Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

George Tanios & Julian Khater Capitol Hill Cases, Karen Garner Arrest, Ghislaine Maxwell Denied Bail

April 27, 2021
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
George Tanios & Julian Khater Capitol Hill Cases, Karen Garner Arrest, Ghislaine Maxwell Denied Bail
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
George Tanios & Julian Khater Capitol Hill Cases, Karen Garner Arrest, Ghislaine Maxwell Denied Bail
Apr 27, 2021

Two defendants charged with assaulting Officer Brian Sicknick appeared in federal court today on renewed motions to be released from custody. Colorado police in Loveland arrest a 73-year old and laugh over dislocating her shoulder. Ghislaine Maxwell is arraigned on new charges and is denied bail, again! And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Capitol Hill Riot defendants George Tanios and Julian Khater were in court today on renewed motions for release pending trial.​

• Tanios and Khater were charged with assaulting the late U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who was later shown to have died of natural causes.​

• Review of the arguments that took place in Federal court today in front of Judge Hogan.​

• The Federal Court for the D.C. Circuit is expected to issue a ruling in early May, until which time Khater and Tanios are remain in custody.​

• Loveland Police Department facing civil lawsuit over the arrest of 73-year old Karen Garner in 2020.​

• Officer Austin Hopp from the Loveland Police Department is seen on camera laughing after the arrest.​

• While watching body camera footage, Hopp can be heard saying “Ready for the pop?” in regard to dislocating Garner’s shoulder during the arrest.​

• Officers Austin Hopp, Daria Jalali and Sgt. Phil Metzler were moved to administrative duties.​

• Longer video is available at Life & Liberty Law Office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmtxTWTTdC4​

• Federal appeals court again denied Ghislaine Maxwell’s request to be released on bail.​

• In a new ruling from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court orders Maxwell to remain in custody pending the trial.​

• Maxwell’s attorneys express their disappointment and detail the harsh conditions of Ghislaine’s confinement.​

• Ghislaine Maxwell was recently arraigned on new charges and we review the federal docket for update on her case.​

• Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!​


LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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


NEW! EXISTENCE SYSTEMS ONLINE COURSE!​

• www.robertgruler.com/existence-systems​


Connect with us:​

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​

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

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


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


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


Other tips? Send to [email protected] or tag @RobertGrulerEsq on twitter.​


#WatchingtheWatchers #KarenGarner #GhislaineMaxwell #CapitolHill #CapitolHillRiots #GeorgeTanios #JulianKhater #CapitolHillCases #CapitolHillBail #DueProcess #PresumptionofInnocence

Show Notes Transcript

Two defendants charged with assaulting Officer Brian Sicknick appeared in federal court today on renewed motions to be released from custody. Colorado police in Loveland arrest a 73-year old and laugh over dislocating her shoulder. Ghislaine Maxwell is arraigned on new charges and is denied bail, again! And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Capitol Hill Riot defendants George Tanios and Julian Khater were in court today on renewed motions for release pending trial.​

• Tanios and Khater were charged with assaulting the late U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who was later shown to have died of natural causes.​

• Review of the arguments that took place in Federal court today in front of Judge Hogan.​

• The Federal Court for the D.C. Circuit is expected to issue a ruling in early May, until which time Khater and Tanios are remain in custody.​

• Loveland Police Department facing civil lawsuit over the arrest of 73-year old Karen Garner in 2020.​

• Officer Austin Hopp from the Loveland Police Department is seen on camera laughing after the arrest.​

• While watching body camera footage, Hopp can be heard saying “Ready for the pop?” in regard to dislocating Garner’s shoulder during the arrest.​

• Officers Austin Hopp, Daria Jalali and Sgt. Phil Metzler were moved to administrative duties.​

• Longer video is available at Life & Liberty Law Office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmtxTWTTdC4​

• Federal appeals court again denied Ghislaine Maxwell’s request to be released on bail.​

• In a new ruling from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court orders Maxwell to remain in custody pending the trial.​

• Maxwell’s attorneys express their disappointment and detail the harsh conditions of Ghislaine’s confinement.​

• Ghislaine Maxwell was recently arraigned on new charges and we review the federal docket for update on her case.​

• Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!​


LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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


NEW! EXISTENCE SYSTEMS ONLINE COURSE!​

• www.robertgruler.com/existence-systems​


Connect with us:​

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​

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

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


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


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


Other tips? Send to [email protected] or tag @RobertGrulerEsq on twitter.​


#WatchingtheWatchers #KarenGarner #GhislaineMaxwell #CapitolHill #CapitolHillRiots #GeorgeTanios #JulianKhater #CapitolHillCases #CapitolHillBail #DueProcess #PresumptionofInnocence

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Mueller . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. And 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 because we've got a lot to get into. We're going to revisit some of the Capitol Hill cases. We've got two defendant's last names of Tanya's and cater who had court today trying to get out of custody. They're still in custody. Remember this all took place back on January six or kind of the, January six riots. And we have two people who were charged in connection to that event. And more closely connected to officer Brian SIGNiX assault and sort of tangentially his death. Even though now we know that he died of natural causes, nothing to do with the alleged assault. So these two gentlemen are now being charged with crimes are being housed in federal detention centers. As we speak, they had court today to try to get out of custody. Given the fact that we now know that sick Nick wasn't actually killed by them. We're going to see what the judge has to say. Are they going to get out of custody or not? So we're going to go through what happened in court, have some updates on some of these Capitol Hill cases. Then we're going to change gears. We're going to talk about a 73 year old woman goes by the name of Karen Garner. In 2020, she had an interaction with Loveland law enforcement, which is a town in Colorado. 73 year old woman apparently had dementia and some other mental disabilities. And , uh , she had her basically arm jerked out of her socket. You can see it right here in our thumbnail. Take a look at that. So we're going to go into that story and let's see what the police have to say for themselves. Now, the, the family, the garner family has initiated a lawsuit , uh, for civil rights violations seeking all sorts of compensation and damages, but we have the body camera footage. You're going to hear officers sort of yucking it up with each other after this arrest happened. So not good. They're not good at all. Then we're going to talk about Golin Maxwell. Been a little while since we've revisited this case, she had court very recently. She had an arraignment where she was sort of having to answer for new charges. As you recall, there was another victim and additional charges added on to her already old charges, but she already had about three different victims. They just added a fourth one. So she had an arraignment. And then we know that the second circuit court of appeals said that she's not getting out of custody. If you recall here, there's sort of been this cat and mouse game going on, where, you know, the , the courts keep trying to , uh , make sure that she can't get out of custody. And she keeps trying to submit a new motion for renewed bail requests. And the court of appeals came down the day and said, Nope , not going to happen. You're not going anywhere. So we've got a lot to get into a lot of stories there. And we want to make sure that you are a part of the program so that you can ask questions, leave comments, lob, criticisms, whatever you want to do. You can do that on this channel. It's kind of a nice thing. So you can participate by going over to watching the watchers.locals.com in a web browser. That's our community where you can actually ask questions. You can go on there, you'll see a live chat that miss faith is monitoring right now. So any good questions she's going to clip those and throw them right in my slide. So if you want to be a part of the show, that's the place to do that. You can also download a free copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning it's available there. You can get a discount code for my existence system course, which is backend functional today. So we fixed that little hiccup that we had yesterday. That's available [email protected] . If you want to support the show, you can buy that course. It's a , it's kind of a fun course. Hopefully you get some value out of it. So go check that out if you are interested. All right. And so let's get into the news of the day Capitol Hill riots been some time since we've checked back in on those cases, we've got two big ones today that we want to check in on. We've got Julian cater and George Tanya . These are two gentlemen who were a part of the Capitol Hill riots, and they are , uh, they had court today. So they were in, in front of a judge today trying to , uh , get out of custody. Really, if you recall, this happened back on January 6th and they have been sitting in custody ever since many other people in this country get out of custody on bail, especially if they are not criminals, right? If they don't have a criminal history, if they haven't done anything that is particularly heinous, people get out on bail all the time. We've talked about this, Kyle Rittenhouse out on bail, we've talked about , uh , Derek Shovan out on bail. Kim Potter, the officer who shot and killed Dante, right? She's out on bail. And the list goes on and on and on people get out of custody all the time. So the question here has been, why have these defendants, why are these defendants in custody for something that's pretty minor, sort of as a protest or a riot they're still being housed in federal custody. And so there was court today. We're going to check back in , uh , Adam class field over from law and crime.com did a live thread on the proceeding . So he called into court and was listening to everything. So we're going to check in with him and we're going to go over to law and crime, and they're gonna walk us through what happened in court. You can see here, these are the two people that we're talking about. So , uh, this is one person who's inside the building inside the congressional building. And then this is another sort of red box that was placed around. This is part of the government's discovery part of their evidence saying that there was some bear spray. Obviously there was being sort of, you know , sprayed around right then and there class field says the late Capitol police officer, Brian SIGNiX accused assailants , George Tanya , and Julia and cater are renewing their pre-trial release requests. They filed their motions the day after the DC medical examiners ruling on sickness . And so he went through the thread. And so you're recalled that we learned back on April, right about April 18th, that officer [inaudible] many people were saying that he was killed by the manga , you know , riots. They were saying that there was a fire extinguisher. Remember that the mainstream media was reporting this. It was so prevalent of a , uh , sort of a hoax narrative that was being spread all around this country, that it even made it into the Democrats impeachment memorandum that was used in the second impeachment of Donald Trump. So this was sort of the great big lie that was being spread around that , uh, that officer [inaudible] was killed by fire extinguisher as a result of the riots. Obviously that didn't happen. We knew that didn't happen because they didn't, they, they were, they were trying to hide the results for a very long time. While we know back in sort of mid April, that they finally came to that acknowledgement . They kind of finally release that, Hey, he died of natural causes. And we talked about it on this show that even the Capitol police they have sort of in denial about it, remember they posted this, the medical examiner finds that the U S Capitol police officer Brian sickness died of natural causes. This was part of their press release that they sent back on April 19th. It says the U S Capitol police accepts the findings from the DC medical examiner that Brian sickening died of natural causes. So that's good. They accept it. Then they go on to say, this does not change the fact that he died in the line of duty, courageously defending Congress and the Capitol , which is obviously not , it's just not accurate, right? He died of natural causes. He didn't die in the line of duty that would have been killed in action, not dying of natural causes, but whatever they're , you know, they're mourning the loss of somebody that they care about. So we'll give them that benefit on that one. Now they are saying that Cotter and Tanya , you were called , this came back on April 19th. They're saying they're each charged with one count, one count of conspiracy to injure an officer three counts of assault on a federal officer with a dangerous weapon, one count of civil disorder, obstruction and physical violence, all on capital grounds, blah, blah, blah, right ? A whole slew of charges. Now you can see that that a good portion of those directly relate to officer sickening . And the allegation here was , uh , largely that they were using bear spray to sort of assault the officer. So we're going to go through the story here , uh , over from law and crime. As I mentioned, it says here, they do not mention their autopsy report in their motion. So the way this works, just to frame this out a little bit, right? We've talked about this a lot on this channel, really ever since a lot of these defendants who are a part of the Capitol Hill riots ever since they all got rounded up, the FBI is still working on it that, you know , we want to make sure that these individuals really anybody in this country that is on the receiving end of a Dogpile legally needs to be defended. If there's, you know, if , if the entire country is sort of aligned to make sure that a particular segment of the country gets penalized , that's when, you know, sort of defense attorneys, our ears perk up, at least mine do not all defense attorneys do, but I'm saying, Hey, there's somebody here who needs your help, but sort of like the bat signal, right? P fly in there and make sure that they're not getting railroaded because the first thing that goes anytime that there is sort of an emotional prosecution are things like the presumption of innocence and due process, both incredibly important. We've got a nation of laws here for a reason. And so when you start to see what happened as a result of the Capitol Hill riots, the entire infrastructure sort of organized against these defendants, which is not a good thing, politically, the media of course, was, was dog piling on them. Congress, people were, everybody was, they still are. And they actually made it the subject of the impeachment of the president, which in my opinion, was really kind of the impeachment of the Republican party, or at least the Trump version of the Republican party. It was a symbolic sort of attempt to cut the head off of the snake and watch the rest of the body wither away and die. Uh, I'm not sure how effective it was, arguably maybe it was, but we'll see. But the point here is the Capitol Hill riders, the Capitol Hill protesters . They deserve the same due process, the same presumption of innocence as the rest of us. And so when they were being held in custody, myself and others have been scratching our heads going, what the heck is happening here? This is not fair because other people in other parts of the country are being let out of custody on bail. They're being granted release, even though some of their crimes are more heinous than any of the allegations that took place for the January 6th defendants. And I've got some examples of it later on, but let's go through this right now. They are trying to get back out of custody. There was a new report that was released saying that officer Sidney did in fact die of natural causes. There was nothing to do with bear spray or a fire extinguisher or anything else. It was just natural causes. So they wanted to renew their motion. They wanted to re request and attempt to get out of custody. Given the fact that the medical examiner themselves are confirming, it was natural causes. So let's go through the story says the day after DC medical examiners office released a ruling, finding that Signac died of natural causes. The officers accused assailants filed separate motions for pretrial release. Neither of them mentioned the news of the autopsy or the finding that he died from stroke. So the motions by two attorneys, George Tanya , and, and cater running a combined 48 pages do not even mention officer SIGNiX name quote. It's hard to not think of the events that unfolded on January 6th and not have a visceral reaction. Particularly as rioters entered the Capitol building by breaking windows and ramming open doors says caters lawyer. Joseph tackled pina in his 28 Bri page brief that was filed today. Julian cater was not one of them. He never entered the Capitol building, never sought to threaten members of Congress, never intended to forcibly interfere with the peaceful transition of power. Instead, the act attributed to him was a limited at limited an isolated one that never transgressed the barrier that laid directly before him. The alleged Jack was spraying a canister of bear spray at Nick and two other officers. Prosecutors never alleged SIGNiX assault caused his death. And , uh, no they didn't, but everybody else did media did Democrats did Congress , people did senators did, and the list goes on and on. So apparently , uh, at least for Cotter caters , he was never even in the building, according to his attorney, caterer does not appear to deny the assault outright in his motion for bond, which does question whether the government has evidence connecting him to the crime. So here's what else they say in there specifically as detailed in the criminal complaint, Mr. Cater is accused of appearing. Oh, interesting. Appearing to hold such a canister while spraying it in one continuous sweeping motion of his arm from side to side and in the direction of law enforcement officers, while standing as much as eight feet away from them after emphatically yelling out, quote , they just sprayed me the defense motion States. Right. And so they're going to paint this picture of madness of chaos, which is exactly the right move because not only was that an accurate right. We saw all of the videos, we talked about it. We were on the, on the show, right as it right after it happened. And it was madness. There was a lot of people spraying, a lot of things, a lot of different directions, a lot of smoke, a lot of pepper spray, a lot of , uh, everything, right. And some people were, you saw that in a lot of videos, people were just sort of, you know , washing their faces off and spitting and things like that because it was everywhere. So who knows whether it was these guys or somebody else. I mean, even the officers were paying, were spraying pepper, spray all over the place. So it's kind of madness. And that is a good thing to really magnify. If you are a defendant, if you're a defense attorney, you , of course, you're going to say no. I mean, there was, yeah, there was, there was pepper spray all over the place, bear, spray all over the place. It wasn't my client. What could have been him or him or him or him or any , one of the other 50 people that were on the camera that we just watched on the video, we just watched caters lawyers note that the reference to their client appearing to hold the canister is less than definitive. And took aim at the officers is at best equivocal or doubtful, as you might say. According to charging papers, Cotter told Tanya was give me that bear spray and apparent reference to the bear spray. Uh , he says, actually give me that bear S right , the , uh, the , uh, the S word they're going further than accused co-conspirator in his defense, Tonya denies, assaulting any officers with any chemicals, according to his defense attorney, who's what the federal public defender's office. She says, Mr. Tanya's denies, conspiring to injure officers, denies, aiding, and abetting. Any other officers in any crimes denies, assaulting any officer with a dangerous weapon, denies any physical violence on restricted grounds while carrying a dangerous weapon, denies causing bodily injury. Mr. Tonya was to search his innocence and given his non-violent and non-criminal history. He does not pose a danger to the community or any other person. So you know that that's a public defender, federal public defenders . Very good in my experience, people who are, who, you know , who know what they're doing, and they do a lot of it. Uh, I don't, you know , obviously know Elizabeth Gross , but somebody who, you know, sounds like it's very nuts and

Speaker 2:

Bolts , nothing flashy, right?

Speaker 1:

The other attorney was making some arguments. She just said, no, we're, we're , uh, we're not giving an inch here. Denied, denied, denied, denied, denied. We deny all of that. We maintain our presumption of innocence and we demand due process and release him. We'll see what the judge does. Tawny owes his lawyers, claims the government has slim evidence to the contrary. Other than Mr. Tonya's being present. The video clips failed to show much at all. In terms of the criminal acts, allegedly committed by him said his attorney, the video clips failed to show any intent to harm officer's knowledge. That officers would be injured or any agreement by Mr. Tonya was to do harm. Video clips failed to show that he used any weapon, chemical spray or inflammatory agent. Furthermore, the video clips failed to show Tonya was provided cater with any item that could be used to injure the officers at the Capitol. This is a far cry from strong evidence, and it is only, it is the only evidence the government relied upon,

Speaker 2:

Right? So it's , it's terrible evidence. It's not any good.

Speaker 1:

And you know , they're , it's their burden. So this attorney's just, like I said, very nuts and bolts, making sure that that's their burden. They've got the burden to produce the evidence, the burden of production and the burden of presentation, right? Th the burden of proof is what they have to, to meet. And, you know, this is something that's not uncommon. This happens regularly. Think about the old town or the sixth street or the Avenue, whatever that Avenue is in your city or whatever street that is in your city, that everybody goes to, and it gets rowdy, right? If there's a big, the madness, if there's a big event, a lot of people are engaged in fights, happens all the time here in Scottsdale, right down the street, right? This , the police sort of are on bicycles. They're just rounding everybody

Speaker 2:

Up, taking them

Speaker 1:

Downtown, throwing them in the jails, letting the courts and the lawyers and the, and the prosecutor sort everything out the next day. Oftentimes it's , it's, the evidence is bad because they don't really have much of anything. And so when you start to piece it all together, you recognize that this person just kind of got caught up in something that maybe they shouldn't have been there. Maybe they weren't the most innocent person there, but the evidence is

Speaker 2:

Not enough took in victim of

Speaker 1:

A crime, but the police just round everybody up, throw them in, into the back of a squad car, drive them all down to the station and figure they can deal with it. The next day, the problem is that person now has to hire a lawyer. They've already had their Liberty deprived for that night. They have, you know , pending criminal charges. They've got the sort of the stain of criminality on them. That's going to exist in public records and court documents and mugshot websites and everything all over the place. And somehow, you know , that's not an infraction on any of their freedom and there's no compensation or anything that they can be compensated for as a result of that deprivation. But I digress. That's a whole separate topic. What the heck am I even talking about? Let's get back to the Hill people though, neither of the briefs mentioned, Cigna both mentioned the DC circuit ruling that has been proved to be a boon for numerous, numerous capital riots suspects. The case of the so-called zip tie guy, Eric [inaudible] , who was spotted traipsing around the Senate, carrying tactical restraints in a ruling that ultimately led to pretrial release four months old, the zip tie guy and his mother, the DC circuit raised the bar for the government to keep other members of the Trump mob locked up until juries hear their cases. Caterer noted that multiple members of the extremist proud boy groups have benefited from that precedent. As has Hunter, [inaudible] charged with breaking a window of the building and Mark Leffingwell, who allegedly struck an officer as authorities tried to stop a group that had broken into the Capitol . So there was a court of appeals ruling that came back down and said, basically, you know, you guys are being ridiculous here. A lot of people in this country get charged with crimes. A lot of them are more heinous than breaking a window, or sort of, you know, trespassing onto government property, which is essentially what this was. This was a government building, a very important government building one with a lot of importance and a lot of sacredness. And, you know , I agree with everybody that what we saw there was reprehensible and grotesque, and I've never endorsed it or , or been somebody who supports it or tries to make excuses for it. But at the same time, we want to make sure that the people who were being charged with crimes here, who are on the receiving end of the Dogpile are at the very bottom of the pack that they get the same rights and privileges that all of us are afforded. We have to demand that they get it. Otherwise, if we just take certain contingents of our society and say, Oh, those people don't deserve rights, because what they did was really bad. Oh, Derek Shovan doesn't deserve the presumption of innocence because we saw the video. We don't need to actually a trial. Why are we, why do we even need to do this stuff?

Speaker 2:

You know , that is when these principles and concepts have to be fought for even harder in these certain circumstances. So that

Speaker 1:

Is law and crime. We also have Joe Tillman who gave us some good insight as to what was happening today, said hello from judge Hogan , virtual courtroom, where arguments are set to begin shortly on release motions filed by the two who have been charged, Julian cater and George Tonya . And she gave us a clip from the preliminary statement here says this. This is a little bit of the clip that we were reading about from caters preliminary motion. At the outset, the defense recognizes the surrounding circumstances. In this case, they evoke emotion, but we saw here Julian cater was not. One of them never entered the building. The act attributed to him was limited and isolated. According to the detailed criminal complaint that was filed in DACA . Number that singular act of using a bear spray canister, which he personally did not purchase or carry to the Capitol occurred as much as eight feet away from officers only after he emphatically yelled out that he himself was just

Speaker 2:

Sprayed. Excuse me. So he is sort of, I guess, I guess maybe detailing the, if

Speaker 1:

You punch me, I punch you back motif, which is not

Speaker 2:

Really a good defense, but it's understandable. Right? He got sprayed. So they're just trying to provide some context.

Speaker 1:

Clearly the circumstances giving rise to this case are extraordinarily unique in accordance with the fact below as discussed many defendants charged with violent or aggressive behavior have been released pending trial. These factors coupled with the upstanding history and characteristics and Mr. Cater , who has priorly, who has absolutely no prior contact with the criminal justice system support his pre-released his pretrial release. In fact, any notion that he poses a risk of flight or a danger to the community is undercut by the dozen and a half letters attached to his submission in those letters. People who know Mr. Cater best extol, his exemplary background and character accordingly, for the reasons set forth in detailed below the defense requested he be released and they put together this bail package with stringent pretrial conditions. And listen to this, listen to what they're offering. This is massive $15 million bond package secured by five properties comprising, approximately 1.5 million in equity, guaranteed by 16 family members who will co-sign as financially responsible sureties home detention with electronic monitoring and a condition that Mr. Cater surrender any and all passports in his possession for an assault case. Essentially, this is what it is a trespass and an assault case, which is arguable, right? The evidence here is shoddy at best, as we have seen it's bear spray and a canister with some imagery from madness. We now know officer Cigna had didn't die from that. It was natural causes had nothing to do with it. And allegedly he was the officer involved in any of this stuff. So the assault charges could stick even without proof of, of causation of death. Obviously, if they had, if their assault with the pear bear spray had led to officer sickness death, then they would be charged with more serious crimes. But that didn't happen. And not even any indication from what we know that the bear spray landed on Nick to this, to the extent that the bear spray impacted sickness, it might've physically hit his body, but we don't know, as far as I know whether there was a medical report or examination that said anything from the bear spray was consequential in his death. It's not, it wasn't contributing to it at all. So would it have been an assault if there's no sort of physical evidence that it actually landed on him, right? There's people spraying stuff all over the place. Was it the, these guys bear spray or somebody else's bear spray? Or was it the officer's bear spray? Because they were also spraying from multiple different directions. We've watched a lot of the videos here as I'm sure you have. So the question here, why is he still in custody? He's got no criminal record at all, not a flight risk. From what we can see here, we've got the family now posting up $15 million in bond for a trespass case, essentially is what this is 16 family members are going to co-sign. They're going to put up five of their properties as collateral 1.5 million inequity to get him out of custody. And these judges are going, gosh, I don't know. You know, these people are a threat to our democracy that we're , we're , they're dangerous. They're dangerous to society.

Speaker 2:

And they're a flight risk. They're not, yeah ,

Speaker 1:

It's not accurate. This. This is more than reasonable. If this guy does not get out of custody. Oh my goodness. That is a travesty of justice. I think that he will, now that we have a DC circuit court ruling, we have a very generous bond. We have precedent now that other defendants are being released, but my gosh, it's April. It's going to be me by the time it gets out by the, by the time this guy gets out of custody, many other people around the country have in fact been released . I want to share an article that I found over from American greatness. This is sort of a summation of why SIGNiX narrative failed says the Fed's non-existent case against the alleged sickening assailants, the cause of the Capitol police officer's Brian SIGNiX untimely death on January 6th is finally settled, but the prosecution of his alleged attackers rages on after months of dishonest accounts about what happened to [inaudible] first, that he was bludgeoned to death by the insurrectionist with a fire extinguisher. And then that he died of an allergic reaction to bear spray the DC medical examiners office, concerned that he

Speaker 2:

Died of stroke. The chemicals

Speaker 1:

Sprayed in his direction during the chaos, outside the Capitol on January six did not contribute to his death. According to this reporter,

Speaker 2:

The, the ,

Speaker 1:

Uh, the article continues in its haste to bolster the new narrative. Maintaining sickness was killed by riders , wielding Baird spray. The acting attorney general was in on the life from the start justice department charged two men with the attack. We just talked about him . George Tonya , Julian Cotter were arrested March 14th and charged with several crimes, including four counts related to possession of a deadly or use of a dangerous weapon, which is the bear spray. Allegedly they've been behind bars ever since

Speaker 2:

Ever since both were transport

Speaker 1:

To the nation's capital , where they joined dozens of January 6th detainees. They were held in solitary confinement and DC jail. A judge on Tuesday, we'll consider motions filed by their attorneys, which was today to release both defendants. They deny all charges as this reporter has reported in the past federal courts at the direction of Joe Biden's justice department are denying bond to nonviolent protestors . As their cases continue to slow slog through an intentionally overloaded DC judicial system. Another thing that I've screamed about this reporter is a Julie Kelly [email protected] . So go check her out. And so, you know, this is something I've been, I've been saying that , uh , the government prosecutors in this case have filed motions saying, we're , we're overloaded. We're too busy. So we need continuances. They asked for 60 day continuances, which look wouldn't be that bad. If people were

Speaker 2:

Out of custody, you sort of get one or

Speaker 1:

The other. You don't get more time on your case. The same, that the same time that you're demanding, that nobody gets out of custody. Well, because they're , they're opposing interests. The people are want to get out of custody. They want a resolution on their case quickly so that they can get back to living their lives. They're being penalized because the government can't get their act together because they, you know, they're so overloaded. They need 60 day continuances. Their , their , their systems are overloaded in DC, even though, you know, it's, it's, it's the center of our government, right? They should have more resources than any other jurisdiction in this entire country. And for some reason, they don't, they can't even process something like another 300 additional cases that are working their way as a result of the January six stuff. So anyways, they're denying bond. The presumption of innocence has been suspended for Trump supporters involved in the January six protests, largely based on supposedly thought crime of doubting the legitimacy of the election before announcing his ruling, a federal magistrate, but B B rated was from the bench. Everyone in our country knows what happened on January six said, judge Michael Eloy , during a March 22nd hearing says, we also generally know that they were supporting the president who would not accept that he was defeated and all action . So we have created this culture radicalized by hate and just refusal to really accept the result of a democratic process. Don't you love when judges just scold you like a child from the bench? Oh my gosh. A lawyer also suggested the bear spray killed sickening . It was surreal. The judge said, okay, so that was inaccurate, right? Surreal to see a video of an officer who's no longer with us. And describe what happened as an assault on our nation's home, very dramatic law enforcement officials have argued in court. Pleadings. The defendants shouldn't have unfettered access to tens of thousands of hours of video evidence because they might pass along the information to those who wish to attack the Capitol . Again, you see this law enforcement is arguing that we're going to keep you in custody. Not let you out. We're going to Nope, no bond, no bail. Okay . Even though you have the presumption of innocence, even though our system says that technically you're innocent right now and that our laws heavily favor people getting out of custody because of that fact, right? If you're presumed innocent and why are we penalizing you by ripping you away from your livelihood? Unless the threshold is extremely high, unless you're going to leave the country and not come back to court. And there's nothing we can do to ensure that you come back or you are a danger to the community. And there's nothing we can do to prevent that from happening. Then we'll keep you in custody. But that standard hasn't been met here and they want to keep you in there. Then when they're not letting you out, they need a continuance. They need another 60 days in order to work their cases up. So while you're rotting away in custody, they need more time to do their work. All right. Then when you want to defend yourself, they're arguing in court pleadings. Oh no, you shouldn't have unfettered access to any of this stuff. No, no, no, no, no unfettered access, because you might want to tack the Capitol again. Instead, according to a recent political article, prosecutors are working to build an archive of video that would permit defendants to peruse relevant clips, but sharply restrict their access and permit prosecutors, a chance to object. If they feel any such footage could be misused

Speaker 2:

Or present a risk superior,

Speaker 1:

It should be the situation for Tanya and cater. An attorney for Tanya was accused of government presenting only tiny, limited seconds of evidence and refusing to allow the defense team an opportunity to see the rest though , we see limited interpretation of videos and their view of those videos because they are tiny little pieces of them handpicked by the government to show the court, the sketchy photographic evidence against Tonya's and Katar included in charging documents. Isn't the government's only problem. Law enforcement doesn't know for certain, if they use pepper spray at all under questioning by Tanya says lawyer last month, FBI, special agent Riley Palmer tree could not confirm that either man pulled the trigger on the bear spray can here's what the attorney said. Did cater use the bear spray that day? The FBI agent says not that I know of, but that's for further investigation, the investigation is still going on regarding the bear spray's attorney says, okay. So it's your understanding that cater used a small canister of OSI spray with the black handle. That was sort of like on a key chain or

Speaker 2:

Could be a key chain. FBI agent says that's according to my investigation, which is still going on your attorney attorneys ,

Speaker 1:

You don't have any reason to believe that the bear spray was deployed that day at all. Do you agent says I have the bear spray cans myself and I haven't submitted them for analysis. So that's what I would need to do. It's a very serious thing. And I have to be sure on in , in a scientific way, the best that I can. So no evidence , no evidence that they even used it. So are you keeping count now you're rolling it up. What a travesty of justice is , is I don't care. What side of the political aisle you are on. This is a joke .

Speaker 2:

This is holding people in custody, absent.

Speaker 1:

Cause this is asking for continuance absent. Good cause. And this is doing so without evidence, that is justifiable. In my opinion, you have the FBI agent himself saying, well , we don't even know if

Speaker 2:

He used the bear spray. Well , do you have any other evidence

Speaker 1:

Of an assault or what is the deadly weapon?

Speaker 2:

Any guns there? If it's all deadly weapons charges, they didn't use the bear spray. Is that still a deadly weapon? And then when

Speaker 1:

You want to defend yourself, you don't even get any evidence

Speaker 2:

In that. Nice. It's our government

Speaker 1:

Here. We've got in a separate filing. Julianne caters lawyers argued their client and Tonya most were sprayed by others in the

Speaker 2:

Crowd, perhaps police officers

Speaker 1:

And never even used the bear spray. The government even admitted in its affidavit. They cater at one point, yelled

Speaker 2:

Out. They just sprayed me. Therefore

Speaker 1:

It's a strong possibility. The officers, including Sydney , who reportedly told the family members, he was hit by pepper spray during the protest were sprayed by something other than the bear repellent, caters families asking the court to release

Speaker 2:

Him on a $15 million

Speaker 1:

Bond guaranteed by 16 family members is one journalist noted. Judge Thomas Hogan will hear the case on Tuesday and then decide whether to keep Cotter . And Tonya's behind bars until their next court date, which is going to be in may. So that's coming up. There's no reason to keep these men in jail. Julie Kelly says, let alone in solitary confinement, cherry pick video evidence, not support the weapons charges against them. The chief investigator confess no evidence exists to prove the can of bear spray was ever used or the Cod or anyone sprayed it, including the police officer's justice department's refusal to allow access to video evidence raises plenty of red flags. Neither man has a criminal record. Tanya was and Cotter pose no threat to society. Their only crime as is the case with hundreds of nonviolent Capitol protestors was supporting Donald Trump and daring to question the validity of the 2020 presidential elections. A doubt shared by tens of millions of Americans, but nobody on YouTube, of course, and yours truly also, right. We love Joe Biden over here. All right . So let's take a [email protected]ewatchersdotlocals.com have to say, and for some reason, my slides aren't sinking. So I am now having to open our backup solution, which is happening right now. So give me one quick second, and it looks like we've got a , we've got this queued up. We have our first question over from Gregory Nichols says Robert, I've been focusing on a project the past couple of days. I'm in Florida. End of night, two white women are having a debate discussion over Shovan views, followed along skin color. But what was shocking to me was when the black lady became vehement, when one white lady said that Floyd was in the car, the black lady said he was never in the car, read the transcripts, that video isn't what's real. So that's an interesting , uh , observation that you have there , Gregory. You know, I think that there are of course going to be racial components in any, any conversation surrounding Shovan. I do notice, I remember that , uh, AIG Nelson , um , Ellison, who was of course the ag who was managing that case out of Minnesota actually came out and said that he felt bad for Shovan very recently and that he didn't think it had anything to do with race. And you know, I , I'm not, I'm not real sure that I disagree with him. I made that point about this a lot on this channel, right? Every time there's police brutality or police interactions that are taking place in this country, everybody wants to jump onto this, you know, this narrative that it's all about racism. And I've , I've said this many times on this show, I've seen black cops beat the heck out of black people. I've seen white cops beat the heck out of white people. I've seen Hispanic cops bleep that beat the heck out of Hispanic people. I've seen white cops beat black people and black cops beat white people. I've seen it all. I've seen a smorgasbord of police beatings and police brutality and police misconduct that crosses the boundaries of race and demographics. Isn't that a beautiful thing? The police are equal opportunity beaters. They just beat the hell out of everybody. I mean, yeah , it happens. I would say , uh, you know, I don't even know what the data says on this, but you know, disproportionately in certain communities, but when you start running the data, you can get into really dicey water. Right? You can say that, yes. Uh , there are more, there are technically a higher number of white people in this country who are killed by police than there are black people. But then when you sort of, you know , normalize the numbers based on population, then you say, well, actually, you know, as a percent of population, it does look like black people are actually being killed by officers more, but then you start normalizing those numbers based on number of arrests. And you say, okay, well, yes, technically that African-Americans are a smaller segment of the country in terms of percentage of demographics, percentage of population, but they are responsible for a higher number of arrests. And so you say, well, of course they're killed more by by officers , uh, police, not just white officers, police in general, based on the fact that they're committing more crimes. And then the response to that is yeah, but it's the police that are being racist and overly panelizing and overly punitive in their demographics, in their neighborhoods. If the police weren't racist, then we wouldn't have this. Hyper-focus on certain communities in certain demographics. And so you can see, you know, how you can sort of just keep this conversation can spiral on and on and on. It's like the song that never ends, right. Just keeps going on and on my friends. And we all have to have that stuck in our head now because I just brought it up. So let's see what else we've got Liberty or death says, this is amazing. If these people were able to have their right to a speedy trial, they would be out of jail if had been convicted. What exactly. Right. Right. Yeah. He says, what is the penalty for trespass in Arizona? I'm not sure about DC, but in Texas, it's a misdemeanor max of a few grand and six months. Yeah. So Liberty is exactly right. I mean, for, you know, for most trespass cases, it's diversion, it's you, you go take a class. So let's say for example, that you're at a baseball game, they ask you to leave. You don't leave, you get thrown out trespass, right? Cause a commotion, disorderly conduct, all of those things, probably going to take an alcohol class or an adult responsibility class and have your criminal charges dismissed. Now let's say you did something that was more serious, right? Like you trespass into a government building and you broke a window and you're very mad about it in Arizona. It's still a misdemeanor, still a class, one misdemeanor, unless they wanted to tack on some felony charges and maybe say that the damage you cause reach, reach a certain threshold, monetarily speaking, that it justifies a felony charge or it is a , uh , there's some aggravating factor that would take it out of misdemeanor status. But even then a misdemeanor status is six months max. And almost nobody gets that for misdemeanors, especially if you've got no criminal record, no priors, nothing like that. It's a slap on the wrist and here, right? If these guys have been in custody, since let's say mid January, they've been in there , they they're , you know, they've done three months of time, at least. And they would probably would have done less than that. Had they gone to trial and loss and a judge sentenced them, would they get six months? I doubt it. So those are great questions. Thank you so much for sending those over to us [email protected] If you want to support the show, that's the place to do it. And we really appreciate it. You can download a free copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning also available on Amazon. You can download a copy of the slides that we just went through and you can get a new coupon for my existence systems course, which is [email protected] . I'd invite you to go check that out. We really appreciate all your support. All right. So let's change gears a little bit. We've got to talk about another police incidents . Information has been released that in 2020, there was a 73 year old woman by the name of Karen Gardner who was arrested. And apparently this woman, we're going to learn more about her, has some mental disorders, some dementia and some other mental disabilities. And when police came upon her, they took her to the ground. You're going to see as we go through the body camera footage in this segment, that they were rough with her. After she was arrested and brought into custody, then the officers reviewed the body camera footage and they were fist bumping each other. They were laughing at each other. They were pointing out that her shoulder popped when they sort of dislocated it. So these officers are yucking it up behind the scenes in their office. And this just leaked out. It was released. It wasn't even linked. This was released by Ms. Garner's attorneys who have now filed, of course, a lawsuit seeking monetary damages and compensation and for the insanity that these officers put her through. So let's go through this story. We do have some body camera footage in here. So a little bit of a content warning, if that is upsetting to you, but nobody dies in this. There's no blood. It is, you know , man being inhumane to other man, man's inhumanity to man, but we are going to go through it. So just a little bit of a heads up. If some of that stuff is concerning. So let's take a quick look over here. Here. We have new information. As I mentioned was released officer Austin, whup hop is the name. He comes from Loveland police department. He's the person who arrested 73 year old Karen Garner. This happened in 2020 and he can be seen laughing with other officers in newly released footage. As he reviews body camera video from him , her arrest, this arrest prompted a civil rights lawsuit against Loveland police department, which is in Colorado. Several of its employees. Garner's attorneys released the footage along with new information on garners detention at the Loveland police station immediately after her arrest, what the new information also came an amended complaint, which adds officer Tyler Blackett and Sergeant Angelina Hill to the lawsuit. So we've got some bad Popo here. We've got Austin hub. We've got Tyler Blackett and Sergeant Angelina Hill, at least suspected to be bad Popo. We don't, we don't know yet. Loveland police officials have declined to comment on the incident of course, and new information as the investigation into the arrest, proceeds saying they trust, quote, let's listen to this. They trust the due process. So that's nice. So they trust due process when they're being investigated. But if you're a 73 year old woman, they just kind of pop your shoulder right out of your socket, throw you in jail and then go back and laugh about it in their police department. Got it. According to a press release from Sarah , [inaudible] the attorney representing Karen Gardner in her lawsuit against the police. Several officers over her arrest has happened back on June 26, 2020 several officers can be seen laughing while reviewing the body camera video. Garner's family hired a sound engineer to enhance the audio in the booking area videos. Okay? So most of this, you can't even hear it ordinarily because these guys are quiet,

Speaker 3:

Right? They're not saying, Hey, look, we just arrested a 73 year old, you know, whatever

Speaker 1:

Kind of under the radar. Hey Chuck, did you see that? Can you believe that happened? This bump right here it is. Let's take a quick listen in this is them fist bumping. We're going to get to the clip here in a second. You can see these two officers here booking photograph from within the jail. We're going to see we're going to piece all this together here in a minute, but you can see here a little, a little bit of a love tap. Hey, that's fun. How exciting was that? We're police officers. Got it. Irritates me. According to the release city officials have yet to send any apology to the gardener or her family. After the lawsuit was filed, hop was placed on administrative leave, assisting officer Jalali and supervising Sergeant Phil Metzler were moved to administrative duties. Two days after the lawsuit in video from the arrest went public police, chief Bob Ticer spoke publicly about Gardner's arrest saying he wanted the investigation into the incident to be as transparent as possible and newly released surveillance, video footage that Shelby the attorney posted to the life and Liberty law office, YouTube page, which I linked down in the description below. So make sure you go give them a check and a nice sub and a nice follow because they deserve it. Hop can be seen laughing with other LPD officers when watching his body camera footage from the arrest of the 80 pound five foot tall woman who reportedly suffers from dementia. He can be seen early on fist bumping Jalali over the arrest. And we saw that right here, right? So that's hop here and that's Jalali over there. The 14 minute compilation video full video is linked below includes video footage of the booking area where LPD officers worked and where garner was being held. The full long hour long surveillance video is also on their channel. Early in the video. Black yet can be heard asking hop if hop red garner her Miranda rights. When arresting her note , he responds, I did not later in the release footage officers are seen watching hop's body camera laughing, his hop watches. He can be heard laughing, and he celebrates with Jalali and black . And in the video Jalali can be heard saying that body cams are my favorite thing to watch. Just minutes later, she can be seen pulling her hat down over her face saying, I hate this. This is great hop , responds , ready for the pop here . Or the pop hop can be heard saying about the apparent dislocation of garner shoulder. According to the release Gardner was handcuffed to the bench just 10 feet away from them at the time. Okay. One more time says ready for the pup. Here are the pup from a police officer with another police officer fist bumping each other pop pop here . The pop horrific statement comes to light after Garner's family hired a sound engineer to enhance the audio on Loveland police station booking videos from the day of her arrest or release said, it's not only a grotesque revelation to come from these booking station videos. According to the release during the first hour gardener was in custody, she could be heard saying that they hurt my shoulders. 22 times, they hurt my wrist . 13 times they kept hurting eight times and it hurts eight times garner was allegedly not giving any medical treatment while at the Loveland police station, they, their release also included several new allegations against the department and its members. It says that a blue team report was filed for Garner's arrest system that alerts the department to create an official record. Whenever forces used Ticer who I think is the police chief said, all right , they're going to use the system , uh , information about industry. Greg got all that tighter set apart partner when officials did not learn about the injuries and tell the lawsuit was filed. Okay. That's great. And tell the information was posted online. Okay. So, all right . Maybe that's true. Maybe the attorneys didn't send anything over there. I can't imagine they did. You know, typically the way that these things work is you file. What's called a notice of claim with the city bef uh , so I'm not sure if he's talking about that or he's talking about the direct lawsuit who knows? Well, regardless blue team has it. According to the booking area photos, the new release also alleges the Metzler, the supervisor on the scene when gardener was arrested, knew she was injured and authorize. It should be kept in a cell without medical evaluation or treatment, even coming through to check on the status of the report, writing and knowing Gardner was still locked away and injured just mere feet away. Hail another supervising officer who had been added to the complaint allegedly came through the booking area while Gardiner was being held in personally reviewed hops affidavit, describing his use of force, allegedly notarized, it laughed and then quote, joined in on the jokes that were being made regarding Ms. Garner's age and small size or injuries. And the fact that the hobble hog tie used on her got her blood on it. And so it need to be washed according to the press release on a 73 year old woman, right? This is, this is grandma that has dementia cops bust her shoulder, pop it out of the socket hog tie her she's bleeding on herself. Take her back to the station, throw her in the cell, know that she's injured, laugh about it. Fist bump each other. Check on her report. Hey , is the report being written and then laughing about it with each other as she's in pain in the other room, crying neck back wrists, everything I'm 73. You guys just beat the hell out of me. Let's take a look at what happened. Here's the body camera.

Speaker 4:

Ma'am please stop. You don't want to stop the lights on siren. Stop . You just left Walmart. Do you need to be arrested right now? No, no, no. Okay. Let's stop . Stop . No, you're not. That's okay . [inaudible]

Speaker 1:

Yeah. So, you know, you watch that, it kind of makes your heart sink a little bit. Still makes mine sink . Cause that's a , that's a , that's a 73 year old woman with dementia. Who's 80 pounds obvious, right? Not a well person. And they just picked her up, kind of threw in there, like a piece of cattle, which is disgusting and sick. Now. Even I, somebody who's seen a lot of this stuff can watch something like this and go, ah , that makes my stomach turn a little bit because of my compassion. I think for fellow man. And when I see other people doing stuff like this to other people with almost no sense of humanity and just clearly cold, mechanical and calculating, it really is grotesque. Now that being said, this happens all the time in this country. This is not a new thing is, is pretty , uh, pretty disturbing because this happened to a 73 year old woman, but this happens all the time, right? If you're, if you're a 26 year old person in the middle of a mental health crisis, it doesn't matter what color you are. This, this happens across the board. This, this is white. These are white cops doing this to a white woman. I know people want to make all of these police incidents about race. I don't really think so. I think it's a cultural thing. I think that it's a big problem with law enforcement and how they think they are supposed to act when they're dealing with civilians. These people, I feel like they're operating, like they're in the middle of Fallujah, right? Like they're pair of dropping into, you know , uh , Baghdad or something like that. When they're out dealing with a $13 theft from Walmart, they gotta, you know , they gotta rough this woman up and then laugh about it. When they go back into the station. Very, very grotesque, unfortunately, all too common. And as we now know, almost zero accountability in the police department, at least if you want to take the facts on the merits, if you want to take the facts that were alleged in the, on the face for face value, they're saying, well, nobody even knew about it. Right? We had this woman who was injured, several people signed off on the use of force document. Chief of police now comes out, says, well, I want to be transparent about it, but apparently they didn't even know about it until the lawsuit was filed. So now we're talking about checks and balances and internal procedures. When there has been a use of force, what are the police doing in order to vet? What happened? Make sure that nothing happened that was problematic and tell the defense sues and tell somebody sues about this. Now all of these cops are going to just, what are they going to do? They're going to respond. They're going to say no qualified immunity. Right? She was arrested. She was lawfully arrested. Everything that they did there, I think was illegally act was, was, was okay. Right. She was apparently a suspect in a shoplifting, $13 resisted arrest technically, right? There's a there's the , the cops can go through this and justify everything that they did, but guess what? It was still wrong. And are there going to be repercussions for it? We'll find out here is a little bit more video about what happened back in the police station. This is a little note there at the bottom says, notice this video has been edited. The complete uncut video is over on there .

Speaker 5:

Video says they're whispering to each other fist bump . This happened . How do you think it went and jumped in? Like I got pushed off to the side. I don't want you to think that I'm not acting it's okay. You're just buried out there. Pushing, pushing, pushing here . No doubt . And like , Oh man, I get it now. And then she told him , I'm like, yeah, you should be on the bench now . Cool.

Speaker 1:

All right . So as you saw it , right, kind of yucking it up. Now it does sound like they're talking about like kind of glory stories, you know, Hey man , maybe it was her first arrest or their second arrest, you know? I don't know what Loveland looks like. I don't know how much action they get, but apparently this was something that was sort of exciting for them. They were talking about it in that manner. Like, Hey, Hey, how did you do? How did you do, how did you think I did? Well, I thought you did fine. Well, I don't know. I don't want you to think that I wasn't participating is what the female officer said . Well, you know, I didn't want you to think that I was sort of backing away. He said, no, you did great. You know, you, you helped her. Uh, we, it was, she, she was a fighter. She was squirmy. She was flexible. Did you hear the pop though? I was like, Oh no, it didn't have , you know, kind of like this whole thing was, was just, you know, commentary. Then he starts to wise up a little bit. You can see him kind of pause when they go. Did you see, she was born in 46, 73. He goes up. It's like my grandma. So yeah, not ideal. A little bit concerned that maybe she's senile. Maybe she's got dementia. Maybe something is going to come of this, obviously. So why is this stuff? Common parlance. Why do they all act like this? Why do they go back? Sit at their desks, write their reports and yuck it up over this stuff. And I understand, right? I understand. You know, like if you're a waiter or something, right , that's crazy out there. That customer was a loser or whatever. Customer's a jerk, right? Attorneys do it. Doctors do it. Everybody has sort of that gallows humor to some degree, but this was a 73 year old woman and they just broke her shoulder, pop it out of socket. And they're just, we're what, what makes humanity evaporate from a person that you can do that to somebody else? How does that work? Over $13 in a Walmart shoplifting situation. It's disgusting. Here's some more, here's a scene. So Sergeant Mesler is the officer's supervisor. He was on scene with them. He knows that Karen is injured. Then Sergeant Metzler is the officer's supervisor. Okay. So what's going on here? Let's see.

Speaker 5:

That's our blood. We're going to sit in the car. [inaudible] jumping in here . Let me know when you're ready.

Speaker 2:

All right . So right. It sounds like these are two kind of high school kids graduates. Just go. You're talking about it. Still sort of pumped up by the adrenaline of an arrest. Maybe it was their first arrest. Maybe they're 20 something years old. I don't know. Let's see what else we've got

Speaker 5:

[inaudible] but what is it? See what happened there?

Speaker 1:

Does she need to be charged with a felony? So yeah , that happens just a couple, couple, couple cops poke it around. Oh, maybe we will charge her with a felony. Maybe that's justified. We've got more class . We're going to skip through them. Let's take a [email protected] gross behavior. Let's see what else we've got miss faith. Do we have some other questions? My PowerPoints are not updating. We're having another technical problem here today. So we're trying to sort through that. Doesn't look like I have any questions queued up on this one. So we'll just hang on. She sent me another link are all right, so now it's updated. All right. We've got some questions says first and foremost, we have [inaudible] says it's really infuriates me, especially when DC. Uh, all right . So not sure what's going on over here. Let's take a look here. First question is up from Joe. Snow says Robert, most cops are absolutely disgusting people. Is that a fair assessment? I actually don't think it's fair. I think that most cops are not disgusting people. I think that most cops are good people. Most cops are like the rest of us. Most cops are , uh, just like you and I, right. They're sort of living their lives and want to start families and they want to do some good in the world. And I think that is the vast majority of officers. I think there are a part of a culture that has a lot of problems that protect some of the bad officers that are there. And unfortunately the difference between maybe the police industry and our industry are that they have a total monopoly on power. They have a lot of protections that you or I do not have, right? If you're a , if you sell a widget and your widget kill somebody, well, you get sued or you go to jail for that. And you're out of business. It's over police. There's no skin in the game. In that regard, they have a contract with the government to do whatever they want. And they have a lot of power when executing those, those governments , uh , those contracts with our governments and that results in some very, very strong protections for some of the less favorable aspects of their , uh, their, their force. That is the problem. And so what we see in my opinion is we see sort of a higher concentration of really bad officers. And when those officers do something bad, it's catastrophic, right? If you, if you are a bad cashier, selling hot dogs at a vending machine, well, and you , and you screw that up, it's not the end of the world. If you're a police officer and you do something bad, well, you end up with the city burning down because some, you know, some something happened in a way that society doesn't like consequences are very dramatic. And I think that's why law enforcement , uh, you know, the , the , the bad ones really stand

Speaker 2:

And out the good ones, not so much.

Speaker 1:

And part of the problem with that, I think is that a lot of the good officers, they don't necessarily call out some of the others

Speaker 2:

They're bad ones. So you don't get to see those who stand out. Often

Speaker 1:

We have Liberty or deaths as I'm shocked that Ben Crump did not jump to represent garner. I know that's weird. I wonder why. I wonder why that is crumps on a lot of other cases, where is he at with Gardner ? We've got HLB says, how are events like this? Not immediately handled with Swift firing. Like we can train people who actually want to be there for people. If my

Speaker 2:

Or grandma had to handle this, I need a process

Speaker 1:

Because my foot would be so far up their.

Speaker 2:

I said it.

Speaker 1:

I said it because it deserved it. Let's take a look. We got Sherry Whitney in the house as are these humans. What is wrong with them? Calling any, calling them any kind of animal pig comes to mind is an insult to the animals. Yeah. I mean, at least animals are, most of them are pretty nice to each other. Next up we've got Leroy . TMD says, why do cops think every interaction needs to get physical and end

Speaker 2:

In an arrest? What's the punishment

Speaker 1:

For stealing $20 worth of crap from Walmart community service? Can we just not issue a citation and move along? Reminds me of the Eric Garner death. He was just selling cigarettes illegally on the corner. Right? Well, you saw that cop, right? He , he gave her about two seconds to comply. As soon as she didn't comply, boom and set right. Physical right there. He didn't try to go in front of her and say, ma'am , can you even understand what I'm saying right now? I'm trying to communicate with you. I need you to stop. There's a, there's an altercation at Walmart . Apparently you left with some money. I'm trying to figure this out. Please don't walk

Speaker 2:

Away from me. Oh, you

Speaker 1:

See that? She doesn't understand what you're saying. You see that she has like a glaze. She's looking through your body. Cause she doesn't know what's going on because she has

Speaker 2:

Dementia. Maybe that's yeah .

Speaker 1:

Okay. Well we're , we're dealing with somebody who's not mentally. Well, right? That could, that would have taken 30 seconds. He didn't. He just said, all right . That's Oh, you're walking away from me. You're disobeying my authority. That's a lawful authority. And I'm out here. I need an attorney ,

Speaker 2:

A rental and hit. So he got it on the back of a 73 year old woman. It's that guy.

Speaker 1:

We have leafy bug in the house. As , at that age, there's a good chance. This poor woman will never physically recover from those injuries. I don't even want to think about the psychological damage. Yeah . And what if this woman dies? Right? What if she does, right? You hear , you hear kind of that joke. It's kind of a bad joke, but you know, as soon as an old person breaks their hip, that's kind of the end of the road. Like I say , end of the line for them, right? They're not going to be walking. They're not gonna be mobile. They're gonna have a bunch of surgeries. It's all downhill from there.

Speaker 2:

Well, the government just did this to this woman, 73 year old woman who,

Speaker 1:

You know , in my opinion, never that, that she was, she was not a threat. She was walking away. He gave her about half of a second to comply before he engaged her. And I think that that was inappropriate. Hopefully he gets pays the repercussions for that HLB says, so is there no training for handling psychological issues and deescalation for those scenarios? I know toddlers who could have handled the situation better.

Speaker 2:

Yeah. There, there is

Speaker 1:

Training for that. Of course. I mean, they go through a lot of training,

Speaker 2:

Just they're sort of ready

Speaker 1:

For that adrenaline hit. They want to get out there and mix it up with people. That's why they became officers . Jack Elia says the only thing a cop will not laugh about is our child molesters and cop killers. Everything else is fair game and will always be fair game. Once an officer pulls the body of a child out of a dumpster. Yeah. Not good. Not good. Uh , last question up from Sasha. Sasha says, hi, Rob Ms . Fatal and mom hope y'all are doing well. That video was sad. Excessive force for no reason, they seem so heartless. And it makes you think that if this happened to their elderly

Speaker 2:

Loved ones, how would they react to it? Very good question. Very good .

Speaker 1:

Very good question, indeed. And let's take a quick look

Speaker 2:

At, see if we've got

Speaker 1:

Any other questions in here. Not looking like we do now. Miss faith is telling me to check something one second over here ,

Speaker 2:

Here. So it's not that it's cause I still don't

Speaker 1:

See you miss faith. All right, no problem. We're going to move on to the next segment because we've got to get out of here in about 22 minutes. So let's move on through it. Golin Maxwell. We've spoken a lot about going on this channel and she just got a bad ruling from the second circuit court of appeals. She's staying in custody. If anybody had any doubts about that, well, now you don't because she's not going anywhere. We've long speculated that that was not going to happen. Her attorneys are really trying hard to get her out and they submitted a number of different bail requests. Judges are denying all of them and they took up one of the more recent denials to the court of appeals. Remember she's being prosecuted out of a federal district court. And so when they originally denied her bail, she tried to go and appeal that so that she could get a different judge to let her out of custody. Well, of course the judge didn't do that. We're going to go through the story and I want to give you an update because remember Maxwell has also been charged with a new violation. She had her arraignment on that, I think last week and the arraignment is , is very, very basic. It's basically, Hey, we've got new charges against

Speaker 2:

You. We need to make sure you

Speaker 1:

Know about that. Do you know about it? Yes, we do. All right, well, nothing's going to change. We're not going to let you out of custody. So we're just going to add this charge to the other charges that you've already got. And we're going to see you at the next court date. So that's really all that was about, but there is a new, interesting thing that happened. Glen Maxwell was in , in custody and she was meeting in person with her attorneys. Well, when she left that meeting

Speaker 2:

With her lawyers, remember in, in custody, she walked out with some papers that her attorneys had given her, according to the jail. That's a big, no-no

Speaker 1:

Not allowed to do

Speaker 2:

That when she took those documents out, the jail confiscated those documents.

Speaker 1:

Oh , did they just get her legally protected attorney, client privileged information? And if so, what does that mean for her case could be a big problem. A lot of letters, a lot of motions, a lot of issues I've been flying back and forth over the last few days in the Glen Maxwell case. And we're going to go through it cause it's some pretty impressive lawyering. You know, some people are saying that her legal bill for her defense lawyers got to be in the 10, 20, maybe even $30 million range, they are earning it. They're doing a great job. I want to show you how they are structuring and laying the framework for more appeals and a really solid defense for Glen Maxwell. So let's go through this article over from the N Y post you can see here, it says a trio of judges from the federal appeals court in Manhattan denied Glenn Maxwell's request to be let out on bail while she's awaiting trial for allegedly procuring underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein, three panel judge from the second circuit court handed down a one-page ruling on Tuesday. Today, I'm going to show you that here on the next slide, denying the bid and ordering Maxwell's attorneys to raise any issue they might have about her incarceration in a lower district court. So they're saying you can't get out of custody. And remember, one of the reasons that they wanted her to get out of custody is because they said that the conditions in the jail were so bad. She was losing her hair, couldn't sleep and woken up. You know, it was , uh , the sewage was backing up, had no clean sanitation anywhere. So they were saying she has to be out because the conditions are just so unbearable while the court of appeals is we're going to see said, well, I'll take that up with the lower level court district court. All we want to know, or all we're ruling on here is whether we are going to let you out or not. And the answer is not. So Maxwell's attorney David Marcus said in an email that he was quote heartbroken by the decision says we are considering our options for next steps. Marcus insisted Maxwell can't prepare for trial because she's awakened every 15 minutes in the night by jail guards who shine flashlights in her cell. And the hearing assistant us attorney Laura Pomerantz said the constant checks were routine in the lockup , a claim Marcus disputed. So there's nothing routine about it. The idea that she has a mask on is wrong. She either uses a sock or a towel to block out the light on her own. The appeals court said in the order on Tuesday that well she could raise those concerns with district judge, Alison Nathan, who is overseeing her case in the Manhattan federal court panel wrote to the extent the appellate seeks relief specific to her sleeping conditions. Take it up with a district court. Here is the opinion you can see here. Not much, not much to it at all. United States court of appeals for the second circuit, you can see this was filed today, March. I'm sorry. Uh , what is it? April 27th, 2021.

Speaker 2:

Colin Maxwell says here

Speaker 1:

Appeals from the order of the district court denying bail upon due consideration. It is hereby ordered that the district court's orders are affirmed and the appellant court's motion for bail or temporary pretrial release is denied. See that right there during oral argument Maxwell expressed concern that she was being improperly deprived of sleep. To the extent that they seek specific relief to her sleeping conditions, take it up with the district court signed off on by Catherine O'Hagan Wolf clerk of the court signed off on of course by the second circuit. And so, you know, I don't think this was a big surprise to anybody, right? I've been sort of saying here that I think

Speaker 2:

It's legally , uh , uh, unequal that [inaudible]

Speaker 1:

Well as not being left out of custody, there are a lot of other , uh, individuals who have committed more heinous crimes than Glen Maxwell who are out on bail. Right? For example, you can pick Derrick Shovan right. He murdered somebody legally. Now, according to the court of law, he's been convicted of that. And he was out on bail for months,

Speaker 2:

Rittenhouse, same thing. And a lot of these ,

Speaker 1:

The others that we've talked about, right? You can actually kill somebody and be out on bail, but what's different about Golin Maxwell's case is the flight risk components. She had dual citizenship, I think in France and even, maybe in Britain and many people are saying that she's got unlimited assets, right? She sort of disclosed a lot of this stuff to federal authorities,

Speaker 2:

But is that accurate if she is out,

Speaker 1:

Are we ever going to see her again? Probably not. So I think it is in fact, the right move that the court is not letting her out

Speaker 2:

In illegally . It may be. It's one

Speaker 1:

Of those margin cases where most people in her situation,

Speaker 2:

Yeah . They're going to let them out. She's not most people.

Speaker 1:

She was the number two to Jeffrey Epstein . Epstein is not around anymore. So the court is doing everything in its power to keep her in ,

Speaker 2:

In custody. We're going to see if any of that changes. Given what

Speaker 1:

Just happened recently, Maxwell has requested bail three times since she was arrested. She's been rejected each time in letters to Nathan, her attorneys detailed harsh conditions at the jail, including the constant checks in the middle of the night, which they say are done by guards because the Bureau of prisons failed to stop Epstein from killing himself in 2019,

Speaker 2:

Allegedly,

Speaker 1:

They also are argued. She's dropped weight, lost hair was abused by a guard during a pat-down Maxwell . Maxwell's accused of grooming underage girls for Epstein to abused in 1990s and early two thousands. Eight count indictment filed in Manhattan, federal court. The indictment includes two counts of perjury that will be tried separately from the sexual misconduct charges. She's pleaded not guilty for all as to all charges. Trial has been tentatively set for July, which we'll see about that. I'm not holding my breath that we're going to have a Golin Maxwell trial in July. If anything, I think it's probably not even going to happen this year. If I had to take a guess, but I could be wrong. I hope I am because I do want to see what happens here. We've got Glen Maxwell , another story. It says that she uses a sock to cover eyes from the jail guards flashlights. So every 15 minutes they come, they poke in.

Speaker 2:

She's saying that she cannot

Speaker 1:

Prepare for her trial due to that. Prosecutors say those are just routine, but this is the real big story that I wanted to mention. I think very interesting here, the jail guard . This is another story over from New York post. It says that a jail guard stood knee to knee with Glen Maxwell, as she used the

Speaker 2:

Commode, which is the toilet. For those of you here in a minute ,

Speaker 1:

America, a jail guard stood knee to knee with Colin Maxwell. Let's use the bathroom in Brooklyn lockup in an attempt to intimidate and humiliate the accused madams at her lawyer in court papers filed Monday night. Last night, the guard team leader at the metropolitan detention center suspected Maxwell of improperly taking legal papers from her attorney, Bobby stern Haim . All right . So pay attention to this name. We're going to go through a letter from Bobby stern Haim . After the pear met to discuss her case on Saturday, according to the filing, a group of guards confiscated Maxwell's legal documents,

Speaker 2:

Whoa, and threaten her with punishment for it .

Speaker 1:

Allegedly taking non-approved papers from her attorneys, her lawyer alleged.

Speaker 2:

Ooh . So Matt

Speaker 1:

Swell was then given permission to use the bathroom where a guard allegedly decided to intimidate her further. Unlike any other occasion, the guard team leaders didn't need any with Maxwell while she sat in the Kubota in a small area containing one toilet

Speaker 2:

And a sink said stern Haim in a

Speaker 1:

Letter to the judge, having a guard, standing over her while she used a commode cost or to feel

Speaker 2:

Intimidated and humiliated.

Speaker 1:

So that's, that's a , that's a whole separate issue, right? You know, a guard standing over you while you're using the restroom. It is, it is humiliating and it is intimidating. And I think that that would be the case for anybody. Uh, but I'm not even interested in that per se. I am way more interested in this

Speaker 2:

Idea that the jail took

Speaker 1:

Her legal documents away from her Maxwell was meeting with her attorney. Bobby stern

Speaker 2:

Documents are exchanged hands exchange hands. They take them away from her. Whoa. So let's

Speaker 1:

Take a look at this letter that was filed

Speaker 2:

In court yesterday.

Speaker 1:

The w today , the 27th is it looks

Speaker 2:

Like so you can see here, Bobby stern Haim . Okay . Soon as this happened,

Speaker 1:

Fires a letter out. This is an excellent legal work. I want to show you. Dear judge Nathan, I write to report an incident stemming from an attorney client conference with Glen Maxwell guards on Maxwell security detail, wrongfully seized, and reviewed her confidential legal documents, and then intimidated her by standing over her in the bathroom. The incident has compromised her ability to prepare for trial, to confer with counsel and to retain confidential legal documents. In addition, intimidation and humiliation has further exacerbated her feelings of insecurity due to the power exerted upon her by the guards on Saturday,

Speaker 2:

Leah, Sopheon another lawyer and I attended a prescheduled

Speaker 1:

In-person legal conference

Speaker 2:

With Ms . Maxwell

Speaker 1:

Tired two and a half hour conference was conducted under the constant watch of four to five guards, including a Lieutenant with a camera on a tripod co focused on Maxwell. And with counsel , while recording audio and video and captured on surveillance, cameras are fixed in the room after counsel left the facility mixed Maxwell mix. Ms. Maxwell called me to report that her legal papers were coming.

Speaker 2:

This is a big deal, right? If you're an attorney,

Speaker 1:

I have something that's very sacred. It's called attorney client privilege. All of the conversations, the communications that you have between you, the attorney and your client. It's so sacred. I mean, you , you basically die for that. You'll you die to protect that, right ?

Speaker 2:

And if the opposing party, the police,

Speaker 1:

The jail, the prosecutors, even the judges, if they get your work product, if they get the secret information that you're communicating about back and forth, that is a breach that is catastrophic. In my opinion, now judges and prosecutors, you know, they typically look at it differently, but this is something that is sacred. It needs to be protected. It's your right to counsel. It's something that's enshrined in our constitution. You have a right to that counsel and you have a , it's a right to a meaningful relationship, right? You don't just get token

Speaker 2:

Counsel.

Speaker 1:

Oh yeah. You get a , you get a lawyer, right. Good for you. Good luck. Right. He really works for us. And he's not going to do anything for you because he's part of our government. He's on our payroll, right? You want a legitimate protections for that sacred relationship between defense and your client

Speaker 2:

Here that was breached is what it sounds like.

Speaker 1:

Were confiscated. Later that day, I received an email from MDC legal counsel . So the jail's lawyer sent an email over to Golin Maxwell's lawyer. So once again, let's frame this back out. Maxwell's in custody. They're not going to let her out. Her attorney, Bobby stern, Haim , and another lawyer come in and meet with Glen . They're sitting there in custody, in a federal detention center, MDC, Metro detention center, whatever it is. And they're having a conversation. Attorneys leave, they leave documents with Ms . Maxwell jail guard comes in, says, Oh no, you can't have those. That is in violation

Speaker 2:

Of protocol. They take those documents away from Maxwell. Attorneys are now home. The jail lawyer, emails Maxwell's lawyer and says, Hey, just got to let you know. It's been brought to my attention by the staff

Speaker 1:

In Brooklyn, that Ms. Maxwell received paperwork that was not in her possession upon entering the legal visiting area. As you are aware, the policies set forth for Brooklyn legal visits do not allow for the passing of any materials during a legal visit due to our policy and procedures. The additional documents that were provided to Ms. Maxwell were

Speaker 2:

Confiscated. Those materials

Speaker 1:

Were put in an envelope and will be returned to you tomorrow upon your arrival at the institution. Please note, you may put these documents in the legal mailbox, in the lobby of the

Speaker 2:

East building

Speaker 1:

That, that, that , uh , let lawyer for the jails. Okay. Now I'm just going to send this email off. Hey, you're in violation of our protocols. We're going to just collect those documents. Not going to look at them . We're going to put them in an envelope. You can get, it

Speaker 2:

Should be the end of it, right? Oh, okay. Oh ,

Speaker 1:

Sorry about that. I didn't know about your policies. Didn't know about your procedure .

Speaker 2:

There's our mistake. We'll get it tomorrow. Do you think that's what happened? No .

Speaker 1:

Or that Bobby stern Haim fire right back says I emailed the

Speaker 2:

And response. Your accusation is an accurate as is

Speaker 1:

Reported to you by your staff. Nothing in its Maxwell's legal papers was given to her by me or by Leah. Sopheon both Ms . Saffy tonight dispute these allegations in the strongest terms, you see what they're saying? You're accusing us of violating jail protocols.

Speaker 2:

Everything has been video recorded as we saw,

Speaker 1:

Right? She said that there are four cops there for , uh , the detention guards there. You're accusing us of bringing illegal

Speaker 2:

Documents and late and leaving

Speaker 1:

It here. We're not going to let that stand. So they say both miss Appian . And I dispute these allegations in the strongest

Speaker 2:

Terms today, Ms. Sapien

Speaker 1:

And I met with Maxwell for a scheduled legal visit under the gaze of five guards and a portable camera recording, audio and video. After the visit concluded, we left the visiting area. Guards accused Ms. Maxwell of possessing documents obtained from counsel . The guard sees confidential documents from her, including documents. She had previously received in legal mail, delivered to the MDC and given to her by MDC staff, after seizing highly confidential documents, subject to a protective order that your staff is not authorized to review and work product. The guards began reading the documents and have not returned them to Ms . Maxwell at no time did the guards who were assiduously watching and filming the legal conference, bring any concern to my attention. So it is quite telling that you have been contacted when counselor told that legal staff are unavailable during the weekend, no documents were given to Ms. Maxwell for her retention . Demand is hereby made for an immediate identification of the documents you claim were not in Ms. Maxwell's possession upon entering the legal visiting area in advance of the arrival of counsel I'll list of guards present during the visit and a copy of the video recording, please immediately return the confiscated legal documents to Ms. Maxwell. They are her documents, not mine. The confiscation of these documents has there . It is deprived Ms. Maxwell of her time, and seriously impaired her ability to review legal documents and prepare for an upcoming trial. Adding to an already difficult situation. This matter is being reported to the court and legal action will be

Speaker 2:

Initiated . Oh , it's beautiful.

Speaker 1:

Oh, it hurts. It stings. If you're, if you're that, that government lawyer on the other end of that.

Speaker 2:

Uh , no. What did I do? Because

Speaker 1:

Now they got to respond to this and it's not just this, right. Let's take a quick look and see what else is going on in advance. Uh , guards have gone through her legal papers and a break from such protocol. The guards did not do so prior to commencement of the legal visit on Saturday after the legal conference and departure of counsel , the guard sees all of her paperwork. So this is all back to the court now. So

Speaker 2:

What you , what you see here in this document, this is being drafted to the court. Okay. So this they're

Speaker 1:

Telling the judge, Hey, look, this is what's going on. Then this is the actual email that was exchanged. Now they're communicating back to the judge. Hey judge, look also , uh , in advance of previous in-person legal visits, guards have also gone through her legal papers and a break from protocol. They also did not do so prior to commencement of the legal visit, you know , they didn't check her documents before she went into the room. They didn't do so prior to that day. And so they're making all of these accusations. You can see that this goes on. She no longer feels that her legal papers are safe. She believes that the confidentiality required to prepare her defense for trial has been irreparably breached. You know what? This is, this is laying the framework for they're going to ask to get her out again because they screwed it up because law enforcement, the prison guards here breached that sacred bond between an attorney and their client. And now irreparably breached has no trust has no faith in the confidentiality of her defense. And now they're going to be renewing another, another claim. And this is another stake in the ground that they're going to come back to. If she is convicted of something, they're going to say, look, well, she , of course she was convicted. She couldn't defend herself. She had the frigging government reading her legal documents that were confidential and sacred between her attorney and herself. It's good stuff. Now. It's not just a nasty email. Okay. Do you think that her attorneys are going to just stop there? No. No, not at all there . They want everything now. Yeah . You just accused them of breaking protocols. You think it's going to stop there? No, it's not. So what else are her attorneys asking for Ms. Maxwell requests ? The court enter an order, directing the MDC through its legal counsel to provide Ms. Maxwell's attorneys . Only the following information, the identity of the persons who sees the legal material, the inventory of the items seized a statement subject to penalty of perjury regarding whether the materials were duplicated in any fashion, whether any disciplinary or corrective action was taking against any of the offending guards. So now they're out for blood, right? You , you , you screwed that. Screw that up for our clients. It's not going to happen again. We want blood. We want the person who, who actually sees those documents, and then we're not done yet because they're going to send a direct letter. Now over to the jail itself, you can see here, here's another letter law offices of Bobby stern, Haim , April 26th , a notice, and a demand to preserve items of evidence. This has nothing to do really with Glenn's underlying case, right? Glenn's case is about, you know , sex trafficking in the nineties, in the two thousands with Jeffrey Epstein. Now they want evidence about, about this interaction they want. They're sending a demand letter about this little hubbub that happened on Saturday. It says, as counsel for Glen Maxwell, I'm notifying you as legal counsel of the obligation to preserve documents. What do they want as stated on the April 24th email, all images, video recordings, data files, everything, anything that was captured on surveillance footage. I want names of all guards, including fluid , the Lieutenant, and anybody who is present in the visiting room, any written or recorded communications where they're stored in electronic digital or paper format, obtaining connection, a list of documents that was claimed to be in Maxwell's possession at the time, a list of all documents that were claimed to have been given to Ms . Maxwell, by counsel for her retention during legal conference, any written correspondence, blah, blah, blah, please take adequate steps to preserve all documents, all data compilations, including all electronically stored information counsel for Maxwell is going to be seeking electronic data in the custody and control of indivi . And it goes on and on. Please take all necessary steps to prevent the deletion and the destruction of any of this information,

Speaker 2:

Yours truly Bobby stern Haim . Wow. Right? Opened up a whole can of worms there. If you are a person who is a member of that opposing party, if you just receive that letter, not particularly good. And so my friends, that's it for the show

Speaker 1:

Today. For some reason, our PowerPoint slides, we're not sinking. So I don't have any questions queued up Ms . Faith. And I are going to figure that out tomorrow, but that's all right, because I got to get out of here. I have a five 30 sharp meeting. And so we're going to button it up right there as is usually the case. I want to thank all of you who will support the show over on locals. Typically the end of the show, we sort of have a little , uh , thing that we go through to thank all of our newcomers and anybody who participated in ask questions today, we're going to get back on track with that tomorrow because I got a jet. And I want to just thank you for being a part of the program. Thank you so much for all of your continued support. We're going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow at 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM out on the East coast. And for that one, Florida, man, everybody have a tremendous night eat well, sleep well. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye .