Mohammad Anwar Plea Deal, Jones v Mississippi SCOTUS Opinion, USPS Spying On You, Rittenhouse Update

Prosecutors offer a plea deal to the two girls involved in the Mohammad Anwar murder. Supreme Court rules against juveniles facing criminal charges and Justice Thomas drops some spice. The United States Postal Service is spying you (just like every other government agency). Updates on Kyle Rittenhouse as former Virginia police officer Lieutenant William Kelly is fired for donating to his defense fund. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:

• Two minor girls charged in the killing of Mohammad Anwar receive a plea deal from Washington D.C. Prosecutors.
• Mohammad Anwar was killed in early April after an attempted carjacking after two young girls tased the UberEats driver.
• Prosecutors offer the girls a less serious charge to second-degree murder with a weapon charges instead of the original felony murder.
• Supreme Court issues new opinion in Jones v. Mississippi that rejects restrictions on juvenile criminal penalties.
• In a vote of 6-3, the Court ruled that courts do not need to find “incorrigibility” before sending a juvenile offender to life.
• Excerpts from the opinion, including Judges Kavanaugh, Sotomayor and Thomas.
• U.S. Postal Service is running secret spying program checking in on planned protests.
• Review of the intelligence summary and analysis from U.S. Postal Inspection Service.
• According to the summary, the USPS is corroborating spying data with Facebook and other services.
• Kyle Rittenhouse update as donation information leaks and people lose their jobs and privacy.
• Former Virginia police officers loses his job over the donations after Police Department fires him.
• Norfolk City Manager releases statements about the firing of Lieutenant William Kelly.
• Kyle Rittenhouse’s next court is scheduled for a final-pretrial conference on May 21st, 2021 at 10 a.m.
• Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!

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

NEW! EXISTENCE SYSTEMS ONLINE COURSE!
• www.existencesystems.com

Connect with us:
• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​
• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprou...​
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
• Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq​
• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrule...​
• Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/​
• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy
• Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
• Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

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

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

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

#WatchingtheWatchers​ #SCOTUS​ #Rittenhouse​ #SupremeCourt​ #SelfDefense​ #USPS​ #Spying​ #DomesticSpying

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Mueller. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our very system with a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got four stories we've got to get to. So we're going to go a little bit more quickly today than we normally do in our prior segments, because there's a lot to get to. We're going to talk about Muhammad Anwar, and you may not remember who this individual was, but cause we didn't talk about it. Actually on this channel, there was so much stuff going on with the Shovan case that we just didn't get to it. Hot Mohammad Anwar was an Uber eats driver who was killed after two young girls were, uh, sort of attempting to steal his car. There was a carjacking that took place. These young girls attempted to tase him and then the car got into an accident and Mr. Anwar was killed. And so now we have the situation where we have a 13 year old girl and a 15 year old girl who are facing essentially murder charges. They were facing felony murder charges. And now we know that there was a plea deal that just came out. So the Washington DC prosecutors, they came out and they gave them a plea deal. And so we want to break down what is going on there and do some analysis on that. Very interesting story. We've been talking a lot about young children right now in this sort of the, in the criminal justice system. We have Adam Toledo. We have Dante right now we have McCaya Bryant. And now we have, uh, these two young girls who were involved in Mohammad on worst case. So a lot and the Supreme court, which is something we're going to talk about in the next segment is now sort of weighing in on this because the Supreme court today issued a new opinion in the case of Jones versus Mississippi. And this was all surrounding an issue about whether or not the court can kind of hold juveniles for life. Really, whether there are any necessary restrictions on children that would allow them to get out of custody. So the real question is, can you sort of imprison juveniles for life and what are the legal requirements in order to do that? And so the Supreme court had an opinion out today. We've got some reaction, kind of a fiery opinion. Justice Thomas is in there dropping some bombs on, you know, women versus children and the court sort of classifies them in one category based upon what they want to achieve. We have Sotomayor who it has, you know, a little bit of a fireball in there. We have justice Kavanaugh who authored the opinion. This was a six to three ruling. So we got to go through it. Then we're going to talk about what's going on with the us postal service new news today that they are part of the spying operation. Every single government agency now feels like they've got their tentacles right into your little, a personal private area, right? No matter what you do, you're sort of being monitored by the government. Now the us postal service is apparently getting in on the fund. We've got a document from their intelligence sort of apparatus. It's called the us postal inspection service. And so they have this new document that they just released. We're going to go through that and see what they're trying to figure out. But of course, why wouldn't they right? Everybody else is why wouldn't the us postal service get in on it. Then we're due up for a Kyle Rittenhouse update. He's got court coming up on May 21st. So just under 30 days from today, that's going to be happening. It's going to be a final, a final pretrial conference that's taking place in may. It's kind of the last court date that happens before a trial, which is not scheduled until later in the year. But a lot of interesting things have been going on in this case. In particular, we want to talk about a Virginia police officer who was just fired relieved of duty for donating to Kyle Rittenhouse. What all right, so we're going to get into that and much more. We want you to be a part of the show. So if you want to ask a question, leave a comment or a LABA criticism, feel free to do that. But the place to do that is over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. It's a separate community. It's a separate platform where we will post a copy of the slides that I'm about to go through there for your convenient download as well as we're going to post a copy of my book, which is over there for a free PDF. If you want to join and support the show, you can do it@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com and you can ask questions. And so I'm going to get to those as we go throughout the different segments throughout the show today, there's also, if you go over there, there's a brand new course that I just unveiled. It's called the existence systems. Course. It looks like this. I want to show you how to build your own little personal productivity tool that looks just like this. And so I have a course that's available@existencesystems.com or you can go to my website, Robert ruler.com, scroll down to existence systems. If you want to check that course out, it's available there also a promo code over at our locals community. All right. So enough out of me about that let's get into the news. Mohammad Anwar is a case that we have not really followed on this channel, but it's time to take a look back and decide and take a look at what's going on here. Because now we know that the two under age girls who were involved in Mohammed on war's death are now getting a plea deal from the prosecutor's office out in Washington, DC. And we want to sort of decipher what is going on here. Now, high level overview on this Mohammed on war, as we mentioned at the start of the show was a gentlemen who was killed back in early April. He was an Uber eats driver and he was, uh, outworking and two young girls, 13 and 15, I believe were, uh, were sort of out, you know, doing what I guess, I guess they were doing right. They were, they were attempting to carjack this guy. So they had a taser. They went up to him and they got into an altercation car, sort of spun out of control. And Mohammed Anwar was killed in the accident. Two young girls of course survived. And so they got charged with murder crimes. And now, since this has been sort of working its way through the justice system, now they're getting a plea deal. And the reason why I wanted to talk about this story is it sort of segues into our next segment about the Supreme court, where the Supreme court is now saying, uh, you know, there are certain restrictions that we're just not going to consider as it relates to juvenile cases. In other words, you can have a juvenile essentially be held in custody for the rest of their life, more or less. There's some, some nuance in that, but it is, it is sort of a new development in terms of juvenile law. And we're seeing a lot of problems with, with juveniles and the criminal justice system. It's sort of a weird pattern that we've noticed on this channel and in the news over the last, I don't know, 10 days or so, it's been sort of interesting, right? We had Dante, right. I think he was 16, 17, very young who was shot by Kim Potter back in, uh, just outside of Minneapolis. Then we have, uh, McKayla Bryan or, uh, Ms. Bryant[inaudible] Bryant her, she died on, uh, uh, the, the conviction date for the Shovan trial and getting these all sort of out of whack. We had the, uh, Adam Toledo, right? That was the shooting that took place about two 30 in the morning. I think he was 13. He got shot and killed. And then we have these two young girls, you know, 13 and 15. And so we're starting to see a bit of a pattern here. It's young people who are getting involved with the justice system. And so the Supreme court is, uh, you know, they, they issued a new opinion, not necessarily in response to all of these recent developments, but something that certainly impacts juvenile law and children. And this is, you know, asking a lot of people have questions about this, right? We're starting to see sort of a different version of justice for different individuals. Kyle Rittenhouse is being charged with, uh, you know, several different murder charges and his trial is coming up. We've seen crystal Kaiser also be charged with murder charges. We've talked about that case. And now we've got, you know, these young girls who were being charged with crimes. And so it's, it's a, it's an interesting question. And I want to break it down and see if we can learn anything about it. So let's take a look at this story. Over from the independent, it says that the Uber eats driver was killed in a suspected car jacking. His two teenage girls were charged with murder father of three, working as an Uber eats driver has been killed. This happened back in early April Mohammed, Anwar, age 66 died on Tuesday, shocking footage of the incident shows Mr. Anwar attempting to recover his vehicle as a suspect, as a suspect, accelerates dragging him alongside crushing him against the fence. The car sped down as a street before flipping and objecting. Mr. Anwar into a nearby sidewalk. Footage shows a figure lying face down on the sidewalk, not moving. And there is body camera footage or not, not body camera footage, aftermath footage of this. People are recording everything. And you can see Mr. You just basically dead right there on the side of the road, really horrendous footage. And, uh, to go back into this, we said, Mr. Anwar died in the hospital following the incident after suffering numerous broken bones and severe head trauma. He making food deliveries at the time of the attack and footage captured by a bystander. Mr. Anwar can be seen standing next to the driver's door door, arguing with those inside the vehicle. Police later said, the suspects use the taser on Mr. Ann wore their thieves. He's heard saying, as he appears to try to regain control of the car, this is my car. Following the crash footage shows one of the carjackers climbing out of the overturned vehicle, right? And these are two young girls national guardsmen near the scene of the crash, detained the suspects before they could fully held them until the police arrived at the scene. Later, Metro PD said the suspected carjackers our 13 year old girl from Southeast DC and a 15 year old girl from Fort Washington, Maryland. Neither of the girls has been named because they are juveniles. Both teams, deans have been charged with felony murder and armed carjacking. They made their initial court appearance on Wednesday. A judge ruled that they were a threat to the community and posed a flight risk. So they were detained until their next court appearance on March 31st. And so we're going to go through, we now know that there is a plea deal so that, you know, this is sort of, uh, working its way through the legal system.

Speaker 2: 9:57

Clear is

Speaker 1: 9:59

Image. I'm not sure I want to play this here. Here's some things

Speaker 2: 10:07

These two girls, you know, hop in the car.

Speaker 3: 10:09

It has been viewed millions of times on Twitter alone. You see Mohammed Anwar next to his car. The teen girls are inside. He says, this is my car. And the driver hits the gas as Anwar clings to the door. And then

Speaker 2: 10:24

She's still in her car is still in the car. We called the cops call the cops

Speaker 3: 10:32

Horrifying sound of the crash. The man filming runs there. You see members of the national guard, helping the girls from the car. Anwar is alone on the sidewalk. After he was thrown from the vehicle. You can hear one of the girls saying my phone's in there as she tries to go back to the car, DC police tell us they are aware of this video.

Speaker 1: 10:54

Yeah. And so if you saw that on the side blurt out, there is Mohammad Anwar, right? He's just kind of dying on the side of the road. And the young girls are saying, Hey, my phone's still in there. I gotta get on my Tik TOK videos, you know, after they tried to tase the guy and he is dead there. So, uh, you know, national guard was kind of helping to try to pull stuff out, pull them out of the vehicle. Here are some other images that you can see, and this is another, another shot Mohammed Anwar now is up here, right? He's, he's sort of thrown from the vehicle. And these young girls don't even have driver's licenses, right? 15, 13 years old, they used the taser to try and get grabbed this guy. And, uh, they, you know, they sort of spin around the car. He gets thrown out, he's over here. And you know, in the, in the video, it's, it's a really gruesome scene. I mean, he's, he's in bad shape. Uh, this is another image. It looks like just sort of, of the aftermath. You can see how hard this hit, right? The vehicle crashed, knocked the pavement out and really sort of rammed into this vehicle, knocked all the bike racks off. So a very, very, very serious accident. And of course, Muhammad Anwar is over this direction dying. This is another scene here. Here is the, here is the man video shows a teenage girl attempting to run away as Anwar lie, motionless on the sidewalk after being ejected from the car, national guard, troops detained the suspects aged 13 and 15 until police arrived. So here is Muhammad Anwar. May he rest in peace? Right? Another tragedy, we have a very serious thing happening right now where we have young children who are, uh, doing stuff like this regularly more frequently, because we are seeing this as a pattern. And maybe it's just sort of a coincidence or maybe this is really indicative of a deeper problem. The reason why I typically look for patterns is because I think patterns are instructive and prosecutors do this as well. By the way, you know, prosecutors will say, if you are somebody who is, let's say facing sexual assault allegations, prosecutes one woman comes in and complains. This man did something bad. Well, if it's a one-to-one conversation and there's no real other evidence that that exists, it's kind of a, he said, she said thing, right? The woman says this happened. He says, no, it didn't. And if there's, if there's no other evidence or anything to corroborate that, Oh, it's kind of a tough case for the government to win. Truthfully, if that, if we see more people who are making the same types of complaints against one particular individual, then you start to see a pattern, right? So now if you say we have somebody who's is facing allegations and we have one victim and her story matches another victim. And they're, they're both of their stories match a third victim. And those three different things happen over, you know, let's say two years based on one particular person, the allegations are against that one person. And you can say, there's a pattern that's been happening over two years. And this one individual seems to have a pattern of conduct. And so you can sort of, uh, make a case in that regard right now the government says, well, we've got enough evidence. So we think that there is enough cause here to charge that person with a crime. And so it's just sort of an example that I use to flush out the importance of patterns. And we're seeing that right now. Right? And I just went through four of them that we've seen a lot of lately. And the question is, is what, you know, what is going on here? Why is this happening? And it seems to be, you know, very young kids, 13, 15, 16, and they're all getting involved in altercations with law enforcement. So it's a little bit troubling. We also know that a plea deal has now been issued. So this is a little bit of a background on that. A plea deal has been offered to two teen girls charged in the deadly carjacking of Uber eats driver. So news on your side has learned that a plea deal has been offered in a court appearance in Washington, DC on Tuesday. Prosecutors told the judge, they are negotiating a plea deal on a second degree murder with weapons charges. All right? So that, that is a less serious charge than the original felony murder. And so we've seen, remember we talked about this a lot in the Shovan case, felony murder is the idea that you commit a felony and somebody dies in the commission of that felony. The example I use very frequently on this channel is, is the bank robbery, right? If you have a getaway driver and three other people in the bank, robbery car, three people go into the bank, they start robbing the bank. You're just the getaway driver. You never even go inside, but one of those people kill somebody inside the bank and then they get back in their car and you drive away while the police capture you. If you are a driver of a vehicle, are you responsible for the death that happened inside the bank? Are you responsible for murdering that person, even though you didn't even step foot in the bank? Yeah. You are because it's called felony murder. You were involved in the commission of a felony and somebody died during the commission of that felony. You were robbing a bank, that's illegal, somebody died. You were part of that conspiracy. You were a part of that scheme. So you're going to get charged with felony murder. Same concept here. This girl was involved in, or both of these girls were involved in a car jacking car theft, right? Grand theft auto or whatever the statute defines it there. And they, somebody died. So they would be charged with felony murder. Now the plea deal is reducing it down from felony murder down to a second degree murder with weapons charges. And so I haven't pulled up the, the particular statutes because I didn't get a copy of the plea deal. I don't know that you know exactly what they're going to be trying to do here, but it sounds like, you know, it's sort of a lesser degree of culpability. It's sort of like what we saw in the Shovan case, right? With felony murder, a little bit more intention there, you know, you intended to do the carjacking and somebody died as a result of that. So we're going to charge you with murder because you did intend to do the underlying felony. In this case, it sounds like second degree murder may be more of the unintentional. You know, we were using a weapon. Somebody died in the commission of it, but it wasn't intentional sort of like what we saw was Shovan right. We saw the three different, uh, levels of culpability ranging from the most serious to the least serious. And so in this case, they went from a serious charge down to a less serious charge. And some people might be upset about that. They might say, well, these girls are getting off or whatever. You know, that same benefit of the doubt wouldn't be provided to a Rittenhouse or whatever. But it is something that is pretty common, right? This is part of the plea bargaining process. This is how this works. You charged somebody with a more serious crime. The plea deal that is offered is a less serious crime. They want to give you an incentive to take the plea deal. If they're going to say, Hey, just plead guilty to the original charge. Why would you ever take that? You would not, you would never do that. You could just go to trial and lose and probably get much the same deal that the government was going to be giving you. So if they're going to give you a benefit to incentivize you to take some sort of a deal, they got to give you a reason to do that. So they are dropping it down, which is not unexpected. Now we continue on says Metro PD detective said on March 23rd, the girl. So this actually happened in March. I thought it was early April. The girls assaulted 66 year old Mohammed, Anwar of Springfield, Virginia with a stun gun moments later, and war attempted to hold onto the Gar car. As the teens sped away, he was thrown. When the driver hit a curb and flipped the vehicle, police said Anwar had broken bones and head injury died a short time later, according to witnesses, after the crash, one of the teams complained her cell phone was inside the wrecked car. The two teams are pleading, not involve, which is similar to pleading, not guilty. Defense attorneys have also asked the judge to have the teens undergo mental evaluations, which probably a good call. And under the DC superior court rules, the 13 year old can not be tried in adult court. And the prosecutors have made no indication that they would move the 15 year old to adult court either. So we'll see where this, where this ends up. You know, this is something that I think is obviously a very serious crime and there are certain people in this country who say, well, that's it right? That's it. They get one shot. They killed somebody. And that's the end of the line for them. I am not that, that hard nosed. I would say. I think that, you know, I'm a criminal defense attorney. I've seen some very amazing rehabilitation stories. I've seen people who have been charged with heinous crimes, make incredible, uh, heroes out of themselves in their lives. And so, you know, when you're dealing with a 15 year old and a 13 year old, I know that there are people out there who are inclined to say, well, that's it right? They killed a man, throw away the keys, lock them up. These people are monsters. And there's no hope of rehabilitation here. I don't see it that way. Right. I think if anybody has an opportunity to learn from this or to beat rehabilitated, it is a 13 year old and a 15 year old. They're very young. They almost know nothing about the world. I mean, even until I don't tell, uh, I'm still working on myself, let's just leave it at that. Right. But you know, there's, there's a lot that you don't know when you're 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, even. Right? And so these are very young people who I think have some shot at rehabilitation. If we, as a society would think about that when we're going through this. And because they're in juvenile court, there is a little bit more of that, right? Prosecutors and judges, they are thinking naturally more in terms of rehabilitation and restoration rather than retribution and repercussions on the other end, once you hit 18, it suddenly becomes about, well, we don't care. You know, you're a lost cause at this point you're done. We're just going to convict you of a felony, remove all your rights and kind of puts you in that downward spiral puts you in all that you can never climb out of. And so in this case, right, these girls are young. I'm optimistic that maybe this can be a changing moment in their lives, maybe with their parents, maybe with their community, with maybe with their siblings so that this type of stuff just doesn't happen again. Let's take a quick look at some questions over from locals, locals.com and we're at watching the Watchers and you can also grab a promo code for existence systems by the way. So let's take a look. Yeah. What, uh, locals question. First one comes in from my Fox. My Fox says young people make dumb choices. I don't see anything here saying these girls intended to cause a murder. Putting them in prison for life seems beyond excessive and nothing but punitive. Not to mention my disdain for felony murder rules. Punitive justice helps no one. My Fox also DCS felony murder rule is considered first degree. Got it. All right. So thanks mom. Thanks for that. Look at that. We have, uh, we have, uh, we're learning. We're learning. Thank you ma. So I agree with you, right? And that's sort of my opinion on this, right? I say this frequently, but it's really hard to punish the pain out of people. Something's off with these girls. Something's off with their home life or their family life or their cultural upbringing, whatever, whatever you want to say. Right. But, but this is not a normal behavior for 13 and 15 year old girls to go and try to taste somebody and then steal their car. So, you know, something, something certainly I think can be corrected for these young women, but it is worth the effort, I think. Right. And I agree with you ma I don't think it makes sense to just throw away the key, lock them up forever. We've got Liberty or death. Have you ever been offered a plea deal for your client? And you just laugh because you thought that da was being silly and offering something more than you thought you could get at trial. So if, uh, you know, if we're getting a plea deal that is beneficial, then I'm happy about it. I'm not, you know, I've got a nice poker face, right? We're not going out there saying, Holy crap, are you serious? You're going to give us this deal. Thank you, Mr. Prosecutor, because then you don't want that scratching their heads and going, what did I just do there? You know, having a second look at the case. If, if have, if you have a smoking deal and typically it's kind of best policy not to ask a bunch of questions, just go, and you I'm going to enter that and move on. But I think the converse of this Liberty is a little bit different. Actually. I've had a lot of prosecutors give us plea deals that they thought were gifts. You know that they, here you go, this is great. You know, we're going to, I'm going to send this over to you. Uh it's great deal. Why don't you just review it with your clients, sign it back over to us. They send it over to us. It's like the same penalty that they would get if they, if we went to trial and lost, you know? So they sound like they're very, they're being very magnanimous. They're being very generous. Oh yeah. He was just smoking plea deal. Here you go. This will be great. Your client will love it. We look at it. It's like six months jail. You're going well, that's not a good deal. It's a terrible deal. Right. We could get that. If we went to trial and lost every single charge, why would we ever take your crap deal? But they, some of them will think, well, you know what? We're going to ask for the max, we're going to ask for the worst. And I know this judge. So if you, if you don't take my very generous deal, it's going to get worse for you. And they sort of use that. Like they're playing poker, you know, like they're trying to, uh, sort of bluff you out of the game and you just go that's, that's a, that's a stupid, that's a stupid plea deal. Got to take that. Are you serious right now? Do you, are you okay? Obviously, we're going to reject that. Thanks for offering it. But that's a horrible offer and we're not going to take that. We're going to set the case for trial. We'll see you in 30 days. Okay. We have CP Miller. Vidoc beat WV says, do we know the race of the girls? Well, yeah, they were. African-American not that, that matters. Of course, shouldn't their parents be charged. And if white, are we going to get riots due to white privilege also? Oh, they were African-American girls. You know, that is part of the story. And you probably could have seen some of that in the video. Should their parents be charged? You know, there's, some people are making that argument. I have seen that, that, you know, there should be some extended liability to the parents. I'm not so sure about that. Right. I think that there is, um, a great danger in sort of, uh, attributing criminality to other people who don't commit the crime. I really don't like that. I think it's sort of an overreach on the law. Parents didn't do anything. Right. You know, they arguably maybe could have been better parents or prevented their child or children from getting access to a taser and you can make those arguments, but I'm not so sure that it is, uh, pertinent to then charge those people with crimes. I think that these are young girls who just need, you know, who need some very strong guidance, definitely an element of punishment, right? They can't be thinking like this is something that you can just scoff at and look the other way at. But I don't think, I don't think that we're there. And so I just wanted to sort of, you know, touch this. I think that this is, is probably moving in the right direction and frame that out a little bit. Liberty says, so there I was last day of civil procedure, number two final exams next week, our professor is a constitutional scholar in quotes. And one of the[inaudible] gunners asked if she thought that Shovan had a cause for appeal based off Maxine's comments. She said no way, because the video was enough evidence. Okay. So, so that's not accurate then, uh, that was the first time a cop was convicted, but there was no reasonable doubt. Then she said she had not seen a trial. And just the headlines, I think that is irresponsible in law school. What do you think? I think it's grossly irresponsible and I think it's actually probably intentionally misleading a little bit. Like why would you say something like that if you didn't even watch it and you're also in civil procedure, you're not in criminal law, so I'm not sure if you're constitutional scholar, civil procedure professor has much criminal law experience or, you know, appeals court, appellate experience or whatever. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But, uh, yeah. You know, it's, it's not even a good legal answer, unfortunately. So I have a, I have a problem with the content of the answer, but it's not even a good legal answer. Like I think the opinion's bad, but it's also legally bad, I guess is what I mean. So, uh, I think it's terrible. I think it's a terrible answer and good luck in your Civ pro class Liberty. And hopefully you're learning out from other resources and not that professor, uh, we've got, Oh, SOC 71 says, Hey, Rob, big fan, great job with the show. Hey, Oh, sock, I'm a big fan of you, my friend. So a no contest plea versus a guilty plea. Is there no difference or is something that is better to do if you have a choice? Seems like there's no difference why even have it. Yeah. It, it really is no difference. You know, some people think about it, uh, in terms of sort of, uh, a moral victory, you know? Well, I'm not going to say that I was guilty, that I'm not going to challenge it either. Right. And so that, it's sort of an escape hatch for that. Now, practically speaking, at least here in Arizona, if you enter a plea of no contest, practically, that's a plea of guilty. You're still going to have the same penalties. You're still gonna go to jail, still have points on your license, still, uh, you know, get a prison sentence or whatever. It's just a no contest. And so, you know, there are certain situations where we will we'll have a client, right. That, that just just says, I, you know, I do, I can not plead guilty to this. Actually my business partner had a situation like this where, um, he refused to sign the plea deal also. And then there was sort of this big show, um, and it turned into this no contest type of a thing because we just, it's an escape hatch. It's used very rarely. I don't want to get into the whole nuts and bolts of what actually happened there. Now that I think about it, but it is, it is practically the same thing. And so it's, it makes some people feel good because they don't have to go in there and say, yes, your honor, I'm guilty. The problem with, with having to plead guilty is you have to say it, okay. They don't, if you want to take a plea deal, it's different than a trial. We all saw what happened in the Shovan trial, right? He didn't, he didn't agree to anything. They found him guilty, but if you want to plead guilty, then you have to say, I'm guilty and you have to actually go through a little bit of a soliloquy. The judge will go through, what's called a factual basis and he'll say, Hey, all right, is it true on, or about March 25th of 2020, that you were there, uh, in uniform and you had your knee on the back of George Floyd's neck and George Floyd succumb to his injuries and you caused George Floyd's death and you run through all the elements. Right. And go through all of the elements and you as the defendant, Derek Shovan, if he wanted to plead guilty would have had to say, uh, is that correct? Yes. Okay. Based on that, how do you plead to the charge of murder guilty? All right. And nobody Thomas, you threaten you any of that stuff. There's a whole procedure that you go through. And so you still have to do that if it is a no contest plea and the practical, practical effects of that are of course, that you get the same penalties either way. We have my Fox says, I like how we don't consider kids mentally capable of making choices for themselves, but when it's a crime committed, lock them up for life. Hey ma you know, who makes that point? Judge Thomas in the next clip, he basically says, listen, if we're talking about, you know, children, then the court will characterize them as children for certain situations. But if we're talking about, let's say abortion rights, suddenly women suddenly the children are now women, right? We talk about 16 year olds and the right for a woman to choose what to do with her body. And so Thomas actually says this, you know, in some situations the court calls them women. And in other kid situations, they call them children. And it's the same age. So what's going on here. And I think Molly Fox has sort of a, you know, talking about it kind of weird standards when it comes to kids, sort of characterize them and categorize them based on whatever's expedient for you flag drop NJ. Last one on this segment says, Robert, should the girls be remanded to custody with understanding every day to be a shining example to other kids in similar situations also are the parents liable for civil penalties from Mohammed's family for ineligible death, especially if they plead guilty. So, you know, I don't, I, I, I can't answer that to be honest. So I don't do civil law almost at all. I mean, I really kind of detest that area of law. I really like to focus on criminal law. So I think if I, if I had to harken back, I go back to law school and I remember reading some cases at some point in time in civil law, where there was there, there are abilities to make claims against parents for your negligent children. But I don't know if that was, you know, if that's antiquated or if there's any basis or any new claims for that. But certainly if you're Mohammed's family, you know, you want to take a look at that. Now the next question is, do they have any assets? Do they have anything that is worth recovering against? You know, is there any sort of deep pockets that would provide them some financial resources, obviously Mohammed Amara was working, right? He may have people to, to provide for and expenses to pay. And so what is his family going to do now that he's not out there? He was literally working. He was delivering food that day, and now he's not gonna be able to do that. So something worth exploring, but I just don't have the technical answers about that. And I apologize, that's for a civil lawyer, maybe go talk to uncivil. Maybe he'll be able to answer that we have he, but he needs to be civil, not uncivil, gotta be civil, love you and civil. All right. So next up, we're going to change gears. Thank you for those questions. Everybody. Those came over from watching watchers.locals.com. If you want to support the show, that's the place to do it. And you can also download a copy of these slides, download a free copy of my book and get a copy of the brand new existence systems program. There's a coupon code over there. If you want to buy this course, it's at existence systems.com and we're going to change gears and talk about the next story. Supreme court today came out with a new opinion in the case of Mississippi vs Jones, or actually reversed that Jones vs Mississippi. It was a six to three decision. And what does it do? It rejects restrictions on life without parole for juveniles. What does that mean? Well, there were restrictions on this. In other words, you could not keep juveniles in custody for life without parole, because there were restrictions on that. Well, the Supreme court today said, no, we don't, you don't need those restrictions. Yeah. If you want to keep a kid in custody for the rest of their lives, no problem at all. You have our total endorsement, six judges. So that's no, no problem. Yeah, you can. You're free to do that. So let's take a look at what's going on here. This article comes over from NPR, us Supreme court in a six to three vote, Roald ruled Thursday. That was today. Actually that a judge need not make a finding of permanent incorrigibility before sentencing a juvenile offender to life without parole. So previously there was this concept that in order to do that, right, the question here is, can you sentence a juvenile offender to life? And can you do it without parole? So you lock them up, throw away the keys. This is somebody who's under 18. They commit a crime, just like the 13, 15 year old girl we were talking about. Can they be locked up for life without parole? Supreme court says, yes, they can. In fact, at the center of the case was this guy named Brett Jones. He was 15. When he stabbed his grandfather to death during an argument about his girlfriend, he was convicted of murder. Judge sentenced him to life without parole at age 15 can not get out of custody. And so the question is, did they need to find this concept of permanent incorrigibility? Like, is this person permanently this way in order previously, in order to hold a juvenile in custody for that long, they had to have that finding it's a legal concept is a legal finding. So this case is now saying, do we really have to find that or not Supreme court said, no, you don't have to find that over the past two decades, the law on juvenile sentencing has changed significantly Supreme court prime by research that shows that the brains of juveniles are not fully developed and that they are likely to lack impulse control. They have issued a half dozen opinions holding the juveniles are less culpable than adults for their acts. And the court is also ruled that some of the harshest punishments for acts committed by children are unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment, right under the eighth amendment because they're kids, their brains aren't even fully developed yet. After striking down the death penalty for juvenile offenders, the court in a series of decisions, limited life without parole, to the rarest cases, those juvenile offenders convicted of murder, who are so incorrigible, that there is no hope for their rehabilitation. So that was after striking down the death penalty. But all of those decisions were issued when the makeup of the court was quite different than it is. Now. This was, this case was the first time the court has heard arguments in a juvenile sentencing case with the three Trump appointees on the bench, including Amy Coney Barrett who replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg previously Anthony Kennedy, who retired in 2018 repeatedly was the deciding vote in cases involving life sentences and other harsh punishments for juvenile offenders. And Anthony Kennedy was sort of the middle of the road. Judge. I think he was appointed by Reagan if I remember, right? And he sort of sort of straddled the middle. You have, you know, he had, uh, conservatives on the right liberals on the left. Traditionally Kennedy was supposed to be more of a conservative and he ended up being sort of the moderate middle of the road. Guy retired in 2018. Judge appointed another judge to replace him. He was replaced by Kavanaugh who actually authored this opinion today. And Ginsburg was replaced by Barrett. So the court in this case indicated it is far less inclined to go the extra mile to protect juvenile offenders from the harsh or harshest of punishments. So this is why the Supreme court's important. Mississippi is one of only a half dozen States that do not require an explicit finding of permanent incorrigibility prior to sentencing life, without parole. So elsewhere around the country, they got to find that permanent incorrigibility, right? You got to make a determination that this juvenile is bomb beyond hope. We've done our analysis. This person cannot be saved or rehabilitated. We are finding that there's permanent. And corrigibility therefore that allows us to sentence this juvenile tilt to, to cut to prison without parole, even though 15 years old, 16 years old, doesn't matter. Mississippi says, listen, you don't even need to find that you don't have to find that permanent finding if you want to sentence them to life in prison. You're welcome to do that. Joan's case involved, how to apply prior Supreme court rulings close to a decade after Jones was sentenced to life without parole Supreme court ruled that those like Jones who committed crimes when they were minors, could not automatically be sentenced to life terms. Jones had been one of those who would receive such, such an automatic life sentence without parole, Mississippi Supreme court ordered him to be re-sentenced. Judge did that considering Jones youth at the time of the crime, but again, sentenced him to life without parole. So the judge went through, did re-sentencing analyzed a bunch of different factors. So yeah, you know, one thing is a one mitigating factor here is yeah, he is actually pretty young. So we'll reconsider this, but life still is appropriate. Anyways, judge did not make any finding that Jones was so incorrigible that he had no hope of rehabilitation. So he didn't, he didn't make that specific explicit finding Mississippi now is a hand is among a handful of States that allow that Jones, his lawyer appealed all the way to the Supreme court. Contending that consideration of a defendant's youth is not enough. And that Jones now in his thirties should have at least a chance at parole because he has shown that he is capable of rehabilitation. He has earned a high school degree while behind bars, and he's been a model prisoner during argument last November Jones, his lawyer, Northwestern university law professor David Shapiro told the court that quote Mississippi's courts have denied the incorrigibility rule itself. The state continues that denial in this court by insisting that weighing the defendant's youth against his crime was enough. But at the time, Mississippi, deputy solicitor, general Chrissy, no bile countered that in re-sentencing Jones. The state considered the mitigating circumstances of Jones' youth and its attendant characteristics before exercising its discretion to impose a life sentence. She argued that that is all the U S Supreme court has required in a withering dissent on Thursday justice, Sonia Sotomayor use language from justice Cavanaugh's past opinions to write that the court's decision was quote, an abrupt break from precedent. She said the court was attempting to quote circumvent legal precedent and is fooling no one. So let's take a quick look at this opinion, very long opinion about not that long, actually 51 pages. I think we've got some clips, some highlights that we pulled from Twitter and the blogosphere we've got Skoda's blog saying we got a highlight here. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the opinion, the opinion. So this is a 63 opinion justice Thomas wrote separately, concurring in the judgment. Let's take a look at what's going on as this case, again, demonstrates according to Kavanaugh, any homicide, particularly a homicide committed by an individual under age 18 is a horrific tragedy for all those affected in determining the proper sentence in such cases raises profound questions of morality and social policy States, not the federal courts make those broad judgments. In the first instance, when enacting their own laws, state sentencing judges, and juries then determine the proper sentence and individual cases in light of the facts and circumstances and the background of the offender under our precedents. This court's more limited role is to safeguard the limits imposed by the eighth amendment under the cruel and unusual doctrine. The court's precedent required a discretionary sentencing procedure in a case of this kind re-sentencing and Jones case complied with those precedents, because the sentence was not mandatory. And the trial Drudge had discretion to impose a lesser punishment in light of his youth. So you see what he's doing here. He's basically saying that there is a, there is a prohibition against making it mandatory. So because this judge had the option of actually imposing a lesser sentence, he had the ability to do that. He has some, some leniency here, so it's not mandatory. So the judge is basically saying that's okay, moreover, this case does not properly present. And thus, we do not consider at any as applied eighth amendment claim of disproportionality regarding Jones's case. So, uh, kind of a broad little opinion there, take a look at what else he says, this is also from the, the, Oh no, this is from Sonia. Sotomayor says how long, how low this court's respect for starry decisis has, has sunk starry decisis is this concept that you're sort of building off of prior cases. And so, you know, you follow your precedent. If 30 years ago, the Supreme court said something, you're gonna follow that, right? You're you're or you're going to try to, because they are basing their opinion off of prior precedent they're and the law is evolving in iterations. You don't want it to be like our Congress, right? Where you get a new group of people in and they just change everything. Willy nilly there's there's logic and reason, and precedent in law for a reason is because it's all sort of emanating out of one original source document, which is here in the United States is our constitution. So everything has to sort of build on that. And so, so to my, or says, Hey, we have starry decisis. We have other cases that say, we're supposed to handle this crap differently. And you're not following that. Not happy about it. She goes on and says, not long ago, that doctrine was recognized as a pillar of the rule of law, critical to keep the scale of justice even, and steady, not liable to waiver with every new judge's opinion. And who said that judge Kavanaugh, given these weighty interests, the court usually required that a party asking for overruling or at least obtain briefing on the overruling question and then carefully evaluated the traditional starry decisis factors. Now it seems the court is willing to overrule precedent without even acknowledging it is doing so much less providing any special justification. It is hard to see how that approach is founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals. Guess who wrote that judge Kavanaugh? So you see,

Speaker 4: 39:52

So to my, or did she went back through the opinion author, his prior cases and said, that's what you're saying here. It doesn't match with what you said over there. So what the heck are you doing?

Speaker 1: 40:06

And then we have a dissenting, you know, we have a concurring opinion from judge Thomas. And what's interesting about this little segment here is he writes a concurring opinion. Judge Thomas has been a little bit more vocal lately. And so this is part of his, uh, his concurring opinion. So a concurring opinion means that you just agree with the majority opinion, but you want to go out there and explain why, because it's a little bit different than what the majority says. So here at six to three, so Thomas is a part of the majority he's agreeing with the other six, but just for a little bit of a different reason, and we're not going to, that's not that important because this is all, uh, sort of technical stuff. But what is important is this little footnote you're going to notice here. It says section two. So he was footnoting a different portion here when he was re he he's, uh, referencing a, another us Supreme court case five 77, us at two Oh nine, two 11. Here's what he says about that. The court's language in this line of precedents is notable when addressing juvenile murderers, the court has stated quote that

Speaker 4: 41:09

Children are different.

Speaker 1: 41:11

Okay? And I'm underlining and emphasizing children. When the courts talking about juvenile murderers, they call them children. They say, specifically children are different. And that courts must consider quote, a child

Speaker 4: 41:21

Built lesser culpability. And yet when assessing the court created right manufac

Speaker 1: 41:28

Third, right of an individual of the same age to seek an abortion members of this court take pains to emphasize

Speaker 4: 41:37

A young woman's right to choose. So if

Speaker 1: 41:40

It's a juvenile murderer, they are children.

Speaker 4: 41:43

But if it's somebody who is eating

Speaker 1: 41:45

Exact same age, seeking an abortion, well, now we call them

Speaker 4: 41:49

Young women and a young

Speaker 1: 41:51

Woman's right to choose. And then this judge Thomas goes on sites, the cases Lambert versus Wicklund. We've got judge Stevens, joining Ginsburg and Briar planned Parenthood versus Casey huge case. That's an abortion case, Ohio versus Akron, another abortion case. He says, it is curious how the courts view of maturity of minors

Speaker 4: 42:10

Ebbs and flows

Speaker 1: 42:11

Depending on the issue. Oh yeah. That's good stuff. It is curious how the courts view of the maturity of minors

Speaker 4: 42:18

Ebbs and flows, depending

Speaker 1: 42:20

On the issue. Whatever's politically expedient. They use that characterization. So just judge Thomas is rightfully calling them out. We have Jeremy that says life has become too depressing. It's I shouldn't be laughing at that. It's tough to look forward to the future when everything in our country is so depressing. Well, Jeremy, listen, I know it probably feels like that, but remember what we do on this channel and what we do in our lives, when we're talking about political things and our government and our society and our infrastructure, that's not all of life. That is not the real world in which we live. When we watch this stuff on NBA and you know, on the news, NBC, MSNBC, Fox, whatever you watch,

Speaker 4: 43:01

That's kind of a show,

Speaker 1: 43:02

Right? It it's, it's reality it's happening out there. But you have to remember that most of the stuff that we're seeing, everybody who's producing, this content has a vested interest in making you angry, making you feel depressed. Is this sort of the intention of this? If you feel depressed, Jeremy, congratulations, because you're supposed to, because that is exactly what the news and media industry do on a daily basis. Because if you're depressed, then you're in a state of agitation. And if you're in a state of agitation, then you're going to try to solve that. What are you going to do while you're probably going to buy more stuff or you're going to feel afraid and nervous. And what do you do when you're in that situation? What do you do when you feel depressed? You go, and you try to solve that problem by finding more information, by turning on the news, by gobbling up more information and trying to solve this, this pit of a feeling that exists in your soul. And so it is something that I think is organized. It's orchestrated every time you get angry or depressed, you sort of get this, this physiological response

Speaker 4: 43:55

In your body and you sort

Speaker 1: 43:58

Of train yourself to get more of that. It's sort of this classical conditioning like Pavlov's dogs, right? Every time the bell rings, the dog starts salivating, same concept here in the media. And with a lot of the stuff, a lot of the garbage that we see happening in our worlds around us. But remember, that's just kind of out there in the, in the ether it's in the world. And what is really important in our lives are our families. It's our health, it's our wellbeing. It's the people we love. It's the people who love us. And it's about the, the mission that we live and our passion for creating and being of service in the world. That's really what is, that's what this is all about when we get in here and talk about these girls or, uh, you know, the Supreme court or any of these other things. Yes. It's all important. Yes. It is critical to moving America forward and to creating a better society for all of us and our children and our children's children, but it is tangential. And I know it's, sometimes it's hard to see that dividing line. Sometimes it's hard to separate the two because it feels like it's. So in our face, every time every screen you turn on everywhere, every waking moment of the day has some bad news somewhere. It's just beating your head, it, beating it in your head. And, you know, we, as people we've been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years, and we've really been connected to the rest of the world for the last 20, 30 years, maybe. I mean, to the, to the degree that we're at now, I mean, are we meant as human beings to be plugged in to 5 billion people and to get news every single day on every single topic that is not relevant to us whatsoever. Okay. What happens in Columbus, Ohio really doesn't affect me at all, truly, or in Minneapolis or in DC. Most things don't impact me, but I internalize them. I take them so personally and I cover them and I, and I get agitated and riled up about it. But, you know, what's really most important. My mom, my business partners, my business relationship, my team here, the people that we help on a regular basis, miss faith ma you, right? This community, the things that we're doing, those are the things that matter when we're talking about, you know, what a bunch of people in, in, in black robes do on a particular case. Yeah. That's important. It's going to trickle down. It's my business. It's very important, but am I going to let that deviate me from my course or my mission? Or am I going to allow them to succeed in making me feel depressed and like a garbage human being? No. So we got to draw that line and reject that, come on here and connect with each other and think about these things with a little bit less personal investments. The analogy that I use when people ask me about this, because listen, this is not something that I just woke up to and was able to implement in my life. Like I had this mental epiphany where I could say, you know, I can separate myself from my work or, or these issues, right? Whether it's criminal law, whether I have to sort of pull myself out from a relationship because it's going sour, or I'm having a problem with a judge or a prosecutor screams at me, or whatever happens, right? You have to sort of be able to disconnect yourself from the personal investment that, that ultimately is sort of the product of your life, right? You're creating something, you're providing a service or creating a, uh, you know, a product that you're selling. And it is kind of imperative to disassociate yourself from that less, you become too emotionally invested in that and that anything that happens to that now you're going to connect to your personal wellbeing. And if anything happens, it's going to throw you off course. So the analogy that I use, that's sort of a long explanation here, but it's going from playing in the game to commenting on the game. So like a football game, right? At one point in my life, I was on the field. I was there. I was throwing the ball, catching the ball. I was running into people. I was bumping into people. I was getting hurt. I was feeling physically drained. I'm not, I didn't, I didn't play football professionally. I played for, I think one year in high school, that's it? Uh, obviously didn't play professionally or even, uh, I'm five foot eight. So no, I did not play professionally. But my point here is that I was on the field. I was engaged in it. I was in the battle and slowly I've been pulling myself out of it. So now I can sort of analogize myself to like unannounced or somebody who's commenting about this stuff. And somebody who's analyzing it and learning from it. There's a lot of lessons in what we're seeing that we can implement in our own lives. And that's really where the value comes in. But when we start connecting ourselves, you know, when we start self-identifying with Derek, Shovan, you know, that's, that's not a healthy thing to do. And there's nothing, you know, there's, there's, there's no real reason to do that. Right? It's Derek showman's life. It's their Chauvin's problem. And it's, it's his situation that he's got to deal with. Now we can comment on it. And we can say that we didn't really like how society dealt with this. And maybe there's some serious room for improvement and we can all aspire to that and work towards that. But with the understanding that these issues can not overly consume our minds, they can not take us over because there's a tendency to do that. And this happens all the time, right? Remember when Trump was in office, everybody was calling this Trump derangement syndrome, right? You do not want you to become that person who wakes up every moment of every day and is letting external people, external news sources, companies, individuals, ideas, concepts, take control over your life. That's what happens to people and they wake up. And every single thing that, that, I mean, I, I don't know if you remember these people, but back during the election, there, there are many of them in my life where I'd say, how's your morning going? And they'd say, well, you know what Donald Trump said today, I don't care what he said. Why do you care what he said? It's irrelevant. Are you going to have a good day or a bad day today? Based on what Donald Trump said, are you out of your freaking mind? That's insane, right? Live your life. And if people now start allowing some of the most contemptuous people in our society to commandeer your brain with this constant beating of bad news and this constant drivel, that you're a bad person, unless you do whatever the government tells you to do. It's exhausting. I know that because I live it regularly and I've been living it for a long time with many of you questioning everything that the government's been doing for the last 18 months or so, but we gotta be vigilant, draw that line and make sure that you hold it because this stuff can, can be very sneaky and start like a snowball compounding as it rolls down the Hill. And you want to make sure that you're out of the way as it rolls. We've got my Fox in the house. As I guess we're allowing kids to drink now, get tattoos drive because it would be horrendously hypocritical to think they're not allowed to do these things due to their limited mental capacity, but consider them competent enough and autonomous enough to make other poor, poor life choices in order to be sentenced for life. Sorry, this makes me pretty fiery. Yeah, me too. Their mom, me too. I think we're doing a pretty big disservice to our youth these days. And I don't even have kids. Right. But what I see and with other people that do have kids, I I've got some concern for, for our youth. It doesn't look good. Right? And they're not in schools. We're seeing a lot of long-term effects. Long-term consequences. I think from this weird era in our lives makes me fiery too. Mom. I'm with you. We got, Oh, socks says Rob, when I was in school for CJ, let's be a criminal justice. We had an ex judge who was old school, talked about how rules have changed and would not be a lawyer. Again, no skills are required to be a lawyer. The judge was talking about discovery. He compared it to playing cards with both sides. See each other's hands. So Rob, do you like the new school or would you and, Oh, gee, if you had a choice. So I am absolutely new new school. No question about it. No question at all. Uh, I have a lot of tremendous respect for a lot of the old timers, a lot of the old GS, uh, I, I really respect them. I rely on them a lot, a lot for, for their wisdom and their guidance. I have, I mean, I have, uh, I don't think I have any right now, but I've got books like this thick from all of these guys, right? They're the ones who wrote the books. Cause they've been doing it for 35 years. Obviously. I have not. But I, I recognize, I think that the legal world is evolving in a way that many of these OGs are just not interested in being a part of, for some reason and that's to their detriment, right? I've had many conversations with some of the OGs, Hey, you got to get on YouTube, man. We need you to lead a cause we need you to lead a movement. We need you to stand up and do something strong here because what you're doing in the courtroom is great, but we want to bring in the community. We want to bring in society. I talk about this in my book, right? There are a lot of great lawyers out there who are excellent practitioners. They're very good in court. They're, they're amazing. And I sort of go through this pyramid chart where I talk about the non practitioners and the practitioners, and then I call them, uh, I got it. I got to, I can't remember, but at the very top are the influencers, right? You have the mentors and you have certain groups of people that are sort of working their way up the hierarchy. But for some reason, many lawyers would just sort of hit this peak where they say, I'm really passionate about the constitution and about criminal law, but I'm just going to kind of stop working or I'm going to stop caring about it. Once I have enough financial security or whatever, I don't want to do that. Right. I want to see catastrophic, not catastrophic, but massive. Let's say consequential is the word I'm thinking of. It's the seaward very important change in our justice system in a way that is meaningful. And the only way that I know how to do that is by building a bad-ass legal team that goes in court every day, boots on the ground and does it, and then doing what we're doing here, building a community, creating awareness, talking about some of the most important concepts that I think have been ignored and thrown to the wayside over my life. And so in my, in my career now I'm at that point where I'm able to utilize some of what we have built over the years to take a stand, to come out and stand for something. And that's what we're doing on this channel. And I wish more of the OGs would do that. I want more competition. I scream at attorneys. You need to get out there and start speaking your mind. Jeremy Machida says, I always appreciate your opinions. I'm not saying your show is depressing. I always appreciate participating in your community. Keep up the great work. Oh no, I, I know you do Jeremy. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to go off on that to rant at you in particular, but you know, it's just something that I'm feeling because I think that, uh, I think that you're right. It is depressing. It is depressing man. And I, you know, I, I know it as well as anybody, right? I go through this stuff, uh, in depth to make sure that I'm properly prepared for this show. And when I settle on, you know, four stories that we're going to cover today, that means I read about 40 of them just to say, no, that's not good. This is good. Not good. This is good. And so I see it. I mean, I, I, I see it. I'm, I'm knee deep in it and I know it's depressing and that's why I make such a good, strong point to sort of disassociate myself from some of it. You'll notice I get kind of quiet on the weekends, right? It's cause I'm trying to unplug. I'm being very intentional about it. I wrote here in my existence system document, specifically focused rest. So on my, on my form, you can see right here, it says, what, what is good? What brings energy to you? And you see right there, it says focused rest, productive work and focused rest. That means if I'm going to be working real hard in here on whatever I'm doing, when I'm, when I'm not working, it's focused, I'm resting so exist in systems, by the way, is available for you to purchase over it. Robert mueller.com. Thanks for the plug. Jeremy Liberty or death says reading an opinion by Thomas is like listening to Morgan Freeman, explain the plot or narrate a movie. Awesome. Yeah, Tom Thomas is great. I love Thomas and he's and he just calls it like he sees it, man. I really appreciate that. Angie woe says, do you think the Supreme court justices ruled that way to swing the pendulum back towards the center? My only concern is that this will be additional fuel for the dams to pack the court. I think it's a very astute observation there.[inaudible] I'm a little bit surprised by this ruling. If I can be candid about this. I think that the Supreme court largely, uh, is effectively neutered while this threat of court packing hangs over their head, which is probably a big reason why they're doing this right. It's why Obama, I'm sorry. Biden put together a commission who is now going to be investigating this, whether they want to pack the court or not. It's just kind of, it's kind of just this threat. We're just going to let this float over you Supreme court. So don't get too crazy out there. Otherwise we may actually do this. And so I've been sort of postulating that the Supreme court is not going to do anything of consequence over the next two years. If we get to the midterms and the, the balance of power changes, or we get to a position where, um, it's no longer practically possible to pack the Supreme court, right, right now it's technically, technically not possible because of the filibuster and because they just don't have the votes, but I've been seeing a lot of talk about basically breaking the filibuster in order to, to cram through a legal change for the size of the court, just so that they can enact the rest of their agenda, pack the court while they can. So as soon as that, that dynamic changes a little bit. Maybe we'll see more activity from the court, but I was going to cover this on the Tuesday when the Shovan verdict came, uh, Monday, I think when the Shovan verdict came out, but they rejected a bunch of important cases. They're not going to hear them. They're not gonna hear an election case. There's one other, uh, a gun case about felons. They're not going to hear it. So, you know, the Supreme court is supposed to be giving us guidance on a lot of these very important legal issues that exist in our country. That's why they exist. We have three branches of government. They're one of them kind of important that they do their job and answer some questions for us. And some of the most important issues in my mind are going to be kicked down the curb for another day. We have Joe's note. It says the penalty that good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Yeah. It's a big penalty, very big price that comes from Plato. Thank you for that, Joe Snow, the penalty, the good men pay for indifference. The public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Yeah. There's a danger to speaking out, right? If you stand up and voice your opinion,

Speaker 4: 56:55

It's dangerous, but there are consequences. If you don't, that are even more dangerous. If you live a life, not speaking, it's a big,

Speaker 1: 57:03

If you want to learn more about that, check out Jordan Peterson, who is a big proponent of that concept and has been inspirational in my life. So that is it for that segment. Thank you for tuning in on those let's change gears yet. Again, the us postal service is FBI. SCIA is Mark Zuckerberg is everybody is so why not the us postal service? They come to your house anyways, why can't they just get a little bit more insight information about you? Right. This is a story that was posted over on Yahoo news says that the postal service is running a covert operations program, monitors American's social media. So we've got the actual inspection service report that gives us a little bit of a breakdown on what the us postal service is doing. A lot of people had questions about the postal service given, uh, the last little, you know, 2020 November thing that was going on. Uh, you know, they're just like the other agencies that exist in our country. They're also doing the same things. So this story says that the law enforcement arm of the postal service has been quietly running a program that tracks and collects Americans, social media posts. What, why is the us postal service, which just delivers packages and little fun gift bags through the U S mail. What do they care about your social media posts that doesn't make any sense, including those about planned protest, according to a document obtained by Yahoo news, the details of the surveillance effort known as ICOP, which has a really clever, brilliant Bravo internet covert operations program is what that's titled has not been previously made public though. Work involves having analysts trawl through social media sites to look for what the document describes as inflammatory postings, and then sharing that information across government agencies. So the us postal service is doing this analyst with the U S and United States postal inspection service, U U S PIs. So the us postal service that's great internet covert operations program, monitored significant activity regarding planned protests occurring internationally and domestically on March 20th. It says the March 16th government bulletin marked as law enforcement sensitive and distributed through the department of Homeland security's fusion centers, quote, locations and times have been identified for these protests, which are being distributed across multiple social media platforms to include right-wing parlor and telegram accounts. A number of groups were expected to gather in cities around the globe on March 20th, as part of a worldwide rally for freedom and democracy to protest everything from lockdown measures. Oh no, you can't be protesting that to 5g parlor had users have commented about their intent to use the rallies, to engage in violence. As this article, article image three on the right is a screenshot from parlor indicating two users discussing events as an opportunity to fight and do serious damage. No intelligence is available to suggest the legitimacy of these threats says the document. So this is what we're looking at here. This is what Yahoo got a hold of. And this looks like an official government document, right? Posted here on March 16th. Bulletin includes screenshots and posts about the protests from Facebook parlor telegram and other social media sites. Individuals mentioned by name include one alleged proud boy, several others whose identifying details were included, but whose post did not appear to contain anything. Threatening ICOP analysts are currently monitoring the social media channels for any potential threats stemming from this as scheduled protests and we'll disseminate intelligence as needed. So this is from the cyber crime and analytics law enforcement sensitivity, a sensitive situational awareness bulletin. And you can see here on March 20th, apparently there was an international day of protest, which I don't remember hearing anything about analysts from the U S organization, monitored significant activity regarding these protests location and times have changed. You can see here, this was a post looks like global action to stop 5g. So that was posted on Facebook. We have another one here, worldwide demonstration, March 20th. So for some reason, the us postal service is checking this stuff out. I cop analysts, they're monitoring these. They're going to pass them around. They identified the website, which is down here worldwide demonstration. You can see that they identified the Facebook group and they're, they're keeping tabs on it. To date. There are 15,492 followers. They it's, this began trending across parlor with the hashtag. We will all be there. Twitter users are also promoting the event, going to Magna first.org analysts also identified a video created to advertise the event called auntie tyranny protest March 20th. At this time, there is no reliable information to suggest how many individuals have viewed the postings or what else is going on. Pretty interesting that they're focused on certain platforms, parlor telegram, certain organizations, Magna first.org stopped the steel. Hmm. It's interesting. Very curious. Analysts identified another protest title global action to stop. 5g group has over 20,000 followers and then they're identifying other inflammatory online postings. Several parlor accounts have posted inflammatory or violent messages surrounding these protests member of the proud boys known as noble beard made a comment saying that they're going to, uh, engage in violence in blah-blah-blah. No intelligence is available to suggest the legitimacy of these threats. No, of course not. No, of course not. So since there is no intelligence available, what is, what did you guys just do there? You just went, you had some like intern, just clip a bunch of crap off the internet and write a bulletin about it. No, no actual intelligence, just some screenshots gate. You're going to cram into a document and call this a security bulletin. Got it. All right. That's good. So what do you want us to do with this? So you spread this around to everybody and we're supposed to go check out their Facebook page or go join them. Or what if you, okay. Uh, government's monitoring of American social media is the subject of ongoing debate when contacted by Yahoo news, civil liberties experts expressed alarm at the post surveillance program. University of Chicago law, professor Geoffrey stone, whom Obama appointed to the NSA said, it's a mystery. I don't understand why the government will go to the postal service for examining the internet security issues. Yeah, it's a good question. Postal service has had a turbulent year facing financial insolvency, insolvency postmaster, general Louis DeJoy joy to joy who was appointed by Trump was slowing down deliveries as the pandemic started. Member of that whole debacle seems a little bizarre, said Rachel Levinson, Waldmann, deputy director of Brennan center's justice for Liberty based on very minimal information that's available online. It appears that I cop has meant to root out misuse of the postal system by online actors, which, uh, doesn't seem to encompass what's going on here. It's not clear why their mandate would include monitoring social media. It's unrelated to the postal system. She also questioned the legal authority of the postal service to monitor social media activity. If the individuals they're monitoring or carrying out planned activity, that should be the purview of the FBI. Well, the FBI doesn't do much of anything anymore. As we all know, the us postal inspection service is the primary law enforcement, crime prevention and security arm of the postal service. And it's supposed to the ICOP program is supposed to assess threats to employees and its infrastructure by monitoring publicly available open-source information collaborates with other agencies. Yeah. So it's just to protect their employees. All right. So that, thank you. Thank you. Postal service. We have Todd trout says, do you really think the us postal service actually able to collect social media posts? They can't even deliver my packages correctly. It's a good point. It's a fair point. That's go, go. What? You're going to monitor things. Okay. That's great. Where are you going to store this stuff? You can't even deliver a package. It's funny, Todd. We have, Oh, socks says Rob. So if police can come in and grab your guns, would you be responsible if your gun safe had anti-personnel safeguards in place? If police do not want to get warrant, why should you have to tell them this is inside the home and not outside where there could be more issues. So I think, you know, uh, I think that that would be illegal still. There's a concept that I recall back from law school called a spring traps. If I can recall this correctly, but ESE idea. I think the case involved, somebody who set a gun to go off, if somebody came through the door, inside the home, right? So the, the idea is that you've got a gun that sort of wrapped around a wire. It's propped up. If somebody opens the door, boom gun goes off, kills the intruder. Is that allowed? Yes or no? What do you think? Can you put a gun behind a door so that if somebody opens the door and the gun goes off and shoots them, it's a burglar. They were breaking into your home. Can you do that? Generally? The answer is no, you can't do that. You can't just shoot people who are breaking into your house, unless there's a threat to your personal safety. You see that's where the distinguishment comes in. There's a, there's a line there. If you're going to shoot and kill somebody just to protect property, not allowed to do that. We value life more than we value property. So in that hypothetical, what really had happened, I think in that case was this wasn't a residential home. This was a home that somebody sort of had set up and, uh, it was a second home. People kept breaking in there. It was in a very highly trafficked, I think area out in the wilderness, a lot of campers came by just kind of poked in there. So he set up some guns. Somebody went in and got shot, sued him. And I think that they want, right, because the concept here is you can't kill somebody or, or almost kill somebody to protect property. You can to protect your life or the life of somebody in your home, but just for property. So in your hypothetical there, Oh, sock, just to sort of protect your guns. No, that would not be allowed. You can't, you can't set up dangerous traps that will kill somebody to protect property. Uh, generally speaking, of course, there are a lot of, um, you know, if you go into area 51 government shoots you, that's a, that's a, that's a separate concept, right? Those things are different. Joe Snow says, I understand the CIA uses the post office to pay assets. Yeah. It's probably a nice little area. You can just kind of throw this stuff. If you're going to use the, the department of Homeland security to go out there and attack the libertarians or the people on telegram or the people on parlor, we're going to, people are going to notice that. But if it's just the postal service, nobody expects that want to know, says how much did this USBs investigation costs the taxpayers.

Speaker 5: 1:07:07

Okay. Does anybody care about that anymore? Is that like a thing?

Speaker 1: 1:07:10

Well, even care honestly about, about that. Cause we're spending money. Like it doesn't even matter. Like money's going out of style. We got let's take another question here. Ms. Faith is adding it. Lastly, we got leafy bug. We got the leafy bug in the house. Leafy bug. That was from Shrek. I'm pretty sure I'm bet. I bet the farm that no one asked the USBs to do this. No doubt. Some middle management bureaucrat is building their little empire sole thing to me of the security guard. You always wanted to be a cop, but couldn't pass the psych test acting as though they are a cop that's. Yeah. I mean, I can't argue with that leafy bug probably. Right. Everybody wanted to be a part of this anti insurrection thing. They're all going to save America by taking down those evil mega maniacs and I don't buy it. All right. And those questions came over from locals.com. We have a watching the Watchers community over there where you can ask questions, support the show. You can also get a new promo code for my existence systems program. So you can build this little personal productivity tool. Check that out@robertruler.com, scroll down, click existence systems. If you to try out that course, it's a lot of fun, 32 videos over two hours of content. And it's something I use every day. So check that out.

Speaker 4: 1:08:22

And we got one more segment we got to get to today. We're talking about a story we haven't covered in a long time.

Speaker 1: 1:08:30

Kyle Rittenhouse is back in the news. We've got some, uh, updates on this case and we want to start off by talking about this data breach that happened. So if you recall, Kyle Rittenhouse, young man who was in Kenosha, Wisconsin about a year ago during some protests. And in my opinion, he was under attack by the people who were protesting, right. This guy, Kyle Rittenhouse. And he was 17 at the time. And he had an AR 15 or a, a semi-automatic rifle. It was out there. He was protecting businesses from the protest. If you remember, we had the summer of unrest last year, uh, back in may, June, 2020, a lot of commotion buildings were being torched all over the country. So Kyle Rittenhouse was out there, uh, you know, arguably protecting businesses, trying to sort of be a counter-protest to make sure that certain businesses there did not get torched. And an altercation happened. He gets chased down by a couple of different people, fires his gun in response. My opinion, clearly self-defense no question about it ends up getting charged with a bunch of crimes, right? This happened, we've been covering the story for a year. Many of you may have found our channel because of the coverage that we did on that case. I was so, uh, so in favor of making sure that he, this, this young man gets a fair shake because the media and the rest of the politicians around the country just sort of wanted to make sure that he got buried. And that is not how I saw this whole situation unfolding. We did a frame by frame where we actually analyzed the gunshots and the whole thing. So

Speaker 4: 1:09:50

We've been covering this for a long time. Anyways,

Speaker 1: 1:09:53

People have been supporting this kid. He had a$2 million bond that was, uh, what was paid. A lot of people have been fundraising, fundraisers had been canceled and, uh, there's been a change of attorneys. The, uh, esteemable Robert Barnes is now helping and sort of in the court of public opinion. I mean, this case has been in the national spotlight for a very long time. As a lot of people have been levying their support to get behind Kyle Rittenhouse and the second amendment and the ability to protect your private property and protect your life. And all of these concepts are sort of bubbling up into this

Speaker 4: 1:10:24

Case. And unfortunately, there was a big data breach that happened very recently, uh,

Speaker 1: 1:10:30

On April 16th. And there's been some fallout and some consequences from that. So I want to break this down and go through it. This story comes over from the guardian.com. They're the people that originally discussed this data breach. There was a Christian crowdfunding website called give send, go revealed that serving police officers and public officials have donated money to fundraisers

Speaker 4: 1:10:52

For accused vigilantes.

Speaker 1: 1:10:55

This is what they're saying. In many cases, the donations were attached to their official email address. So w what's happening, police officers and other public officials are donating to Kyle Rittenhouse. They're donated to the give send,

Speaker 4: 1:11:06

Goes website. The

Speaker 1: 1:11:07

Breach shared with journalists by a transparency group called distributed denial of secrets, reveal the details of some donors who had previously attempted to conceal their identities using the anonymity feature. So they hacked into give San go, got a bunch of people's identity. Some of those people happen to be serving police officers, even if they use the anonymity feature, they're still gonna get popped in this data breach. So I'd like to first question is, has anybody investigated distributed denial of secrets, right? Is the FBI on this? Like, are they okay that there is just breaches of data? There are hacks that are literally stealing data from companies to other companies. I don't know if they're on that or not. Maybe this article will tell us the beneficiaries of donations from public officials include Kyle Rittenhouse, who stands accused of murdering two left-wing protesters in Kenosha. Last August, Rittenhouse traveled from Illinois to, uh, on his own account to offer armed protection to businesses during protest over the shooting of Jacob Blake, which we covered here as well. Rittenhouse who became a cause celeb across the conservative media throughout 2020 was even supported by Donald Trump. He held a fundraiser on Gibson, go, uh, build as a contribution to his legal defense. He raised over$580,000 between August and January of this year, among those who donated were associated with several email addresses, traceable to police and other public officials. One donation for$25 was made on September 3rd of last year. It was made anonymously but associated with Sergeant William Kelly, who currently serves as the executive officer of internal affairs in the Norfolk police department in Virginia. The donation also carried a comment reading, God bless, thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You've done nothing wrong. Comment. Continued every rank and file police officers support you. Don't be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership. All that is a spicy meatball right there. Don't be discouraged by the actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership. Oh, that feels good. Do you feel that it feels good? That's good stuff. Another Rittenhouse donor using an official email address was Craig shepherd whose public records show is a paramedic in Utah. He gave$10 to Rittenhouse. Yeah, this was that, that this was that guy that, that scumbag local, uh, reporter went to his house and knocked on his door. Donations also came to Rittenhouse associated with official email addresses for Keith Silver's city of Huntsville, Alabama employee. Now they're a hundred dollars from somebody from the Livermore national laboratory, which maintains the U S weapons, stockpile. Meanwhile, several Wisconsin police officers also donated a fundraiser to support Rustin Shefsky, which was held for a Kenosha police department, officer who shooting of a black man, Jacob Blake led to protest to$20 donations to the fund. We're also a so-so, they're just basically doxing all these people, right? And we're not going to go through everybody here. 32 more donations, totaling$5,000 came from other people. Let's see what else. The guardian has more anonymous. Donations came in another$100 associated with somebody else. And they're$400 associate with someone else Anderson's book called the Bible. Right? So, so they're just, uh, the guardian now is actually out doxing a bunch of people. So that's great. So there there's everybody who possibly donated to Rittenhouse is now going to be made publicly available and scolded. So we saw that the person who donated$10, who was a paramedic back, I think that was in Utah. Uh, some loser reporters showed up at his house and it was knocking on his door. Hey, you know, you're donating to a murderer. Uh, you're a paramedic here. You're not a public figure. These are private donations. I have no business being here, but I'm a piece of garbage news reporter and I've got a political statement to make. So I'm just going to show up on your house and docs you on public. Then that guy who is such a little coward, if I can be candid about this, got off of the internet. So he actually said, Oh gosh, you know, my reporting has gotten such negative feedback and criticism that I actually have to get off the internet. So he's, he goes and does something. And then he turns around and plays the victim. When everybody says, you're, you're a garbage human, why would you do that? Then he gets off the unit. And you know, these people out there are so mean to me, that poor me. I have to get off the internet. All right. So that's that guy. Then we have a cop gets fired over this. So somebody donates some money to, to a Kyle Rittenhouse and then they, he gets fired for it. So[inaudible] fired by the police department. Okay. Not some woke mob organization. The Virginia police department fires a cop over a donation to Kyle Rittenhouse is legal fund. Tuesday, Virginia city fired a police Lieutenant. After a data breach at a crowdfunding site, revealed a Lieutenant had contributed to the legal fund of Rittenhouse cop. Like a few other police officers had mistakenly used his official email address to make the donation. He also posted a comment supporting Rittenhouse chip filer, city manager, out of Norfolk, Virginia fired Lieutenant William Kelly upon the recommendation of the Norfolk police, chief Larry D boon for making a political donation, right? Let's take a look at what this, what this department has to say. We'll be curious here. City manager takes administrative action against a Norfolk police officer. So this was posted on April 20th, two days ago by the city of Norfolk over in Virginia city manager, chip filer has accepted the recommendation of the police, chief, Larry D boon and Lieutenant William Kelly has been relieved of duty. Ridiculous. I have reviewed the results of the internal investigation involving Lieutenant William Kelly, chief Larry Boone. And I have concluded lieutenant's actions are in violation of the city and departmental policies, his egregious comments, a road, the trust between the police department and those they are sworn to serve. We have a standard behavior for all employees. We will hold staff accountable. He was initially placed on administrative duty. After reports were made that he donated and express support of written houses actions who is charged with multiple felonies, including homicide. The police chief said, I want the residents of Norfolk to know that their police department will represent an, a poll or organizational values of service honor, integrity, quality leadership, and diversity.

Speaker 4: 1:17:11

It's too many, six, six orders.

Speaker 1: 1:17:14

Let's do many. A police department cannot do its job. When the public loses trust with those whose duty is to serve and protect them. We do not want perceptions of any individual officer to undermine the relations between ourselves and the community. I asked the community to support the officers as in the past, knowing that right now we're continuing to serve and protect them. He has the legal right to

Speaker 4: 1:17:33

Appeal the decision, and

Speaker 1: 1:17:36

He's got a grievance procedure and whatever. So my gosh, two questions on this. Number one, are they going to go through and fire? Any officer who donated the BLM truly right? Or they are, are all political donations off for this. Cause if, if it is that's, that's, that's a standard, right? I be curious to know if they are going to inquire about any other political donations. Is it only the people who donated or written

Speaker 4: 1:18:00

The house or is it all donations in general? Is there any other precedent?

Speaker 1: 1:18:04

Have they fired any other people from this department for other

Speaker 4: 1:18:07

Political donations or is it only one type of political donation? If it is

Speaker 1: 1:18:12

All of them, then okay, then they're just holding the standard, right? You can't donate. If we find out you donate, you get fired. If that's the policy, that's, that's a policy and you can't really argue with that, but I'd be curious if it is a little bit more focused. That's number one, is it a political firing based on the type of donation, based on the subject of the donation, number one, number two, they move pretty quickly on this. Okay. It sounds like pretty quickly on April 16th, he was praised placed on leave. Then on April 20th, he was fired. So the next question is how can they move

Speaker 4: 1:18:42

Quickly? This police department on this issue when please

Speaker 1: 1:18:48

The departments traditionally on other issues move pretty slowly. Now I can't speak to Norfolk in particular, but they move quick on this right. Police departments generally are pretty slow. Oh, w w we're still investigating this and this is under investigation. Our officer didn't do anything wrong. What's going on in LA. They move quick here for days. I wonder the next time that there is a complaint against an officer. If they're going to move this quickly, or the next time an officer does something inappropriate, like actually inappropriate, not in anonymous political donation, whether or not they will act with the same level of expediency

Speaker 4: 1:19:21

That they have.

Speaker 1: 1:19:21

Obviously they're very unhappy that somebody donated a written house. I wonder if they would move as quickly. If somebody donated to BLM or somebody did something that was egregious egregiously, bad conduct, but Rittenhouse it's like the it's like, Oh my gosh, the ultimate mortal sin. So worst thing you can do in this country is donate to Rittenhouse. You're gonna lose your job

Speaker 4: 1:19:39

Lieutenant fired. Okay. So we have

Speaker 1: 1:19:44

New court dates coming up. Kyle Rittenhouse, his case is scheduled for a final pretrial conference, which is a very, very basic court date. Uh, typically nothing happens, Oh, well, that's not true. In his case, there could be a lot that happens. A final pretrial conference could be a big deal, or it could be a nothing burger, uh, which is probably what it's going to be given the fact that we've got another six months, the actual trial starts until jury selection starts. So I'm going to guess, you know, they're, they're not going to just not have any court dates between may and November. They'll probably be a continuance on this. It'll probably, you know, we'll probably have another check-in I would say October, September, October, maybe even mid-October before the trial starts, you know, they're not going to just let six months elapsed. So this will probably just be a simple continuance. They'll push it out. We've got a trial scheduled November 11th. The last update from April 14th was the notice of a hearing, which is just basically when they move the court date. So they moved it for, uh, uh, for a final pretrial on May 21st. And we have a status conference. It looks like set for a, uh, May 17th. So we'll actually have an earlier date. Yeah. Okay. So I see what they're doing here. So they're setting status conference and then they're setting the Ft. We call them FTM. C's here in Arizona, final trial management conferences. So I, anyways, so he's got a court date coming up in may, two of them in may, and then he's got one scheduled in November. We'll see what else happens there. So let's take a quick look at some questions. The most important part of the segment really is the questions from our community over@locals.com. If you want to support the show, that's the place to do it. locals.com find our group called watching the Watchers, get a copy of my slides, get a copy of my existence systems. Anything you want that we offer, it's all available there. So check us out. All right. First question here is from Liberty or death says what happened to the prosecutor that was lying in court about Rittenhouse and he get in trouble. Also. I think the cop has a strong case for wrongful termination. Uh, yeah, so that's, that's a good point on that. And that was from that last segment that we covered, uh, Rittenhouse. Uh, I remember that the prosecutor got scolded, I think during one of those hearings, right. He was, he was sort of,

Speaker 4: 1:21:51

Um, admonished by

Speaker 1: 1:21:53

The judge for some of the language that he was using. I saw, I remember watching that. I think Liberty, you sent that over to us last time. Uh, I haven't followed up on that. I don't know if he got in trouble. I don't know if there's been any other fallout. I haven't seen anything on the record, like, uh, like a trans um, a new notice or a notice that a new prosecutor would be assigning would be handling the case sometimes they'll file that, you know, if a prosecutor changes, they'll say, Hey, just, just to notice that I'm not going to be working on this, somebody else is going to be working on this, but I haven't seen anything like that from the record. So I'm not sure, you know, it's probably just a simple admonishment, just kind of something that goes by the wayside. And Y renal MD says, seems like donating to someone's legal defense is just as bad as a crime all because cancel culture has canceled due process. Do the Virginia police department have a policy against donations? I don't know. We're going to find out. And as Liberty mentioned that other officer might actually have it.

Speaker 4: 1:22:46

Uh, Oh no, this is the same.

Speaker 1: 1:22:47

Yeah, this is the same. So I'm, I'm losing, I'm losing my mind here. Okay.

Speaker 4: 1:22:50

So I don't know. I don't know if

Speaker 1: 1:22:52

They have a policy against donations. It sounds like they do,

Speaker 4: 1:22:57

But I don't

Speaker 1: 1:22:57

Know how it, how, how enforceable it is. Right. Is it being selectively enforced or is this something that is just being singled out due to Kyle Rittenhouse and due to this data breach? I don't know. We have Sharon, he says, Whoa, the implications of this and the potential damage to one's right. To privacy and freedom of speech. This is totally scary. Yeah. I agree with that. Uh, I agree with that. It is scary. See here, my Fox has, what did William Kelly say? I don't think I saw what his comment was, so let's see what he said here. So, so yeah, I think, I think this was his comment mom, and we just sort of read through that. I think he said, God bless, thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You've done nothing wrong. The comic continued every rank and file police officers supports you. Don't be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership. So I think that's what he, you said, uh, yeah, the donation that came from his email address also carried a comment that says that. So, you know, I mean, I don't know. I guess you could say that sort of insubordination, right? That kind of disagrees with the political class of law enforcement. I don't know. We have N Y renal MD says, is, is Rittenhouse a political donation? No, I don't think that it would be right because he's not running for office. And all of that stuff gets dealt with by the FEC, the federal elections committee. So they are those a whole government agency that deals with the political donation stuff. The Mendez says for the cup that was fired for donating to Kyle Rittenhouse is the union. Good question. They're probably gearing up. Yeah. I hate it. When the unions keep the fight bad cops. But to me, this is where the union should be screaming from the rooftop. Sure. Right. You're right. You're absolutely right. They should. They, they would. And my Fox says, I'm curious as to the comments made, as they specifically said, this was about the comments and not the donation in particular. So it may have been the insubordination right. Sort of thing, Hey, we don't, you know, we disagree with our elected political class or whatever, what, however he phrased it. But, but you're right, right. It could have been about that. And not necessarily about the donation, we don't know, but the point is the outcome is bad. Then officer was fired for something. In my opinion, that was, that was sort of private and, uh, allow really, I don't know. We'll see, we got last one from underscore shades says just to be fair. Can we get a data breach of all the writer, donors who have continued bailout funds, which even Camila pushed, waiting. Yeah. Well, that's the question, right? It's when there's one segment of our society that is politically disfavored, it's very easy to Dogpile on those people. We can't let that happen. That's why we hold it. The one on this channel. Great questions. All of those, as I mentioned, came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. We have some awesome new people who just joined our community and want to give them a very special shout out. Welcome to ATB Kelly. 100. We're happy to have you here. Baba Louise in the house. Oh, I'm gonna have fun saying that. Baba, Louie, like that we got AV Abby furniture is in the house. We have night underscore flux. Welcome to you. We have crampsey who joined up? Welcome. Crampsey Dave. Who's in the house, Greg. Morat welcome to you. We got dimples 57 in the house and Rebtel underscore S C thank you all so much for joining our community@watchingthewatchersthatlocals.com. We're very happy to have you to be a part of the community. And to those of you who asked the great questions today, what's up Jeremy, what's up leafy bug. We got model Liberty, Joe underscore tremendous. You all know who you are. And I wanted to give a special, uh, another shout out to everybody who is just, you know, just supporting us over there on locals. Big shout out to our supporters, Cracker jacks. We've got player Deluna we have Jim Phoenix welcome. We've got a C Chicago in the house. It's jelly, Whipple. Number one, all of these people are over on our watching the watchers.locals.com community. And as I mentioned very frequently here, you know, we're building a separate platform. We're building a community. What's up Robert Barnes, what's up CACs ax. What's up.[inaudible] where we are a little bit more independent. Tutes macoutes is in the house. Valerie w zero one two. We have Jill Russon D D R N West. All of these tremendous people are helping us to build literally a separate platform. Paula MK, Lassie 91 and others that where we can say things that we want to say, we can share links that we want to share. We can communicate with the people we want to communicate to, without the fear of being crushed by the behemoth tech companies that exist out there. And so we're grateful to all of you who support us there. If you're not there yet, you can get there and you can get a copy of all this great stuff they beginning to winning is a free PDF of my book. Is there all the slides we're going to post those? We've got impeachment party documents. My existence systems is over there and it looks like this. It is a personal productivity tool that I write in every day. And it's what I want to do with this is show you how to craft your own version of this. So I use a blue pen. I fill this out every day. It heat helps to keep me on track. It helps keep my bearing straight. And there's a specific segment in here, a specific block that I have affirmations, and I have a gratitude list. And we talked a lot about depression and some of the awful things that we see in the world. And I have a gratitude

Speaker 4: 1:28:12

List that I write things that I'm grateful

Speaker 1: 1:28:14

For every day on my existence system. And it's something I highly recommend because we need to rewire our brain sometimes to think in terms of gratitude, to think in terms of positivity. And we get out of practice, we just check the news every morning, hop on the social media sites and it's

Speaker 4: 1:28:30

Nothing but pure garbage. So it's important that we pause daily,

Speaker 1: 1:28:36

Remember what we're grateful for. And so on my existing system, I have eight entire box for gratitude. And so what I am encouraging you to do, if you're interested in this program is purchase the program it's available@robertgriller.com, great promo code coupon code. If you're a member@locals.com and customize your existence system and start using it, I think you'll see some profound changes in your life. I've sunk a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of coaching, a lot of resources into whittling down all of the concepts into one sheet of paper it's available for you. So go check that out. And then lastly, uh, you can also get some links, share some links over on local and meet some great people. And before we wrap up out of here, one last reminder that I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R and R law group. We're located in Scottsdale Arizona. I love to help good people who have been charged with crimes, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. We're very good at what we do. We offer free case evaluation. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who has been charged with any type of crime, anytime anybody's in level in trouble with the law, we can help things like DUIs, drugs, domestic violence, minor misdemeanors, major misdemeanors, felonies, old cases, old warrants. If you've got a mugshot on the internet, if you have a, an old license suspension that needs clearing up, we can help with that. We can help you restore your rights to possess a firearm, to vote again, to go apply for federal benefits, just to expunge that record so that when you go and apply for another job, you don't have to Mark that up box. That just feels so terrible. So if you need some help with that, if you know anybody else who needs some help with that, we would be honored and humbled if you sent them our direction, because we're very passionate about what we do. We love to help people, and we will make sure that we take very good care of them and that they leave our office better than they found us. And that's it for me, my friends. I want to thank you so much for being here. We're going to be back tomorrow by the way, but it's not going to be the regular show as usual because we have two very special guests coming onto the program. Mr. Veeva and barns are going to be here at 4:00 PM tomorrow. So we're going to, you know, have a conversation with them about a lot. A lot of stuff is going on this week. Of course, we're going to have some Derek Shovan reaction. Want to see what's going on with the McCaya Bryant case. Get those two items. Men's opinions on that. Learn a little bit more about them and get some other faces on this channel because of course you can only tolerate so much of me. I can only tolerate so much of me. So you're in good company. We're going to see everybody back here tomorrow. Have a great evening sleep well, have a nice hearty dinner. Be rested. Yeah, because we're going to get into it and have some fun tomorrow with Viva and Barnes 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM central in Texas, 7:00 PM on the East coast for that one, Florida, man, everybody have a tremendous evening. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.