They don't even want to travel down to the border to see it. President vice-president all hands off. Deck, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, all figure it out on your own. We have local D admin said, could we utilize immigrants for the infrastructure Biden wants?

Speaker 9:

I don't know.

Speaker 6:

I think that, I think that most of that money is going to unions and childcare and things like that. So I don't even know what infrastructure we're talking about. Bear and ski says, how do you prove residency if you're undocumented? Well, so I think you could still rent an apartment or even some States will grant you a driver's license, right? If you're undocumented, I think California will. So you could, you could get a driver's license get ID. There are States that just say, yeah, no problem. Come on over here. We don't care sharing Courtney . Last one says actually New York has nothing to worry about as they can count on uncle Joe and the Congress to bail them out with another huge spending bill. That's a good point. And those migrants, future den voters, willing to work for rock bottom wages , basically slave labor. Yeah. I think that's a great point too. You know, there's a lot of racism, I think from the pro immigration people and nobody ever calls them out on that, you know, but they always say, well, these are people doing the jobs that Americans won't do. It's like, well, why is that? So why do you want a bunch of those people? Like, are you saying like, they're subhuman , like they're a subclass. And so we're going to bring these people in because you don't want to clean your toilet. Is that what you're

Speaker 9:

Racist?

Speaker 6:

So, you know , a lot of that's going on . All right , good questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com . I know this immigration stuff just triggers basically everybody, which is why it's so fun to talk about. Right ? And so, as I mentioned, we're going to change gears a little bit. We're going to talk about something that is political, but from a much further resolution, much higher level. Have you ever thought about starting your own country? Many of us are a little bit tired of the current country for a number of different reasons. If you've been following this channel for some time, you know, we complain a lot about it, got a lot of issues with our justice system, with a lot of the limitations that we're seeing on free speech. And I'm not alone. According to the AP, there is a new intelligence report that is sharing a grim view of the global future. So if you're sitting there also a little bit dissatisfied with your country, the state of affairs in our political world, you're not alone. This article is, as I mentioned from the AP written by Eric Tucker posted today, says Washington, U S intelligence officials are painting a dark picture of the world's future.

Speaker 7:

Writing in a report released on Thursday. The Corona virus pandemic has deepened economic inequality, strained government resources, and fanned nationalist sentiments. And we're going to go through this segment ,

Speaker 2:

This show, this is going to be a little bit of depression, right? We're going to see some stuff that just sounds terrible. It sounds like

Speaker 7:

We're talking about a lot of the failures of our government and our elected officials, but I want you to have hope and I don't want this segment to be too ranty. I want us to think about this from a problem solution perspective or identifying

Speaker 2:

Problem . We're going to propose a solution. There's a lot of hope

Speaker 7:

This conversation that we're having. And I want to just frame this out. So even though this might seem like we're going down a dark hole here, stick with it because there's a lot of optimism, a lot of light at the end of the tunnel, those assessments are included in a global trends report by the government's national intelligence council. The document produced every four years. This year's report is designed to help policy makers and citizens anticipate the economic, environmental, and technological demographic forces likely to shape the world throughout the next 20

Speaker 2:

Years. We're looking forward

Speaker 7:

20 years, the document focuses heavily on the impact of the pandemic, calling it the most significant singular global disruption since world war II , with health, economic, political, and security implications that will ripple for years to come nations in different parts of the world. Set new records on Thursday for COVID-19 deaths and new infections underscoring, the lingering global toll of the virus COVID-19 has shaken long-held assumptions about resilience, resilience, and adaptation, and created new uncertainties about the economy, governance, geopolitics technology, all of it, the report says document finds cause for concern in virtually all,

Speaker 2:

All aspects of life sounds pretty rough, but it does

Speaker 7:

Better. Their report continues on and it says it warns. For instance, the effects of climate change are likely to worse than the problem of food, water insecurity, and poor countries going to hasten global migration though health education and household prosperity have made historic improvements in recent decades. Continued progress will be hard to sustain because of headwinds, not only from the effects of the pandemic, but also aging populations and potentially slower global economic

Speaker 2:

Growth advances in

Speaker 7:

Technology have the potential to address problems, including climate change and disease, but can also provoke new tensions. We're going to talk about this technology. What is this state? And non-state rivals will vie for leadership and dominance in science and technology with potentially cascading risks and implications for economic military

Speaker 2:

[inaudible] security, the report also warns of eroding trust in governments and institutions and of a quote trust gap between the general public and the better

Speaker 7:

Formed and educated parts of the population. So you see how just dripping with this day. And this is the general public has a trust gap, but the better informed and educated parts of the population

Speaker 2:

Don't. So why would there be a trust

Speaker 1:

Gap? Why would there be a segment of this population of our society here in the United States or throughout the world that just doesn't really trust our government as

Speaker 2:

Much anymore. Naturally

Speaker 1:

I'm inclined to be anti establishment . I'm a criminal defense attorney. My day job, our whole team here is dedicated to making sure the government stays in their place. Doesn't encroach on our liberties. So I'm naturally inclined to be that way, but it's not just because of my profession. There are many people who feel the same way. They have a lot of disdain for what they see happening around us. And so when I was thinking about this framework, I wanted to brainstorm a little bit, see if I could come up with a reason why this trust gap might be so big. Why are people

Speaker 2:

Just generally distrustful of government these days? Let's think if we can brainstorm some possibilities, could it be because the government has catastrophic failed repeatedly time and time again, let's take,

Speaker 1:

Look at some examples. First and foremost, let's start off

Speaker 2:

With COVID COVID showed up

Speaker 1:

Or some of the biggest gaps in the performance of our government exists. We can start off something that is very basic, very easy. Something that should have been very easy to satisfy and to fulfill the provision of information to the general public. We were in the middle of a pandemic. Nobody knew what to do. Everybody was freaked out. Our government is supposed to be prepared to help us through this, right?

Speaker 2:

Why did they

Speaker 1:

Botch this so badly? The first catastrophic government failure, massive informational mismanagement. They lied to us about the masks. They told us don't wear masks. Then mask up, then wear two masks. Then get vaccinated. Dr. Fowchee is still wearing masks. We , they also told us about lockdowns, right? We have differing opinions on the science of lockdowns, whether they work, whether they don't. We see California versus Florida. We have a lot of back and forth about vaccines. They were killing us over vaccines. Donald Trump said, it'll be here by April. They said, no, it won't. You're a liar. You're an idiot. And there's no medical expertise who supports your claim here. So major, major,

Speaker 2:

Right? The government failed. And you can

Speaker 1:

Can say, it's Trump's fault. You can say it's Biden's fault. You could say it's Obama's fault. You could say it's George bushes fault. I don't care who it is. The point of this criticism is not to condemn any one particular party or any one particular politician. It's to point out the systemic failures that exist in our government and in our society. And I think people on both sides of the aisle, maybe for once in our lives can agree on that. That the government is not serving your ends. Your ends might be different. You might say you want more social justice. You might say, I want more economic freedom. Regardless. The government is not serving your ends. I think we can all agree on that. So as I continue going through this list, that's the context. I'm not trying to blame Trump, not trying to blame Fowchee, not trying to blame Obama, not trying to blame Clinton. None of them it's government in general has become a catastrophic failure. And so we know that they botched the information that they were supposed to give something very basic.

Speaker 6:

We all have the internet. We all have cell phones and , and email. They couldn't notify us about what proper procedures were or at least get their act together about what was real and what wasn't rather than lying to us. What else failed healthcare filled ? And this was a military failure. In many ways, the military was supposed to be prepped and ready to rock and roll. We have FEMA. We have all of these massive multi-billion dollar departments at the federal government. They're supposed to make sure that our country is prepared for this stuff. And we weren't. Healthcare failed hospitals overloaded, all sorts of surgeries were canceled. People couldn't go see their doctors. Everybody was quarantined. Took us a long time. We were totally under equipped with PPE, totally understaffed. I had family in the hospital for 48 days. My younger brother who has down syndrome almost died three times. My mom was in the hospital with him and they told me about the conditions there. And it was a war zone and their experience is not unique to them or our family. It's happening all across the country. Why were we? So under-prepared government failed. One of the only one of their primary responsibilities is continuity. They couldn't keep it together. Healthcare system was buckling around the country for a long period of time. Next up massive infrastructure failures. What else are we talking about? We have everything is failing around this country. We got brownouts , right? California has rolling brownouts basically every summer, probably going to see those again. They can't even keep their stinking lights on. They also have wildfires, huge swaths of the city or the state are just burning down regularly, Texas, if you want to make sure this isn't political, Texas doesn't have any good particular , uh , infrastructure either, right? They had a massive freeze that caused considerable havoc in their state. The government failed. The federal government was non-responsive schools. There are still parts of this country, as far as I can understand. As far as I can tell that are not open. We have children in this country who have gone almost an entire year without education or very subpar education, half days, zoom meetings for six year old, seven year olds, 10 year olds. The educational system in this country has failed. It's buckled under the weight of COVID under the weight of our government. They couldn't even protect the Capitol building folks. There was warnings time and time. Again, apparently that this was going to be a big thing. They couldn't even protect an official government building. That's how incompetent they are as to infrastructure. How about the border? We just talked about this in an earlier segment, 170 plus thousand people crossed in March. They cannot control the border. What good is a nation? If you don't have defined borders and I don't mean control the border by putting up an impenetrable barrier barricade there, right? I , I don't even care what the policy is. Whether it's a hard policy, nobody comes in or it's an open policy. Everybody comes in. I don't care. The point is they can't control it. Policies are irrelevant . The issue is still open because they can't solve it. They've been trying to solve this issue for 35, 40 years, as long as I've been alive, probably longer than that still can't fix it. Why is that? Because the government has failed as a catastrophic failure. They are also degrading our , the faith in our justice system. Okay. We're seeing that right now. We're talking about Derek Shovan and the Shovan trial regularly on this channel. Basically nobody who's watching that trial thinks that there's justice happening right now. Why is that? Half the country thinks that this is a racist cop who murdered a black man. The other half thinks that this is a media woke, fueled narrative that is covering for a drug addict. And they're making him a hero. While an innocent officer is put on trial. Nobody has faith in the system. Why should they? We see political prosecutions taking place in this country. We saw all of the Capitol Hill riders get put in custody, not given any bail. We saw a court of appeals. Judge recently overturned that because it was a political prosecution. It was improper. Judge reversed that a lot of these Antifa cases, same thing we saw here in Arizona, protestors were arrested for peacefully protesting. Why is that? Because everything's politicized. The justice system has become weaponized. It's being used for political prosecutions on both sides of the aisle. Then you have the untouchables. You have the people who can get away with anything. We've got Hunter Biden running around right now, committed multiple crimes, writing a memoir and doing a bunch of interviews all over the place. You've got Glen Maxwell, right? She's in custody. She, she sort of was floating around untouchable for a very long period of time. You have other politicians who get away with whatever they want, operate with impunity. Nobody has any faith in the justice system. Fundamental liberties are eroding. In real time. We see this happening. Free speech access is dwindling down every day. Now you might say these are private companies, Facebook and Twitter. They have full authority to do that. They can do whatever they want to do. Practically speaking you as an American, your free speech. Every time one of those private companies does that is getting whittled away. It's it's shrinking. You may be okay with that, but a lot of people in this country are not because the first amendment is fundamental. There's a reason that it exists. Second amendment rights. Those are getting whittled away. We just saw Joe Biden yesterday, coming out with an executive order saying that he's going to now really work back on guns and that no constitutional amendment is even without limits or is , is unlimited. So he can come in and start limiting your , your rights that are dictated in the constitution. Your freedom of association, your freedom of expression, all limited. Many people can't even leave their homes in different parts of the world or this country can't even get together. We saw, we spent our whole year. This time. I'm seeing images of grandparents, seeing their grandkids after one year in isolation from each other in America in 2021. And you're going what The private sector is superseding and supplanting. The federal government, Google Amazon space, X and Tesla. Amazon is running CIA servers on their servers. Google controls basically all of the information on the planet at this point in time, NASA fell apart. Guess what replaced it space X did. Government's been screaming about climate change for decades ever since I was a kid who , who comes in and actually makes some progress on that. Tesla does, how do they do it? Invent a car. Invent the satellite system called Starlink solar panels, battery technology. They come in, they are able to solve what the federal government was unable to solve space X launching rockets up regularly. NASA fell apart, mostly a disaster because the federal government's not good at that stuff anymore. There is uncontrolled spending. There is printing of money happening regularly. We're now 21.8 28.1 trillion in debt, 3.2 trillion in deficits, raising taxes on everybody. Now not to mention the massive inflation that is projected to be coming forward. After all of this new money is just printed, printed, and printed and printed, that bill is going to come due. And if you want to talk about not only our internal problems domestically here in the United States, and that's about our finances, this is basically something that we see all over the world. At this point, nobody is outside of this. Every single country failed. There's not one country as a result of the COVID situation that came out and was like, dang, they really crushed it sort of equal levels of bad around the world. The United States included Historically the United States has been a global leader in the world. We've been leading on human rights. We've been leading on all sorts of innovations that increase the benefits that we as people experience on a regular basis. Not really doing that anymore. We have virtually zero global leadership have taken basically no action in Hong Kong, Hong Kong. We see the incursions by the Chinese, into that democratic state, that weekers not doing anything on it. All of our politicians are just kicking the can down the road, looking the other way, major fortune 500 CEO companies. Everybody's just turning a blind eye to them. What's going on over there? I predict we're probably going to see some incursions into Taiwan. That's going to be a complicated thing in the next four years, if not decade world health organization was a total joke during COVID. China has been largely unchecked mid Trump. Trump was doing what he could, but climate change. And we know that the Chinese are now building. I think I saw a headline, more coal power plants. Then you can even quantify. I mean, it's , it's such a big number. Meanwhile, here in Arizona or in the United States, we're talking about marginal

Speaker 7:

Improvements to climate emissions and things like that. We're killing ourselves over it. Meanwhile, they're exacerbating the problem to a degree that we can't even comprehend

Speaker 2:

Here. Massive

Speaker 7:

Catastrophic failures that government has failed repeatedly time and time again. And this was something that was happening anyways, right? We've been talking about a lot of this that there's just this slow degregate degradation of society that we're sort of witnessing in front of our eyes.

Speaker 2:

It's a little bit unnerving, right? Makes you feel kind of

Speaker 7:

Terrible. Like what can we do about this? If you recall on this channel, we've been talking about a digital bill of rights. We were seeing Trump get kicked off the internet. We're seeing other people get deep platform demonetize . We got the monetized , we got thrown off a discord. We have been censored as a result of just trying to engage in a very nice peaceful conversation, going through some facts, going through some analysis, doing some legal analysis, looking at law

Speaker 2:

Lawsuits too bad. You're cut off. They don't want you to park

Speaker 7:

Taking the same conversation that they can partake in. So we've been getting pretty tired of it and it gets a little bit frustrating. But as I said at the start of this segment, there is hope. And this is a good thing. It's better for us to recognize that maybe this old system isn't working out so well for us anymore. Maybe there's a different way to think about this. And I know when I first started thinking about this,

Speaker 2:

I was thinking,

Speaker 7:

I love America. I love this country. I love the freedoms and the foundation that it has laid out for me in my life. I love the concepts. I got a thrill out of reading and learning and in , and understanding how this country was formulated. And I have a special affection for it, and I'm not willing to just abandon the country,

Speaker 2:

But we can think about

Speaker 7:

Incorporating some of the best aspects of America into something new and better. And I want to flush out what that

Speaker 2:

It looks like, how to start a new country written by Balaji. Sreenivasan posted today, April 9th, it's an eight minute read, but we're going to take a little bit longer with it. He posted this

Speaker 7:

Over on his website, 1720 nine.com one seven two nine.com.

Speaker 2:

And he's asking

Speaker 7:

For a review of this article, which is going to start now how to start a new country. The network state is built cloud first land. Last, the network state is the concept of the new world that we're going to be building the new country

Speaker 2:

Built first in the cloud. It's built land last

Speaker 7:

Rather than starting with the physical territory. We begin with a digital community, Balaji biology, Sreenivasan angel investor co-founder of earn council teleport coin center, formerly the CTO of Coinbase GP at Andreessen Horowitz. I hear this Bitcoin thing might be kind of a big deal. So he's a crypto guy.

Speaker 2:

What much more than that? Extremely prolific massive

Speaker 7:

Thinker created a lot of big startup and he's working in this space and he's got some pretty brilliant ideas. Let's go through them. Why would you start a new country is where we start. We want to be able to peacefully start a new country for the same reason. We want a bare plot of earth, a blank sheet of paper, an empty text, buffer, a fresh startup or a clean slate because we want to build something new without historical constraint. Financial demand for a clean slate is clear. People buy millions of acres of vacant land

Speaker 2:

And incorporate hundreds

Speaker 7:

Of thousands of new companies each year spending billions, just to get that fresh start. And now that it is possible to start not just new companies, but also new communities and even new currencies. We see people flocking to create those as well. And so you look over here, key takeaways, national vacant land sales over the last 10 years, the national average price for land has tripled to 350,000 per transaction. And you'll see, as biology is writing, he's linking to different stories. And so we're going to clip some of

Speaker 2:

Those. As we go along talking about new

Speaker 7:

Currencies, we have Bitcoin market cap, 1 trillion, Ethereum, 239 billion market cap, Bitcoin,

Speaker 2:

It's going 68 billion massive amount of money

Speaker 7:

We're talking about in these new currencies. The societal value of a clean slate is also clear in the technology sector alone. The ability to form new companies has created literally trillions of dollars in wealth over the past few decades. Indeed, if we imagine a world where you couldn't just obtain a blank sheet of paper, but how do you erase an older one where you couldn't just acquire bare land, but it had a knock down a standing building where you couldn't just create a new company, but had to reform an existing firm. We imagine endless conflict over scarce resources because you have to fight over this stuff. So what if we were able to just start fresh? What w what if we were able to re envision

Speaker 2:

Free speech and taxation and criminal justice and all of the rights that we hold dear now in a new world

Speaker 7:

Format, in a new version for 2021, we can do it using this technology. His article continues, perhaps we don't have to think too hard to imagine this world. It resembles our own. In the distant past. People could only write on clay tablets. Like we see here in the recent past, they were executed for contemplating entrepreneurship. Like in 1978, there was a Chinese village that gathered in a mud hut to sign a secret contract, which started their entrepreneurial journey in the immediate present. They are arguing now over replacing an ancient gas station like in San Francisco. The future of San Francisco gas station is

Speaker 2:

Up for debate, kind of a silly

Speaker 7:

Thing to be debating right now in these times, and places making a fresh start was technologically infeasible , politically impossible, or even

Speaker 2:

Additionally, judicially punishable. You could not start new. And that

Speaker 7:

Where we are today with countries, with cities, with nations, with governments, and with much of the physical world, because the brand new is unthinkable. We fight over the old, but perhaps we can change that.

Speaker 2:

Maybe we don't need

Speaker 7:

To keep fighting over this stuff. Maybe we don't need to have battles over all of these little minutiae and details. Why don't we just create

Speaker 2:

A new world? His article continues.

Speaker 7:

So how do we do it? How do we start a new country? There are at least six ways to start. New countries that have been publicly discussed. Three are conventional, and three are unconventional. We will introduce them only to deprioritize them all in favor of a seventh. Number one way to start a new country

Speaker 2:

Through an election, just had one of those was a lot of fun.

Speaker 7:

Wasn't it? This is the most conventional way to start. A new country involves winning sufficient power in an election either to rewrite the laws of an existing state or to carve out a new one from scratch with the consent of the international community. Like this country right here called the Republican democratic , uh ,

Speaker 2:

Day tomorrow. This is the most widely discussed path. And by far

Speaker 7:

The most crowded, many people care about this Avenue, many, perhaps

Speaker 2:

Too many, the next

Speaker 7:

Way to start a country revolution. The second obvious way is to carry off the political revolution. We don't advise attempting this particularly momentous, momentous elections are sometimes referred to as revolutions though. A revolution frequently involves bloodshed. Revolutions are infrequent, but everyone knows what

Speaker 2:

They mean and that they mean a

Speaker 7:

New government. So like we see here in the French revolution, the storming of the Bastille in 14, July 17, 89, the third way to start a new country is war conventional wait is to win a war. We don't advise attempting this. Either a war is of course not independent from the other two, indeed, both elections and revolutions can. In fact, lead doors that end up carving out new policies , like a revolution, a war is infrequent and undesirable. But again, widely known means by which a national border may be rewritten. And so over here, we see world war II,

Speaker 2:

The biggest war. So those are three ,

Speaker 7:

Three ways that we can do it. Those are more conventional ways. What about the unconventional

Speaker 2:

Ways? Well, how about micro

Speaker 7:

Nations ? Now? We get to the unconventional, the most obvious of the unconventional approaches and the one most people think of when they hear a concept of starting a new country occurs when an eccentric plants, a flag on an oil platform or a disputed patch of dirt and declares them Kel selves King of nothing .

Speaker 2:

See, over here, we have the principality of SeaLand according to Wikipedia,

Speaker 7:

It's a micro nation, here's their flag, here's their coat of arms. And here's what they look like.

Speaker 2:

It's a chunk of concrete and metal in the middle of the ocean. If the issue with

Speaker 7:

Is that too many people care about them. The issue with these so-called micronations is that too few people care because the state like a currency is an inherently social affair. A few people in the middle of nowhere will not be able to organize a military or enforce laws, or be recognized by other nations because there's not enough people more over while an existing state may be content to let people harmlessly Lark or live action role-playing ,

Speaker 2:

Which we can see over here, right ? These are two people role-playing

Speaker 7:

Fighting using foam weapons to duel. We see this a lot on the internet. They can Lark a fake country in their backyard. An actual threat to sovereignty typically produces a response with real guns. So he's saying you can just go, you know ,

Speaker 2:

They believe that you're living in your own country, but if you really do, they're going to come at you with

Speaker 7:

Guns. Another way to start a country. Seasteading

Speaker 2:

Here. We start to get interesting conceived by Patri Friedman and backed by Peter Thiel. Big name

Speaker 7:

Seasteading essentially starts with the observation that cruise ships exist and asked whether we could have, we could move from a few weeks on the water at a time to a semipermanent habitation on international waters with frequent docking. Of course, as the cost of cruise ships has fallen recently, this approach is becoming more feasible, but we haven't seen a working example yet. And you can look down here. This is what it looks like. So they actually have

Speaker 2:

Some artists renderings, or I'm not sure if those are real or not, but they're ,

Speaker 7:

Uh , they're, you know, it's, it's , uh , it's a conversation that's happening

Speaker 2:

Next up. How can you start a country? Well, be like Elan , go up to space. Perhaps the most prestigious of the,

Speaker 7:

The new country pass is the idea of colonizing other planets, unlike seasteading or micro donations space, micro nations space exploration started at the government level and has been glamorized in many movies and TV shows. So it enjoys a higher degree of social acceptability . People mainly think of it as currently, technically infeasible rather than outright crazy. Elon

Speaker 2:

Is space

Speaker 7:

X, one entity, seriously contemplating the logistics of starting a new state on Mars. And so this was posted over on Reddit in the Starlink forum. Starlink is Elan's satellite program. So he's launching all of these sort of micro satellites up into orbit and creating this curtain, essentially this net almost of satellites that encompass the planet like a Dyson sphere,

Speaker 2:

And it's sending internet to everybody. So you don't know ,

Speaker 7:

I need to be tethered to your pseudo governmental corporation utility company that provides you internet. You can just go anywhere

Speaker 2:

World without a physical ethernet landline connection, get beamed internet from Starlink. So they posted on Reddit, a paragraph from the terms of service. If you want to use that internet, got to agree to the TV ,

Speaker 7:

Right? What does it say for services provided to on or in orbit around the planet earth or the moon, these terms, and any disputes between us

Speaker 2:

Arising out

Speaker 7:

Of a related to these terms, including disputes regarding

Speaker 2:

Our bit arbitrability will be yeah ,

Speaker 7:

Governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of California in the United States for services provided on Mars or in transit tomorrow via star ship or other colonization spacecraft. The parties recognize Mars as a free planet and that no earth based government has authority or sovereignty over marching activities.

Speaker 2:

Accordingly disputes, capital D will be

Speaker 7:

Settled through self-governing principles established in good faith at the time of Marsh and settlement. So we're not taking your

Speaker 2:

Constitution to Mars , okay. Says Ilan . So that's another way to do it. You can form a country that way hop on over at space X, the next rocket land on Mars form your own country or the seventh way. The way that biology is discussing and advocating is by creating

Speaker 7:

A cloud country. Cloud

Speaker 2:

Countries finally

Speaker 7:

Arrive at our preferred method. The cloud country, our idea is to proceed cloud first land last, rather than starting with the physical territory. We start with a digital community. We recruit online for a group of people, interested in founding a new virtual social network, a new city, and eventually a new country. We build the embryonic state as an source project. We organize our internal economy around remote work. We cultivate in person levels of civility. We simulate architecture in VR. We create art and literature that reflects our

Speaker 2:

Values over time.

Speaker 7:

We eventually crowdfund territory in the real world, but not necessarily contiguous territory because an underappreciated fact is that the internet allows us to network enclaves, put another way a cloud community need not acquire all its territory in one place. At one time, it can connect a thousand apartments, a hundred houses and a dozen cul-de-sacs in different cities, into a new fractal polity with its capital in the cloud over time. Community members migrate between these enclaves and crowdfund territory nearby with every individual dwelling or group house presenting an independent opportunity

Speaker 2:

For expansion.

Speaker 7:

This is an expletive diagram of territorial discontinuity , these enclaves, and exclaves, you can see how this is working.

Speaker 2:

You have A's

Speaker 7:

[inaudible] , you've got bees , you've got ease with some A's in the middle with another E

Speaker 2:

In the middle. And you're organizing remotely and digitally. We've described here thus far as much ,

Speaker 7:

The concept of ethnic diasporas, which are internationally dispersed , but connected by communication channels with each other. And the motherland. The twist is that our version is a reverse forum , a community that forms first on the internet builds culture online and only then comes together in person to build dwellings and structures. In a sense you can think of each physical outpost of this digital community as a cloud embassy, similar to the grassroots Bitcoin, and to see embassies that have arisen around the world, new recruits can come to either the virtual or physical environment, beta test, and decide to leave or

Speaker 2:

State. Now with all this talk

Speaker 7:

Of embassies and countries, one might contend that cloud countries like the after mentioned micronations, they're just alarm . They're just a live action role play. It's a bunch of internet geeks goofing around on the internet, thinking that they're part of a country. However, unlike micro donations, they are set up to be a scaled Lark , a feat of imagination practiced by large numbers of people at the same time. And the experience of cryptocurrencies over the last decade shows us just how powerful, such a shared Lark can be. Yeah, it's a Lark. Yeah. We're all going to be role-playing for a little while, but we're going to scale this puppy and we're going to scale it big. And that's going to give us some leverage to nugget

Speaker 2:

[inaudible] with different surrounding nation States to go create some deals, get some land set up, shop, run your own network, state

Speaker 7:

Minimum necessary innovation. Let's pause

Speaker 2:

And summarize for a second. The main,

Speaker 7:

The difference between the seventh method cloud countries and the previous six election revolution war micronations seasteading and space is that it straddles the boundary of practicality. And in practicality , no one can claim that it's infeasible to build million person online communities or billion dollar digital currencies, or that it's impossible to architect buildings in VR and then crowdfund them. The cloud country

Speaker 2:

Just requires a stacking together, many existing technologies, rather

Speaker 7:

Other than inventing new ones like Mars, capable rockets or permanent habitation sea steads yet at the same time, it avoids the obvious pathways of election revolution and war. All of which are ugly. And none of which provide much venue for individual

Speaker 2:

Initiative. We already

Speaker 7:

Know we can create bill and billion dollar currencies. We've got several of them. We already know that we can create million person online communities. We've got many of those. In other words, the cloud country concept takes the most robust existing tech stack. We have namely the suite of technologies built around the internet

Speaker 2:

And to route around political roadblocks, without waiting for future physical innovation. We take the suite of technologies. We've already built

Speaker 7:

Route around the political roadblocks without waiting for future physical

Speaker 2:

Innovation . So it's something that can start now. What counts as a new country. You might be asking yourself, how do we fix it ?

Speaker 7:

You're this out? How do we scale this up so that we can become a country? How do you define that? Having outlined these seven methods, the careful reader will notice that we played a bit fast and loose with the definition of what a new country is first. What do we mean by a new country? One definition is that starting a new country means settling a wholly new territory like colonizing Mars. Another definition is that simply changing the form of government actually changes the country like going from the second French Republic to the second

Speaker 2:

French empire, rather than using

Speaker 7:

This strict or loose definition, we're going to use both numerical and societal definitions of a new country. The numerical definition begins with visualizing a nation real estate pop.com site, similar to coin market market cap.com where the number of cloud country members, the acreage. So forget all of that, where the number of cloud country members, the acreage of real estate owned by those members and the on chain GDP. So the gross domestic product of this cloud of the transactions that are happening in this new network state, those are tracked in real time, eventually a cloud country of 5 million people worldwide that have thousands of square miles that are discontinuous community owned land in billions in annual income

Speaker 2:

Demands recognition of it does yeah ,

Speaker 7:

5 million people, thousands of square miles, community owned billions in annual income.

Speaker 2:

This intern

Speaker 7:

Leads us to the societal definition. A new country is a new member of the United nations. One that is internationally recognized by other countries as a legitimate policy capable of self-determination. This combination of absolute and relative metrics matches the emergence of cryptocurrency. Initially ignored than mocked as an obvious failure. Within five years after its invention, Bitcoin hit a billion dollar market capitalization, a numerical success subsequently listed on CNBC Bloomberg alongside blue-chip stops, blue chip stocks, a form of societal recognition at each step. Bitcoin could keep ascending numerically on its own with greater societal recognition following its wake by 2020, it had changed the trajectory of the people's bank of China, the IMF, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the world

Speaker 2:

Bank and others. I'm sure

Speaker 7:

Cryptocurrency was able to achieve these Heights because money has both technical and political aspects of the numbers could be piled up before these societal accolades followed. Once Bitcoin had proven that it couldn't be easily counterfeited or hack . The shared belief of the tens of millions of cryptocurrencies holders worldwide was enough to get Bitcoin from a market cap of zero to a market cap of 1 trillion from there to a listing on every Bloomberg

Speaker 2:

Terminal. You'll notice here,

Speaker 7:

Active crypto traders across the globe, June, 2019 15 million people in North America, 10 million

Speaker 2:

In Europe. And the numbers are just going to keep going up and up and up. So let's finish out this story and ask

Speaker 7:

Ourselves could a sufficiently robust cloud country would say one to 10 million committed digital citizens, provable, cryptocurrency reserves, and physical holdings all over the earth. Similarly achieved societal recognition from the UN a cloud country with a population of this size would actually fit right in there .

Speaker 2:

Middle of the pack globally as a

Speaker 7:

Out of the 193 UN recognized States. Approximately 20% of those existing countries have a population of less than 1000055% have a population of less than 10 million. This includes countries that people think of as real places like Luxembourg that has 615,000 Cyprus , 1.18 million Estonia, 1.3 in New Zealand, 4.7 Ireland, 4.8, Singapore, 5.8 and so on. So if you could get 10 million people together, you're bigger than all of those countries. These quote, user counts or citizens are surprisingly small numbers by tech standards, of course, mere quantity. Isn't everything. The strength of affiliation to our hypothetical cloud country matters as does the time spent on the property, the percentage of net worth stored in the currency and the fraction of it .

Speaker 2:

The contracts found in the community still.

Speaker 7:

Once we remember that Facebook has 3 billion users, Twitter has 300 million and many individual influencers have more than 1 million followers

Speaker 2:

Alone starts

Speaker 7:

To not be too crazy to imagine we can build a one to 10 million person social network with a genuine sense of national consciousness, an integrated cryptocurrency, and a plan to crowdfund , many pieces of territory

Speaker 2:

Around the world with the internet we can digitally. So these days ,

Speaker 7:

This joint enclaves together into a new kind of pot ,

Speaker 2:

A network state

Speaker 7:

Next step is to describe exactly how we might go about this. And so if you want to learn more about it, you should go sign up for biology's newsletter, go to one seven , two nine.com. And the way that this is working is he's releasing new stories that he's going to tell you what comes next. So you want to sign up for his email at one seven, two nine.com to get on that list because the next step is coming in his next post. So very, very interesting idea. I like it. And I'm excited to see where this goes and see how I can participate in it. And so if you like this idea, if you'd like even thinking about this, just to do a little bit of mental gymnasts ,

Speaker 2:

Six , well worth your time, biology's brilliant. A lot of great interviews with him on YouTube and well-worth a follow on Twitter. So let's take a [email protected]m Joe ,

Speaker 7:

No says, how about an IQ test requirement to serve for Congress?

Speaker 2:

Yeah. I don't know. I don't know, man. You know,

Speaker 7:

I'm not real sure if that's going to solve much of anything. I think all it's going to show us is that we have a bunch of morons who want to run for office, which we already know. We have, Oh, socks as Rob. I'm not in a conspiracy, but the rate speed, the current political party that's in power is trying to change everything in this country. One might start to think Trump is coming back way sooner than for four years. I can't think of another reason why maybe you might have a reason. Well, I think they just see this as an open opportunity, right? They have a unique situation right now where they have control of the white house. They have control of the house of representatives. They control the Senate. Technically they know that's probably going to change in about one year and six months. And so they're trying to Ram as much stuff through as they can while they can, because they know that time is running out. Next up, we got tremendous. As I think part of the problem is that politicians and media don't listen to people. For example, after the riot polls, after the riots poll showed something like 74% want the same amount of police or more and 80 or 90 something percent want to see their police reform. But the two sides continue to push for either defund the police or at the very least, all police are bad

Speaker 2:

Or all police are good. Polls have been

Speaker 7:

Taken about voting. Most people either want IDs or are okay with them. They don't care. Georgia law is racist. Yes . It's a good, it's a, it's a good point. Yeah. I mean the media just does whatever they want to do really. And so to the politicians, as we know, want to know says is this Rob's farewell speech. So, well, I hope not. I mean, I hope not. I am not , uh , uploading myself to the cloud yet. We'll see. Maybe that happens in the future, but now I am going to be here for the foreseeable future, but I am very interested in what Baal biology is doing. And , uh , yeah, maybe I'll go to biology land or cloud Landia, whatever happens in that new country. The tar bless ear says, and on top of it, we have 140 administrative state unelected officials begging for a new nine 11 commission because of the Capitol . As my gets my blood pressure up letter from a former national security, senior national security military elected officials calling on Congress to create a bipartisan one six commission. We are former senior blah , blah, blah, establish an independent investigate. The assault strengthen the resilience of our democratic institutions. Great urgency, immediate security failings. Got it. All right . So we know what that is. Nadar says, this is an amazing quote on the role of government from 1776 proclamation by the general court, 19, January 17, 76, a proclamation by the general court, the frailty of human nature, the wants of individuals and the numerous dangers, which surround them through the course of life, having all ages and in every country, impelled them to form societies and established governments as the happiness of the people alone is the sole end of government. So the consent of the people is the only foundation of it in reason morality and the natural fitness of things. And therefore every act of government, every exercise of sovereignty against, or without the consent of the people is injustice, user, patient, and

Speaker 10:

Tyranny.

Speaker 7:

I agree with that. That's what I'm talking about in our new country. We just go back to that standard, which is a much better standard than currently right now. I feel like a lot of people are living their lives with consent of the government. Government says, you can go outside. Now, everybody go ahead. We'll allow you to go outside, be good out there because if you're not, we're going to tell you to go back inside. Oh God, we get to go live our lives. Now none of them , that's not the default freedom is the default. The government has to operate on our approval on our authority, not the other way around and a long time ago, something flipped in this country or that dynamic changed . And that needs to be reversed. And the only way that can be reversed, I think at this point in time is option number seven, the network state, Jeremy Machida says people still have to exist in the physical world. No matter where we are, we still need physical infrastructure and follow local laws. Yes, that's true Jeremy. But here's the point when you create a

Speaker 6:

Cloud network, when you create a network state, here's what the end goal is. And I know this, this is sort of, let me, let me put it in terms that we understand Amazon huge company. What did they do when they were renegotiating their headquarter to , they asked States to basically bid, to invite them there. What can you give us in order for us to move our headquarters to your city and your state give us some tax cuts, give us whatever, right? They negotiated with the government. Why? Because the government was willing to acquiesce to them because Amazon has leveraged . They're going to move 25,000 people in there. You know what that's gonna do for your economy? You know what that's going to do for your unemployment levels. All of these people are gonna have to work in surrounding areas and it's going to be a boom for your city. So people were bending over backwards. Do you remember that? It was like a reality TV show, this, this, this city's in contention. Now this city is in contingent . Now they're going to give him this many millions in tax breaks and so on. And it turns out Amazon was scamming everybody. They knew where they were going. They wanted to go in New York and Washington and the financial capital and the political capital for good reason. But they've still made everybody negotiate over, having them show up. So when you get 10 million people who are a part of a community who are a part of a cloud States , part of the network, state of your choosing, you have some pretty good leverage on the order of Amazon, even more than that. And so if you have a group of people who are willing to be mobile, who are willing to just uproot themselves and say, you know what, I'm tired of paying these taxes here, tired of paying for, for this and this and this and this and this. I am going to go move with my network States in an organized fashion. We're going to negotiate with an actual nation state and say, we want a carve out. We're going to bring 10 million people over here in exchange for that. We don't want you to interfere with our operations at all. Maybe you get some there, right? Maybe you get some people who negotiate with you. All right, listen, we're going to let you operate within these confines, but not within these confines. And you negotiate a treaty just like you would anywhere else in the world, because you have bought property, right? You've you've accumulated property and you start moving those resources around. So you do have your own rules, you , but you have to have the ability to pick up and move and you have to be willing to do that. And there are a lot of people who would be willing to do that down the line, right? I'm not ready or in a position to do that now. But if it requires me to pick up and move, to find more freedom, willing to make that exchange. So this is a long-term play, but you build leverage. You negotiate with the originating nation state, create your own country based on leverage and the community. Pretty interesting. Joe Snow says I'm down to either just go vote or go to Mars, just vote or go to Mars either. Either one. If there's

Speaker 2:

A seat on the rocket, I'll take the rocket.

Speaker 7:

But if there's not, I'm just going to go down to my polling place. It's fair, Joe.

Speaker 2:

That's fair. Very reasonable. Also

Speaker 7:

Want to know, says what country in the world they're going to give you land. You're going to get crowded real quick. Living in space are , or Mars is a real global warming, but how do you keep current country one in, from not taking money for taxes? How does that work? So I kind of just explained that, but you, you, you build leverage and you go negotiate that out. So you get, you know , 5 million people and you say, Hey, we'll come, we'll move over there.

Speaker 2:

This is what we want. These

Speaker 7:

Are our extensions. Okay. We're going to , yes, we'll collect some taxes. We'll give you some of that at a much lower rates and you just work it out. Right? And the , the world is big enough.

Speaker 2:

You'll be able to find a pocket somewhere.

Speaker 7:

I mean, you have to move into the middle of somewhere, right. Someplace. That's totally unpopulated. You pick a plane in Africa. Everybody moves there .

Speaker 2:

All right , right. Gotta be willing to do that. And that now maybe one of the sacrifices. So

Speaker 7:

You're not going to get San Francisco to give their town to you,

Speaker 2:

But maybe you want other ones.

Speaker 7:

Fox says, I still love you guys. But again, the narco capitalism arc is so strict

Speaker 2:

Change and foreign to me. Well, that's good, mom . I'm glad you still love us now. Uh , you

Speaker 7:

Know, I'm not sure how much I'm going to be talking about these issues,

Speaker 2:

But you may hear about some more of this.

Speaker 7:

I think this is a very interesting concept. Something that's built on the back of blockchain. So if this just doesn't ring your bell, just pull the ejection

Speaker 2:

Cord, just

Speaker 7:

Bail out of there. But I think this is important because I think there are some pretty fundamental problems in our society that would be solved if we were able to at least start thinking in these ways, thinking about shedding, the old container that we were living in. Right? And so if you listened to biology in one of his interviews, he talks about the container . He doesn't talk about it in terms of containers. I think container is the word that I use , but he called he sort of walking us through the evolution of the state, whatever that is. And so if you go back towards, you know , the Greek and Roman days, what do we have? We have, we had a God state, right? We had people who are living under the thumb of gods . We had multiple gods. We had,

Speaker 2:

You know, big structure

Speaker 7:

Worshiping them. We had people who were operating and living their lives under that structure, that power structure, God, then that evolved. And we sort of developed nations.

Speaker 2:

Shouldn't States, Germany, England, United States, Mexico, Canada, China elsewhere. Now we're living

Speaker 7:

Under the pressure of the state, the physical

Speaker 2:

State, but these were mostly created at least here in the United States. In the 17 hundreds,

Speaker 7:

We were operating according to 1700 ideals and technologies. So the world is evolving a little bit. A lot of those principles

Speaker 2:

Are still part of natural life. They're immutable characteristics, fundamental principles that we think are so dear , that we can carry those

Speaker 7:

Over into the new state, the next version of what that is. So you go from a God state ,

Speaker 6:

Wait to a nation state to a network

Speaker 7:

State. And the container for

Speaker 6:

Societal improvement just changes

Speaker 7:

As we continue to evolve. And so, yes, you may be looking back at your old country or your old structure, your power polity and say, man, you know, I got a lot of reverence for that. That feels good. But maybe we start thinking about this as maybe that is just something that is no longer serving us as humanity. Like getting a haircut when your hair is on your head. It's very important. Anything happens to it. It's a big problem. As soon as you cut it off and it hits the ground, it's meaningless to you. It means nothing anymore. Something that at one instance was so important. So vital, as soon as it hits the ground, it's done. It's dead. It's no longer a part of you. And so ,

Speaker 6:

So yes, there are some amazing things about America that may be

Speaker 7:

Just incorporate into a parallel government for a period of time or a parallel community, a network States that you can

Speaker 6:

Grow into. And as one entity

Speaker 7:

Fades into the distance, into the bin of history, the other evolves and you join along with it. Patriot Musk says, this is the part where Rob rips his face off revealing. He is Elon Musk continue conditioning us to do his bidding. I know it's look, it's a different segment. It's Friday. I am really, really having a lot of fun with this idea and this concept. And I think it is just so interesting. So I'd encourage you to go check out Mr. Sreenivasan over at one seven, two nine.com. I am not Elon Musk. My , uh, my computing power in my brain is not

Speaker 6:

That we're talking like a Pentium four 86 relative to that .

Speaker 7:

Right. I can acknowledge that. I've got that. I've got that covered. All right. And so great questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. I want to thank you for indulging me in that segment. I thought it was fun . I hope you got some enjoyment out of it, or at least thinking about things a little bit differently because it's an interesting idea. So I want to thank everybody [email protected] for supporting the show before I do. However, I want to say a very special shout out to a viewer. Somebody who watches the show very regularly. I got a nice message over from , uh , Doug, who actually said that yesterday was your birthday. And so I'm wishing you a very, very happy birthday. Jackeline, happy birthday, love the RNR team. Of course, that is everybody here at my office and miss faith and ma Fox happy birthday, Jacquelyn . I understand that you are somebody who's traveling now with a group of friends. I think right now you've got Coleen Connie, Lisa , Kathy , you're all going down to a little bit of an event and I want to wish you guys a very safe and happy birthday, very safe trip. A lot of fun. Lot of enjoyment, Jackeline turned 70 yesterday. So happy birthday to Jack line.

Speaker 2:

One more time. Very good ,

Speaker 1:

Very appreciative of your support of the program. And we're glad that you are with us happy birthday. And so that is it for the show everybody, before we get out of here quick, thank you to all of our locals subscribers. We've got, Oh, socks saw him today. We got seawall . Who else do we have here? What's up my Fox. Hello? Faith,

Speaker 2:

Joy, big. Hello. Over to

Speaker 1:

Farmer's daughter. Number four, we've got Tawny 13 underscore shades. Think I saw him today. We got clocked doc in the house. We've got mad. Max, zero seven, fair dinkum Bama lick it . Kelly Stu Zuck . We also have a couple of people who signed up. We got the sun chaser and we have beyond basic, want to welcome you both to the community and the community's downright [email protected] big hello to Patriot Musk saw you Ian from Freddie Basti at barren sky, Mr . Zeus and Lanco , and many others who are supporting you

Speaker 2:

On our community. It's not a cloud community, but it is a community

Speaker 1:

[email protected] Find our group called watching the Watchers, support the show. If you want to do that, you can ask questions as we go throughout the show like we just did today, but you can also get a free copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning how to fight your case and succeed in the justice system. Also grab a copy of my PowerPoint. Slides, get a copy of my impeachment party documents. If you want to impeach anybody also, you can look at my existence system template. This thing is available for free for download a little personal productivity tool that I use on a daily basis. You can download that. Also share links and comment throughout the day and meet great people. There's a lot of them [email protected], put that in your browser and go and check us out. All right. And so before we wrap up one final reminder that I am a criminal defense lawyer here at the RNR law group, and we love to help good people who have been charged with crimes, find safety, clarity, and hope

Speaker 2:

In their cases, but beyond that

Speaker 1:

In their lives. 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 trusted us enough to send them our directions so that we can help. We help people with anything resulting from criminal charges, things like DUIs, drugs, domestic violence, minor felonies, major felonies, misdemeanor offenses, traffic offenses, driving on suspended, licenses, criminal, speeding, reckless driving, all that stuff. We can help with it. We also help people restore their rights. So if you want to clear up an old record and restore your right to vote, restore your right, to possess a firearm, get some of those fundamental rights back. We can help with that as well, as well as moving. We're moving mugshots off of the internet. So everything, anything in between, if you know a good person, somebody who needs a little bit of help navigating through the justice system will take very good care of them. We offer free case evaluations or located in Scottsdale, Arizona, and we love to help. So give us a call, appreciate your referrals. It really does mean the world to us. And so that's it for me, everybody. I want to thank you for tuning in been a long week. I hope that everybody gets some rest

Speaker 2:

Particular, Eric Nelson and the prosecutor,

Speaker 1:

Because they're going to be back next week and it's going to be another barn

Speaker 6:

Burner. So we're going to be back covering all of that. Make sure you subscribe. If you haven't already appreciate all the love, all the likes, everybody. Thank you so much for being here. Have a very wonderful night restful sleep unplugged from politics a little bit, and we'll see you right back here next week. Bye-bye wait, what time? 4:00 PM. Arizona time. 4:00 PM. Pacific time, 5:00 PM. Mountain time, 6:00 PM. Central time, 7:00 PM Eastern time. And now I'm out of here. Everybody have a great weekend. See you next week. Bye-bye.