Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Chauvin Jurors Speak! Biden Weaponizes IRS, Andrew Brown Jr., Mario Gonzalez, Anthony Alvarez

April 28, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Jurors Speak! Biden Weaponizes IRS, Andrew Brown Jr., Mario Gonzalez, Anthony Alvarez
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Jurors Speak! Biden Weaponizes IRS, Andrew Brown Jr., Mario Gonzalez, Anthony Alvarez
Apr 28, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

Two jurors on the Chauvin trial speak out! Biden set to announce plan to tax America to death while weaponizing the IRS. New police shooting cases and updates. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Chauvin jurors speak! Brandon Mitchell, juror 52, speaks with ABC news about role in the Chauvin trial.​

• Mitchell, a 31-year-old basketball coach, said it was like “watching someone die on a daily basis.”​

• Lisa Christensen, a woman who sat as a juror for the entire trial but who was later excused as an alternate, shares her story and her notes.​

• President Biden is set to address America and unveil his vision for taxing the country into oblivion.​

• To further militarize the federal government, Biden is asking for $80 billion dollars to fund enhanced IRS interrogation on the “rich”.​

• Review of the $80 Billion dollars and a comparison to the New York Police Department.​

• Larry Kudlow and others share concerns that President Biden will “weaponize” the IRS and target his political enemies.​

• North Carolina Judge REFUSES to release body camera footage of Andrew Brown Jr. shooting.​

• Judge Jeff Foster said turning over the footage to the media might impact the trial of law enforcement officers who opened fire.​

• More police killings: LAPD kills Mario Gonzalez in manner similar to George Floyd.​

• More police killings: Chicago Police kill 22-year-old Anthony Alvarez during encounter last month.​

• 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 #BidenTaxes #ChauvinTrial #PoliceShootings #IRS #AndrewBrownJr #AnthonyAlvarez #MarioGonzalez #GeorgeFloyd #ChauvinUpdates #BrandonMitchell #LisaChristensen #JudgeFoster #Transparency

Show Notes Transcript

Two jurors on the Chauvin trial speak out! Biden set to announce plan to tax America to death while weaponizing the IRS. New police shooting cases and updates. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Chauvin jurors speak! Brandon Mitchell, juror 52, speaks with ABC news about role in the Chauvin trial.​

• Mitchell, a 31-year-old basketball coach, said it was like “watching someone die on a daily basis.”​

• Lisa Christensen, a woman who sat as a juror for the entire trial but who was later excused as an alternate, shares her story and her notes.​

• President Biden is set to address America and unveil his vision for taxing the country into oblivion.​

• To further militarize the federal government, Biden is asking for $80 billion dollars to fund enhanced IRS interrogation on the “rich”.​

• Review of the $80 Billion dollars and a comparison to the New York Police Department.​

• Larry Kudlow and others share concerns that President Biden will “weaponize” the IRS and target his political enemies.​

• North Carolina Judge REFUSES to release body camera footage of Andrew Brown Jr. shooting.​

• Judge Jeff Foster said turning over the footage to the media might impact the trial of law enforcement officers who opened fire.​

• More police killings: LAPD kills Mario Gonzalez in manner similar to George Floyd.​

• More police killings: Chicago Police kill 22-year-old Anthony Alvarez during encounter last month.​

• 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 #BidenTaxes #ChauvinTrial #PoliceShootings #IRS #AndrewBrownJr #AnthonyAlvarez #MarioGonzalez #GeorgeFloyd #ChauvinUpdates #BrandonMitchell #LisaChristensen #JudgeFoster #Transparency

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our very system, with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get to. We're going to start by talking about Derek Shelvin . A couple of jurors have spoken out recently. In fact, a new juror who was actually a part of the decision. Who's a part of the deliberations. Remember we heard from Lisa Christianson about a week ago. Didn't really spend much time talking about her, but we are going to today. Now she was the alternate juror who was a part of the entire trial, but was booted right before deliberations occurred. So we have her, we're going to update her , uh , uh, us on what she had to say. Then we're also going to talk about another guy by the name of Brandon Mitchell, who was out talking to ABC news. He was now, he was , this guy was actually a part of the deliberation, a part of the decision. And so we've got a couple of clips from him about what happened in the deliberation room. And maybe we'll have some insight as to why the jurors voted the way that they did. So it's a Derrick Shovan update. Then we're going to change gears. Joe Biden right now is very soon. My understanding is he's going to be speaking and unveiling a tax plan and sort of a budget and what his vision for the future of America is under just what appears to be a crushing blow of new taxes. So very exciting stuff. But we are going to take a quick look at what he wants to do with the IRS. He's asking for $80 billion to be given to the IRS, to increase their level of enforcement. We're talking about a 70% increase in their normal budgets . So this is a big expenditure, and we want to take a look at that, right? This is going to trickle down into criminal law. This is going to be, this is one of the biggest enforcement entities that exists connected to our federal government. That is just infesting. Every one of our lives on a daily basis, we have to pay some tax to the IRS. If you're working at least, or if you basically everywhere you go, you're paying taxes to somebody, whether it's the IRS or a local government, it's everywhere. And so they want more money so that they can be even more places and be more aggressive with the things that they do. So we're going to give an update on that and see what was , is going on with these , uh , this ever burgeoning bureaucracy known as our federal government. Then we've got a couple new shootings we've got to talk about, or let's say new police officer involved incidents. We've got judge Jeff Foster. We've spoken about Andrew Brown who was , uh, was killed , uh, out of North Carolina and in North Carolina, the way that this works is they have a judge that has to sign off before anybody cameras can be released. And so, you know , many other States were used to getting this information readily available, transparent, open, so we can see it. And we're still critical of them for delaying the release of this information. While in North Carolina, they're not going to release it. The judge said, no, no, it's not coming out. And we want to explain why that is. We've got a clip from the judge himself that is giving us some details as to why he ruled the way that he did. We have another killing out of LAPD guy by the name of Mario Gonzalez , no longer with us. Apparently that death was very similar to what happened with George Floyd. Then we have another one out of Chicago guy by the name of Anthony Al Alvarez, who was 22 years old died last month. So we're going to go through a couple of those, if you want to be a part of the show of the place to do that is by going over to watching the watchers.locals.com , which is where our community is. There's a live chat that's happening right now. As we speak, you can go on over there watching the watchers.locals.com. If you want to ask a question or leave a comment or LABA criticism, if you want to be a part of the program, go to the live chat, ask a question in that forum and his faith will clip it and add it to the slides. And so we'll get to it as we go throughout the show . So it's a great place to be watching the watchers.locals.com. All right , so let's get into the news of the date jurors in the Derek Shovan case are now slowly speaking out. We learned very recently that the alternate juror, a woman by the name of Lisa Christianson is out there. She's actually talking to the media. And she in fact shared her notes with us. She took notes online paper. We've got some scanned copies of that, that we're going to go through, but she wasn't alternate germs. So she was a part of the trial. She sat in there throughout the entirety of the case, but then at the very end, right before the jurors went into the deliberation rooms, judge said, sorry, you're the alternate. So she got booted out. Nevertheless, she was still there for the trial. And so we can see how the trial impacted her. But we now heard from another juror today, guy by the name of Brandon Mitchell, he was juror number 52 31 year old basketball player out of the North community high school in Minneapolis. He was a part of the deliberation . So not only did he sit in the entire trial, but he was back there in the deliberation room with the other jurors, sort of hashing it out. And so he was on ABC news, explaining a little bit about what happened in the deliberation room. And we want to go through this because a lot of people are sort of scratching their heads about this thing. You know, it was a very short deliberation is about eight hours and it happened very quickly. And there was weeks of testimony, a lot of medical expert witnesses were, were there presenting in court. And so many people were, were saying, Hey, why did it take them eight hours to come to a conviction? I mean, there was , there's a lot more data that they could have combed through. Why didn't they do any of that? It seems like it was kind of open and shut. They all walked in, came to an agreement, walk back out, and there was Shovan guilty on all counts, even though people like yours, truly other individuals we've heard from who've been on the show. In fact, we had a Viva fry, we've got , uh , Robert barns , we've got , uh, the , uh , law of self , uh Barranca . We have many other people who are defense lawyers by trade and training. We have a lot of experience with these types of cases saying things like, Hey, there was plenty of reasonable doubt here. It's very difficult for us to fathom a case where there, where there could be even w where it's possible to have more reasonable doubt. Given the fact that there were so many, I would say , uh , you know , external causes or, or superseding intervening causes that, that we can connect to George Floyd's death. And I'm talking specifically about Matthews 2019 prior with last minute ingestion theory. In that case, we had blood pressure two 16 over one 65, and the list goes on and on I've , I've beaten that up , uh , to the end of the earth on this channel. I don't need to go through that again, but the question has been, did Derrick Shovan get a fair trial. Ultimately is what a lot of people are asking. And they're saying, no, he, how could he have, because it happened in Minneapolis, the city council settled for $27 million, right in the middle of [inaudible] . As the jury was on the verge of going into the deliberation room before the trial had even closed. Before closing arguments in mid delivered, Maxine waters comes out, flies into the city, starts throwing around bombs in the air. Like if there's not a conviction on all counts, there's going to be, you know , more blood in the streets essentially is where she was going with that statement. So, you know , judge didn't change venue. Judge didn't continue the trial judge didn't revoke dear anybody. And so many people are going there. This is, this is not a fair trial, right? You may be happy with the outcome. Nobody loves Derek . Shovan right. I , I started this show really to sort of hold the cops accountable and prosecutors and judges and police officers and everybody involved in the justice system. And so I've got a very strong vested interest. I'm very much inclined to find fault with law enforcement. That's the basis of this channel, but not at the expense of the reasonable doubt standard that supersedes everything. I don't care if it's a cop it's it's politician. I don't care if it's Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, who I have no love for either one of those people, but if they get charged with a crime, they still deserve the presumption of innocence. And they are entitled to the presumption of that in conjunction with the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that exists in our society. So everybody deserves that regardless of what type of crime you've committed. It's , it's, it's irrelevant. It's , it's the basic standard. It's where we all start. So the question has always been in my mind, did Derek Shovan get that? We already know how , uh, I would say prolific, the video was all over the country. And we saw that the entire media apparatus all the politicians, everybody was sort of in alignment to convict Derek Shovan even. I was go back and watch my video back in may of 2020. I was very angry at him and the whole situation, but that's not enough. You still have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of law. So again, we go back to the question, did he get a fair shot? Did he get a fair trial? Was this a fair shake? And we have to go through, and now we we're , we have some more evidence that we can compare and contrast this to . We have a juror now, guy by the name of Brandon Mitchell, who is this gentleman right here. He says, the article comes over from ABC news said that Brandon, who is , uh, what was your 52 was in the trial of the officer, Derek Shovan for the murder of George. Floyd said being in a courtroom for the high profile case was like watching somebody die on a daily basis, which I totally would agree with that assessment, right? Because the prosecution showed the video, every opportunity that they possibly could. They showed it to every single witness. Oh, what's happening there? Oh, the knee on the neck. Oh, tell me about that. Oh, well what's your opinion on the neon , the neck. How about your opinion, doctor will back that up again. Play that again in super slow motion. I want to make sure that we can see every minuscule fiber that's moving in super slow Mo you know, multiple different angles, because it was so damning. Right. And I'm , I'm being facetious here in exaggerative, but it is, it's the point here. They , they took something that was highly emotional and they made sure to rub the juror's faces in it. Every opportunity they could good strategy, they should have done that. They did, and they did it effectively. And so this juror comes back out. Yeah. It's like watching somebody die every single stinking day. So you can imagine the type of pressure and what that does to a person's disposition, very effective trial work from the prosecution . This was always going to be a burden that the defense was going to have to overcome. Just given the gravity of what we saw the video was so stinking bad. How do you overcome that? Michal ? 31 year old basketball coach at North community high school in Minneapolis said he and the other 11 jurors didn't watch the news during the trial or deliberation . So they weren't aware of the racial climate or protests going on. Well, we're going to listen to them . We'll see if he, if that's accurate or not. I mean, this was going on before the trial. So why would it stop? We were really just locked in on the case. Mitchell told ABC news, Robin Roberts in his first television interview, which air this morning on good morning, America. I mean, those things are just so secondary because you're literally throughout the trial, watching somebody die on a daily basis. So that stress alone is enough to take your mind away from whatever's going on outside the four walls of the courtroom. So, you know, right. Obviously , uh, they, they they're supposed to be removed from the news, but as we are going to hear from another juror , uh, she was traveling back and forth between some of these cities that had a lot of unrest. So if there's protests surrounding the court building and the jurors have to come from their house to the court building and back on a regular basis, they're going to see this stuff, whether they're watching the news or not judged , didn't change the venue, it's all happening right out of Minneapolis. So how could you not know what was going on outside of the four walls of the courtroom? Anybody believe that? No, of course not. Mitchell said the deliberations were relatively straightforward , but that there were a few hiccups with terminology and understanding exactly what the instructions were. So there wasn't too much banter back and forth. I think the one juror that was kind of, I wouldn't say slowness down, but was being delicate with the process more. So it was just kind of hung up on a few words within the instructions and just wanted to make sure they got it right. Mitchell said they well , he wanted to publicly extend condolences to Floyd's family. And then let them know that his name is going to live on his legacy is now cemented in history. It's now become much bigger than him as an individual. It will hopefully create some change within society says this juror. So this is Brandon Mitchell, who is the 31 year old basketball coach. And when we watch these clips from him, right , the question that I want, I want you to ask yourself, it's not a fair question, but it is something that I think is important to just exercise. Okay. You know, w w w what we're asking of a juror, and the reason I say it's not fair is because this is where human beings, it's not possible to sort of disassociate yourself from what you experience in the world. And many people say that they can't , Oh, I'm not mad about that. Or that thing doesn't bother me. Yeah. Right. We all know it does. So we , we can sort of live according to this nice little while , lie that we can all disassociate ourselves and we can all be fair and impartial. And we all know that's not really true. It's kind of this legal fiction that exists. So all of these people came in, in front of the jury panel in front of judge Cahill , Eric Nelson, Steve Schluter , and all of the other prosecutors. And they asked them a bunch of questions. And the final conclusion, what they wanted to draw out of them is whether or not they could set aside all their prior conceptions about this case and be fair and impartial. Right. And we heard that we covered it on this channel. We spent a lot of time going through every single day voice deer for every juror. We had clips. We go listen to the audio. We were reading the transcripts and on and on and on. So it's very important. This went on for a long period of time. Can you be fair? Can you be impartial? Did you see the video? Yes or no. If you did, can you set that aside side ? We want you to go in as a blank slate, tabula, rasa, nothing on there, as best as we can. Now we know that that's not really even possible. Okay. No , you're going to try your best. You're going to go in with an open mind, but we all know that a lot of the time in these cases, the decision is already made up in a juror's mind before you even step foot into the courtroom. Right. And it's a tall order to ask a defense attorney to try to reverse that course on a regular standard. You know, Jen generic, vanilla case, not a national case involving one of the most , uh, you know, in your face gruesome incidents where an officer is killing somebody else, according to the courts that he's convicted. So that's kind of a fact now the jury said, so, so it's very traumatic and it's very powerful. And so now we're asking a juror sort of unring that bell, which we all know is virtually impossible. So what do we get now? And how do we, how do we, you know , cipher through this as a society, because this is happening on and on again, we're going to go through a number of other stories in the, in the third segment, the show today where we're analyzing more shootings, right? So this is, this is not going away. So now we have to analyze the role of jurors in this new era. This is a new thing that's happening right now, because typically we, you know, we've , we've had, we've had high profile, high stakes cases before in this country, right? We've had OJ, we've had Zimmerman , we've had them all, we've gone through this. That's not new. There's always going to be a high profile criminal cases. That's not what I'm talking about. What I am talking about is sort of this unification of the media and the power structure to be involved in the court of public opinion in the prosecution of certain particular criminal defendants. We're seeing it right now with the Capitol Hill protesters , the riders, they're all getting a second tier of justice, right? You may not agree with that, but if you've gone through the analysis here, if you can give me a good explanation as to why the justice department is , uh , is giving sweetheart deals to all the Antifa protestors from a year ago, diversion deals and deals where there are criminal charges will ultimately be evaporated. As soon as they complete community service. Why are they getting those deals? While some of the January six people are still in custody, not being granted. Bond both are the same types of charges interference with government functions. K the Antifa people were throwing Molotov cocktails at court buildings. So don't tell me that's not interference with the government, same set of circumstances, totally different scales of justice. We're seeing this across the board. Now we're seeing the media weigh in and politicians and everybody weigh in on very local, local criminal cases like Derek Shovan Kamala Harris weighed in Joe Biden weighed in Maxine waters from California, weighed in people from all over the country are throwing their 2 cents in. And it's not just about expressing an opinion. It's about saying things that are likely and foreseeable to impact the result. It's likely to impact the public opinion as to any one particular issue. And they're actually going there and generating fervor in order to achieve that particular outcome. In this case, we're talking about Maxine waters and other people. So now you sort of have to think about this in two different fronts, not only in the court of law, but also in the court of public opinion. And there's something interesting happening here, where now, as we're going to hear from Brandon Mitchell, I want you to listen to this. And I want you to think about this. Is this a person who look , and I know this is not fair, right? Because how can you ask somebody in a situation like this to be fair and impartial. But th now we're looking at this after the fact, this guy was just, he sat through basically four week trial, came out the other end. And now he's explaining to us his deliberative process. What happened on the inside, what happened when we were in there in court deliberating with the other jurors. And as we go through, I think we have three clips. When we get to the last clip, it's gotta be asking ourselves, is this somebody that we believe went into the courtroom trying to be fair and impartial? Let's just say that, right. It's, it's a difficult standard to ask if they were, or if they cared to be, or any of those things, but, but ask yourself, right , ask yourself, this, does this person sound like a fair and impartial juror or somebody that tried to be fair and impartial? Or does this sound like somebody that went in with a, an agenda, and that has a political motivation throughout the entirety of the case, because yes, this is after the fact, this is somebody who came out and you can make the argument and say, well, his opinion changed based on the evidence that he saw. So you could say theoretically that, well , yes, he was fair and impartial . The day of opening arguments before the trial started. Yeah , he was fair and impartial, but all of that changed when the evidence was presented. Okay. So we'll grant you that. So then we're going to listen to his motivation as to what, what the consequences of this. Why should people be on jury panels? He gives us some insight into why he thinks this was such an important thing for him to be , be a part of. And he's explaining his disposition prior to making it onto the panel. Okay. It doesn't make any sense right now, but it will in a minute. So let's go into some clips. This is a quick overview. This is Brandon Mitchell speaking with Ms. Roberts . Who's on ABC news. First juror to speak out the first year , who is a part of the deliberative process is now on ABC news this morning. Let's check it out.

Speaker 2:

Um , well, first I want to start up . I said to my condolences, to the Floyd family , um, I haven't got a chance to do that publicly. So I want to do that first and foremost. Um, but no, the deliberation room, it was pretty much , um, for the most part, it was straightforward. Uh, there were a few hiccups with, you know , terminology and understanding exactly what the instructions were for each case. Uh , but like I said, for the most part we got in, we got out , um, there wasn't too much banter back and forth.

Speaker 3:

Was there one juror though on one of the lesser charges that , uh , was a holdout for awhile ?

Speaker 2:

Yeah. So, I mean, we'd probably deliberate it for four hours and of that four hours. It was, it was , um, I guess we were going over Marcel, the terminology that was being used and making sure that we understood exactly what was being asked. Um, I think the one juror that was kind of , I wouldn't say slowing us down, but , um, was being , uh , delicate with the process more so , um, it was just kind of , uh , hung up on a few words within the, within the instructions , um, and just wanted to make sure that , that they got it . Right .

Speaker 3:

And so how were you able, and that's how you were able to , uh , convince this particular juror clarification on the wheel ?

Speaker 2:

Um, yeah, so we just kind of went around the room. We broke down, we literally broke down the sentences and broke down the words and what the meanings were. Um, it just described it several different ways from different perspectives , um, until we came to a common conclusion.

Speaker 1:

Okay. Yeah. So it sounds like very, very generic deliberation, right? There's somebody out there goes , I really don't understand these words. They got delivered a whole set of jury instructions as we've gone through on this channel. We went through them and sort of reviewed them. This is what the jury does. They say , uh , causation. They say , uh, you know, what was , uh, deprive , uh, th th th the praise of mind, or to pray heart and they go through and they just sort of define the terms that the judge tells them apply to the facts of this case. And so nothing really interesting. They're very, very, very, you know, generic. You've got somebody who says, I will kind of, kind of really don't understand this. The rest of the crew is going to make sure that they nudge them into their line of thinking. And so that's it right? Pretty, pretty simple. And as we know, it was simple. It was very quick. They did not spend much time on this in the next clip though. We're going to hear about the , the, the, sort of the impact of the video. So remember earlier in this segment, I was explaining that they beat the hell out of this video. They were just rubbing the juror's faces in it all day, every day , at every opportunity they had multiple expert witnesses talk about it. We had multiple diagrams, we had arrows, we had charts. We had, you know , the whole thing. I think we had 3d renderings of it from Dr. Tobin or something very similar to that. And so the , uh , Ms. Roberts asks him, says , Hey , what was the most important piece in this case? What was something that was dispositive? What made you come to the conclusion that you did? Was there anything that you can point to? And he does, it's the video. And as we all know, it's Dr. Tobin, right? Dr. Tobin really, in my opinion, was the person who convicted Derek Shovan due to the power of his testimony was very effective, but let's listen in and see what this , uh, this juror had to say about it.

Speaker 2:

Um , th the video is, is it's a historic Medi-Cal video, unfortunately. Um, and then seeing the multiple angles of it from the body cams, from the other, the other cell phones , um, it was probably the most important piece of evidence. Was there any testimony, was there one piece of testimony for you that made a difference? Um, yeah. So for me , um, I'm, I'll say, I'll say too , um, for sure , uh, Donna Williams , just, you know, there's how he spoke about everything and Dr. Tobin, I think once Dr. Tobin , um , got on the stand and the way he spoke and the details that he gave in the way he gave the details , um, I thought that really solidified the prosecution's case.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, it was Dr. Tobin was, was very powerful. And so, again, it was the video and Dr. Tobin both, I think of course were , were very, very, very strong pieces of , uh , of evidence and testimony that came in to court that probably did it. And it was not easy for the defense to overcome both of those burdens. Now, the , the last bit, the part where I think the , the, the facade sort of cracks a little bit on this interview and listen, right? Th this is a lay person. This is a 31 year old basketball coach. So I'm trying not to belittle this guy or to, you know, come down on him in any way, or offer a judgment as to his position on this, even really. I mean, it's, it's his position and it's important. I think that we treat these, you know, treat everybody in this case with some empathy. This is a man who is trying to do the right thing for himself, for his family, for his community, for his demographic, for his race, whatever he thinks he's doing. He's I think he's doing it for the right reason, right. He , I think he's out there trying to make the world a better place. He feels like the society is a certain way, and he needs to do something to be a part of the solution. I don't, I'm not so sure that I agree with him based on this next statement that he makes, but we have to understand right. There is there , there are multiple different individuals and different interests involved in all of these issues. And it's important that we accept and listen to them rather than just throwing, throwing them out at face value, because this is a reality. This is going to be happening. Now. I want you to listen to what he says. We have Roberts specifically saying, what is the importance of black men showing up for jury duty and says black men, okay. In specifically about this, and here is his answer. Let's listen. In

Speaker 3:

Your experience, you believe has shown the importance of black men to show up for jury duty. Why do you believe that?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, so, I mean, in order for , uh, to change to happen , um, we got to get us to those types of avenues, getting us to those rooms. We got to show up for jury duty. We have to vote. Those are things that are important to the society, has a hole . And if we want to , um, be viewed differently in society and start to see different results, we have to start to do those things, and we cannot avoid them. We can't put them on the back burner. We have to put them in the forefront. Um, and jury duty is definitely one of those things I'm , especially with, you know, the insane number of black men being incarcerated. Um, so yeah, so we definitely have to get on, get on those on those panels and stuff like that.

Speaker 1:

So we definitely have to get on those panels and stuff like that. In other words, we gotta be aggressive. We gotta sort of elbow our way onto the jury panels as a form of political involvement. There's way too many people too way , too many black people. He says incarcerated in our federal prisons. I agree with him . I think there's way too many people of all stripes and colors in our federal prisons, but he's saying specifically that they're going to get on. And we w why is it so important? The black men get on jurors? We gotta get out there so that we can express our political opinion. I'm okay with people expressing their political opinion. I want everybody in this country to feel like they're a part of the process and that they have their voice and are they're being heard, but I'll tell you this. The jury panel is not the right place to do that. This is not what this forum is for. If you've got a political gripe, you go do that with your legislature. You go do that with your elected representatives. You don't do that on the jury panel. It's not your position in here. You may have a lot of problems with the justice system. And I do believe me, but the way that you, you, you get justice out of the justice reform. The way you get systemic change in our society is not by going and convicting one particular person, somebody by the name of Derek . Shovan right. Cause that is not about that. Now you may want to make it about that. You may want to say, well, symbolically Derek Shovan represents, you know , it's symbolic of a deeper, deep seated problem that exists throughout our justice system. And I would even agree with you on that, right? Th th that a lot of these cases have some, some tentacles and some remnants that extend far beyond them, but that's not the point. The point is those get addressed in other venues and other avenues, not in the court of law, Derek Shovan or any defendant is

Speaker 4:

Presumed innocent until

Speaker 1:

Proven. Otherwise this is a big problem. Okay. Basically what he's advocating is the same thing that happened back in the fifties and sixties, when, you know , a black defendant would be on the other side of the table, and you have a bunch of white jurors who said , I just don't like the black guy, because he happens to be black. And they're going to use their position on a jury panel for their political motives for their political ends. So if we're just going to flip that script and say, okay, well, we're just going to put black people on a jury to convict white people because of a , of, I don't know, white privilege or racial injustice or equity or whatever it is, you know, the white people did it for, you know, 50, 60 seventies, eighties, arguably, maybe some of them think they're still doing it today. So we're just going to turn the tables. Now, now black people are going to do it to white people. As , as though this is some sort of equitable balance, like it's insanity. So it's not okay. Principally, it's a bad thing. It's bad when the white people did it, it's going to be bad. When, when this guy is sort of encouraging this, that, you know , African-Americans make it onto jury panels in order to express their political displeasure at our justice system. It's one venue. It's one way to do it. I disagree with it. I think it sort of undermines the premise of the entire judicial system. If we're going to politicize every single criminal case, this is going to be, it's going to fall apart quickly. I mean, the , the , the courts are sort of the last bastion of, or supposed to be overly politicized criminal prosecutions. And if, you know, if it's going to be like this, if, if basically this guy is , you know , advocating for other people to make it onto a jury panel and then exercise their political disposition, that's not the role you're supposed to be on the jury panel with the presumption of innocence, with a clean slate as best you can. We know it's impossible, but as best you can to give that person a fair shake. And if the evidence presented in front of you convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt, that that person is guilty. That's when you convict that's when you vote for that conviction, it's not because it's a white police officer, and you've got a problem with the justice system as do I, as I do with, with many other things in this country, but I'm not going to take it out on the back of any single defendant.

Speaker 4:

Yeah . And you know, for some

Speaker 1:

Reason, this is looking like this might be a valid option. Like this is something that we're going to see more of. If the courts are not going to

Speaker 4:

You give this movement, the outcome that they want, then they're going to nudge the courts. They're going to play the game. They're going to use their own rules against them. Sure. We'll get on the panel.

Speaker 1:

We'll convict every single cop that comes through here, whether it's justified or not, because it's a political statement. It's not a statement about justice. It's a , it's a, it's a scary

Speaker 4:

Every problem . And we saw an ABC news kind of just let that one go, okay. Well, if you want

Speaker 1:

To get on there and just make a statement on the jury panel, so be it for the defendant. Good luck to that person. Now we have another juror who came out. This is the alternate juror. Her name is Lisa Christianson. So she met with Lu ragus over from care 11. She was the alternate juror found Derek Shovan guilty of Floyd's murder. She lives in a city where a white officer shot and killed 20 year old black man during a traffic stop this month. That was Dante, right? Or , yeah, Dante. He said that if he, if she had been part of the deliberations, she also would have found show and guilty Christiansen had no idea that she was one of the two alternates until the judge dismissed her right before the 12 jurors were sequestered. So she was on till the very last minute, not gonna spend a ton of time with her, but I just wanted to show you a couple of clips. And then she did give the news agency, her notes. So we actually actually read through some of them. Pretty interesting. So here she is speaking to care 11.

Speaker 5:

Well , she locked eyes with Derek Shovan during his murder trial juror 96 felt a little uncomfortable,

Speaker 6:

Just kind of weird. I thought he was a little bit smaller than the pictures that I seen. He looked taller than what he was.

Speaker 5:

The picture that resonated with Lisa Christianson was exhibit 17

Speaker 6:

Of him with his hand in his pocket. That kinda got to me like, this is my job. Kind of don't tell me what to do. Cause he was in charge that kind of bothered me a little bit.

Speaker 5:

As the trial progressed, Christiansen was open-minded to the defense.

Speaker 6:

Mr. Nelson did a really good job. He was believable and he did bring out a lot of good points,

Speaker 5:

But she says, prosecutors did a really good job presenting their case. And the evidence was on their side.

Speaker 6:

What was the key evidence, in your opinion, all the perspectives from the different videos, it would be harder to understand exactly what happened, but the videos is what really nailed it.

Speaker 5:

Particularly the video shot by Darnella Frazier and the teens testimony along with it , Christianson was so close to the witness stand. She could feel

Speaker 6:

It broke my heart. When she said that she apologized to Mr. Floyd and she wished she could have did more to save her life. That's a lot for a 17 year old to go through. Do you think the use of force was reasonable? I don't know . Do you think that Derek Shovan caused George Floyd's death? I feel like the nailing on the neck for so long

Speaker 5:

Christianson was convinced by the prosecution's top medical expert, Dr. Martin Tobin.

Speaker 6:

He actually had us demonstrate we're touching our necks , the front of our necks, the back of our necks, as he was saying, and we could feel what he was trying to make us feel. So that was interesting. And then I guess what really did it was when he said right here at this point is where he had that seizure. And this is where he died.

Speaker 5:

She knew the case was huge, but Christiansen had no idea. She would be so close during the trial to another death caused by police near her home in Brooklyn center.

Speaker 6:

So when I came home, I could hear the helicopters flying over my house. Um , if I stepped outside, I could see the small from those smoker grenades going on by had a hard time getting to my house because all the protesters were blocking the intersections and stuff. So I had to go way around just to get home. So I was aware, but it , it did not affect me.

Speaker 5:

Christianson took the job seriously, taking notes every day. She did not know until the end. So we're going to get to those notes ,

Speaker 1:

Help with, we're going to get to those notes right now. Now a couple of quick things on that. So, you know, again, this sounds like a very nice, honest woman, somebody who wanted to do her part in this whole thing. And, you know , we applaud her for being a part of it. Not an easy thing to go through, no question about it. Uh, but , but that being said, right, we want to sort of critique her rationale, her basis, for her opinion. Now she didn't get to vote, but she said she, if she did, she would have voted guilty. But again, right. Think about the basis for that. Very emotional, all emotion saw the video. Oh, the video was bad. Yeah. The one from the front, the same one that we all saw. Right? Not that, that was the same evidence that she saw before she even stepped foot into court. Uh , I think it was her right there . Who probably, so I think everybody saw it , uh, or , or knew about it. And my point is, it was that, that did it. Then it was the multiple angles that just doubled down and confirmed what she had already seen. Then it was the emotion. She heard somebody testify, they lost them . Didn't know what to do. Right. Uh , emotion, emotion, emotion. Then Dr. Tobin comes out and says, Oh, it's right there. I mean, that's the moment right there. That's when he died. So she goes, Oh, okay. Well, Dr. Tobin was pretty convincing. That's it? I found him to be credible. So that's it right? It's an expert witness a video. And it's all it takes. It's not that complicated. Didn't hear much about causation. Didn't hear much about, you know, the, the, the , uh, excessive force, but it was a short interview. But when you go through her notes, you're going to, you're going to see the same thing. It's not about causation, right? I was up here screaming about causation. I'm a defense attorney. I know that you , you , you can win cases on those issues. But I also recognize very clearly. And obviously that most people don't think about those things, the same way that I do, they don't care. They don't care. What kind of guts are inside the computer. They just care that it turns on turns off and allows them to get on Facebook. That's it. Right. I care about the nuts and bolts. And so when we're talking about the human operating system, I'm more inclined to say, well , well, how about logically and reason? You know, okay, we've got all of these different variables that could have contributed to the death that looked like they did that were independently confirmed by expert witnesses that they would have. In fact, if they were the only variable resulted in his death and on and off the list goes on and on and on, right? So those things are important to me. Whereas other people who are watching the same movie, the same, the same stuff on TV, they're going, that goes one ear in one ear and right out the other they're focused on the emotion. And so let's take a look at Lisa's notes. We can see them over here. We have Jenna scurry, the nine one, one dispatcher, pretty impressed that she had a gut feeling. Something was wrong. She was brave enough to report it to the supervising Sergeant. She turned out nothing. She was, could be wrong, right? Camera was freezing use force. So we've got, you know , pretty impressed that she had a gut feeling. So a lot of emotion, language, Donald Williams, he explained the blood blood show cold that I could see letters underneath his shirt, a pot. Wasn't sure if it was BLM, we have Daniella . Fraser says I , uh , filmed. It broke my heart. When she felt guilty and apologized to George Floyd for not being able to do more, to save his life, I could feel her pain and her sorrow .

Speaker 4:

What the hell does that have to do with what killed George Floyd? It was sad

Speaker 1:

What we were seeing, but what about causation? Nothing to do with it, but it is very emotional. Says a nine-year-old . I could hear the sadness in her voice, right? And she's underlining

Speaker 4:

This in red. I

Speaker 1:

Think this is her underlines Alyssa or Caitlin another . That was a nine-year-old. I could hear the sadness in her voice. 17 year old chin

Speaker 4:

Quivering. It really bothered me. See that government is just emotionally

Speaker 1:

Beating the hell out

Speaker 4:

Of the jurors. Genevieve Hansen firefighter tried new

Speaker 1:

We're as times to help strong witness. She wrote down Christopher Martin, 19 year old clerk. I could feel his guilt blaming and sell for taking that. Can't believe it. He feels responsible.

Speaker 4:

I'm mad at his employer,

Speaker 1:

Putting him in harms way by asking him to go outside, has nothing to do with George Floyd's cause of

Speaker 4:

Death, nothing. It's against

Speaker 1:

The law for an employee to pay back any fake bills. Period. You need to train their employees better on how to recognize counterfeit money. This lady's not even talking

Speaker 4:

About the case anymore. They

Speaker 1:

Have markers. You can Mark on the bill that will turn black.

Speaker 4:

If it's fake, what the hell is she talking about? She's talking about counterfeit money. They have a machine. You can slide the bill through to see if it's fake. She's mad at the employers because she feels the emotions of this kid, Christopher Martin. And I remember his testimony. He's going, you know, I was just going to pay for it, man. Cause I felt bad for the guy. She internalizes that so much. She's trying to solve the problem. Just get one of those markers. Just get a bill, right? Stop this counterfeit crap. Again. Nothing to do with the case. Nothing, nothing like nothing. What we're at

Speaker 1:

Asking her to do now is not weigh in on any of that. It's about those legal elements that are in the jury instructions

Speaker 4:

Specifically about cause of death. She's talking about counterfeit bills. Richard Zimmerman said something about being uncalled for doctors

Speaker 1:

Bradford Langenfeld we've got chief probate. There's an initial reasonableness and trying to get him under control. But once there were no longer any resistance, they got to let back up off of that. We got Dr. Martin Tobin, okay. Over here, she highlights most

Speaker 4:

Effective physical pulmonologists

Speaker 1:

Critical care. So powerful. This is what made me certain that Derek Shovan did was wrong and how dangerous it was. She wrote that down. He did a great job of explaining what happened so we could understand it. He had the entire jury participate very effective there. If you're taking notes, if you're a lawyer right? Ask the jury participate.

Speaker 4:

I was ,

Speaker 7:

It would have been curious to see if, if Nelson would have filed a motion to eliminate a stop that from happening final moments, the moment life goes out of him . He's conscious seeing a

Speaker 4:

Flicker. Then it's gone. So pinpointing that

Speaker 7:

Was effective. Let's take a look over here. Then we get over to the defense experts. We've got Barry Brode use of force expert. This is the defense has felt. Chauvin's actions were justified and reasonable. Try to put yourself in the officer's shoes. Didn't believe the prone position was unreasonable.

Speaker 4:

Then we have Dr. Fowler said, George Ford

Speaker 7:

Died of cardiac arrest. And not from lack of oxygen said it was undetermined. Fentinol methamphetamines, exhaust, carbon monoxide,

Speaker 4:

Tumor, clogged

Speaker 7:

Arteries, all contributed to his death. She wrote

Speaker 4:

Not believable, not cause it's not emotional.

Speaker 7:

She, she really keyed in on some of that emotional stuff and it worked got convictions all three counts. So let's take a quick [email protected] First one comes over from blaster brain in the house says, what do you think about a concept like a judge overseeing the jury to make sure they're not ignoring the law in deliberations? Well blaster brain. I , I don't really , um, I don't really like, so the judge kind of does oversee them, right? They can't do certain things and leave. And so the judge has ultimate authority, but I think what you're asking about is should the judge be going into deliberations and making sure they're following that? And I , the answer is really no, right? You want to keep that separate the jurors free to deliberate how they deliberate. That's part of the system. There's a lot of reasons for that. You don't, you know, because think about this, right? The judge is really the,

Speaker 4:

The chief of

Speaker 7:

The case. Judge walks in and says, Oh, you guys are doing it wrong. You need to do it this way. Jurors go. Oh, okay. So then is the jury really deliberating or is the judge because the jurors are always going to defer to the judge and you don't want that to happen. Patriot Musk in the house says is 12 angry men, 12 angry men, 1997 version. A good comparison to the Shovan trial. Not sure if you've seen it. I have not seen it, but it seems if there is at least one impartial juror, then there can be a more genuine process to come to a verdict. I don't even know if that movie accurately represents what jurors go through. I haven't seen it, which is interesting because I was alive in 1997. Don't know why I did not see that movie. I apologize for not being able to answer your question, but I , um , if it see if there's at least one impartial juror, then there's a more genuine process to come to a verdict. That makes sense to me, if that is what the movie is portraying, I would , I would, hopefully I ideally want every single juror

Speaker 4:

To be impartial, but yeah, if you get one, for sure, that will make sense .

Speaker 7:

Liberation's that much more effective. Not sure that we got that in the Shovan trial, which is why it happened so quickly. Davis parks says, I always, how do we fix this problem? I always thought high-profile cases should have professional jurors starting to realize that judges with law degrees are just as partial as average

Speaker 1:

Years , doesn't seem like a fair trial is even possible anymore for high profile cases. I think that you actually might be right about that. David Sparks . We're going to see, I think this is going to be a big problem for the foreseeable future. We're going to see what the courts do about it. And I think that, you know , uh, you know, the more and more I'm starting to see some of this, the more and more I think that maybe Shovan actually does have some teeth on an appeal because this juror came out, we just heard from him and he sounded completely

Speaker 4:

Biased to me, sounded

Speaker 1:

Like he wanted to get on the panel to effectuate an outcome. That is not what that's for. There are other mechanisms to effectuate that change. The court is not the proper venue for that. And the courts are not going to allow that to happen. Now, that being said, if the amount of pressure, the external pressure from society sort of overcomes the courts, they may not be willing to push back on it. And we sort of saw that in the show of , in case we saw judge didn't change venue didn't even continue the case. Didn't revolt . Dear . Anybody probably had a massive amount of political pressure from city council, governor, mayor, everybody, maybe even the frigging president for all we know who ,

Speaker 4:

But the point is, if you

Speaker 1:

Have that pressure come down to bear . And the judge is the last protection. The court is the last protection of due process and the courts are buckling under the weight of public pressure. That is not good. And , uh , you know , I don't know what the courts are going to do to solve some of this, but you know, ultimately down the line, we're going to see here in the last segment that the judge out of North Carolina is actually , uh, not releasing information about the case, right? So that could go the other way we could just say, well, you know , you don't get any information then about it because the public is going to interfere and wreck the justice system. They're going to wreck the justice process. Nobody's gonna be able to get a fair and impartial trial anymore. So we got to lock everything back down, which I don't like that answer a bit because locked down information, no transparency and no accountability, just breeds corruption. And , uh , we all know we already have enough of that. We have justice first in the house says, think they need to be able to go through more potential jurors, lots of them and allow the judge to dismiss them off the top. Many of the jurors that were selected, I thought seemed unfit by their initial responses. But instead of

Speaker 4:

Missing them judge , uh, it was trying to reform them. Yeah. And that that's,

Speaker 1:

I think that's a very fair observation, justice first, and this is very common judges do this often, right? They sort of are defaulting to putting people on the

Speaker 4:

Jury panel. They , they,

Speaker 1:

They do not want to let you squirrelly your way out of it. So if there's any way to , to sort of keep you in there, they're going to try to do that. We have, see the veil says, I heard the judge say that there was no transcript or record for the jury to review. The jury had to remember and have good notes. How is this normal or illegal to do? I don't understand this being the norm of jury process while see the veil , uh , it is in fact normal. This is how it goes because here's what happens in a trial. If, if you needed to prepare a transcript , uh, both sides would disagree about the transcript. This is what happens. These , these situations, the , you know, a witness would testify. Let's say, let's say hypothetically, we want to have certified transcripts of every single statement that was uttered in this trial. It probably take a, I don't know, a month to generate that. You'd have to you . Yes. You have a court reporter who is typing everything. That's fine. You could easily give that to the jurors, but you would have both sides objecting to that. You'd have the defense saying, that's not, that's not what they said. Uh, Nope. That's not how that happened. I object to that statement. You wrote that wrong. That was out of place, whatever they would object over every sentence government would do the same and you'd have to go through these multiple rounds before they could even agree on a transcript to get back in front of a jury. So the jury, look, you got one shot at this thing, listen to it. If you want to listen to it. And then , then that's it. You get one crack at this. We're not going to draft a bunch of transcripts and allow you to go back and scrub through every sentence,

Speaker 4:

Give us your verdict.

Speaker 1:

And that is practicality, right? Some of that I think is probably antiquated from our old era where we just didn't have the ability to come up with transcripts and to video record things and scrubbed through video files. But there is

Speaker 4:

So some, some really good, you know, human nature reasons to do that. You pay attention. You're not going to get to go back.

Speaker 1:

I can look at this stuff again. We want you to be engaged and involved in the trial. And I think there's a lot of good argument for keeping it the way that it is, but I understand your point LT 13 says, this is the second juror to say Tobin made the difference in the case. Those are the slides given to the defense the night before. Could this be important in his opinion ,

Speaker 4:

I could be, you know, I think

Speaker 1:

He objected to that at the time and objected to it right after Tobin's testimony basically saying it could have been his him don't quote me on that one. A lot of witnesses. I'm not sure if it was in fact Tobin, but there was some conversation .

Speaker 4:

What about slides not matching? In other words,

Speaker 1:

Prosecution delivered the slides to the defense, but then when they presented their evidence in court, they didn't match because they updated a couple of things the night before. And it's something like that

Speaker 4:

Happen. Theoretically. It could be , uh, something that the appeal that, that would make its way into an appeal, but whether it would reverse the

Speaker 1:

Outcome in the case is a separate issue. So I'm not sure how substantial or significant it would be. Obviously if it was Tobin's testimony. Yeah, it was pretty significant because two jurors now are confirming how impactful that testimony was. It's ed says, how do we get rid of systemic racism? If race is always brought to the forefront of every discussion, deep question. I know. Sorry, Rob. Hi, miss faith.

Speaker 4:

Hi, ma what's up. It's ed. So how do we get

Speaker 1:

Red is red is systemic racism. Um, I don't really know the answer to this. You know, I would love an explanation to it . Um, I've, I've poked around I've , uh , you know , tried to see what BLM wants to do about it. I have no idea what they want to do about it. Um, I've poked around in some clubhouse rooms, clubhouse rooms have been fun. Uh, there, there are a lot of these rooms that are dedicated to this topic and I poked around in one and they're talking about reparations. In fact, they want reparations, I think, to the tune of something like four, four quadrillion dollars, I think was the last one that I heard. Uh, and so, you know, I don't know if these are serious proposals or not, but I don't really know what to do about it. Um, if there's a reasonable solution here that we, as a society can

Speaker 4:

Come to to solve this

Speaker 1:

Problem, I'm open to it. I'm open to hearing what the solution is. I'm not, I'm not so sure that I agree with the premise that there is this systemic racism. I mean, I know that there is a sort of racism in, I would say little silos across the country. And I , I, I know that they are sort of intertwined with systems, but I don't know what that, I don't really know what that means. I don't even know what it , what is systemic racism? Is it everywhere? Is it on everything that we do? I mean, if I wake up in the morning, am I inherently racist? I think that's what they're saying. And I just don't agree with that. So if that is their premise that we all are sort of just boring as long as you're a white person, right. I'm Italian. So I think I qualify in that category of a Caucasian person. So I,

Speaker 4:

I think, I think I'm just automatically racist. So I don't know how I wean that out of my

Speaker 1:

System. I don't know if there's a pill to take, or if there's a lotion or a cream or something, you know, that someplace should go and somebody asks you, I don't know, but I'm open to it. If there's a solution I'm open to it. It's ed says didn't Biden continuously say that he wanted the opportunity to make amends for his crime bills. Has he done anything yet to scoot Congress in that direction? So not really currently right now. It's just a lot of talk. It's a lot of, bloviating a lot of, you know, George Floyd bill and this and that and the other, but you know, it's this first a hundred days, we'll see if anything comes down the pike later down the road. But I don't think so. I don't think that we're going to see much on this because it's just been a lot of talk. Remember Joe, by 1994, 1988, 1986, 1984 , all crime bills. And he's been somebody who's been very proud of that said that anything that came out of the Senate that touched on crime since 1976 had Joe Biden's name on it. All right . So we've got his record there. We've also got Camila Harris, Joe Biden didn't do anything when he was vice-president for eight years. So why is he going to do anything?

Speaker 4:

No , I hit him and Obama could have done. So

Speaker 1:

Think to fix this for eight years when they were an office, not that long ago, they didn't. So, you know , they want to blame all of this stuff on, I guess, racist Republicans, Joe Biden wrote the crime bills. He's the godfather of our criminal justice system. More than anybody else that I can think of. I don't even think there's anybody who even shines a candle to him in terms of creating the environment in which we live. So if people really want reform, the man who created the system is in charge right now, there is nobody better to unring that bell. We'll see if he does it. And Kamala Harris, too . Same story, right? Ag , attorney, general prosecution prosecutor out of California, laughing at people, making fun of them for wanting more water. Oh, please serve more water. Remember when she

Speaker 4:

Did that , she's the vice president. Now some say the president,

Speaker 1:

Let's see if she can get , get out there and actually improve society for people. Or is this just a grift? It's been a grift ever since I've been practicing law. They've

Speaker 4:

A lot of people want to just rant

Speaker 1:

And rave about our broken justice system so that they can generate funds and then go on talk shows and rant and rave about it. But the problem is people are sitting in custody. People are being killed in our system right now. And this is a direct result of us. This is our government. This is not some bizarre, strange thing that we can't control, right? This isn't the Corona virus that nobody knows what the hell. You know what it , what it is, where it came from, what it does, how it works or any of that stuff that we just can't wrap our hands around. This is different. This is our system. This is our justice system. We can just write a new law, pass a new bill. We can release a bunch of people who don't need to be in custody because they're non-violent offenders. We can help more people who've been incarcerated because of drugs. There's a lot that we can do. Nobody wants to do it. Ask yourself why not ask yourself? Why the people who created the system who are now in power and have been in power, let's say three of the last , uh, two of the last three presidential terms. They were in charge.

Speaker 4:

Why

Speaker 1:

Is nothing getting changed or nothing? Getting fixed? They have all three. They have the, the house of representatives, the Congress, the Senate

Speaker 4:

And the white house. Where's the bill. Where's the bill. We're going to hear it

Speaker 1:

Biden about 1.3 trillion or whatever it is in addition to whatever the last two or 4 trillion work. See if he cramps justice in there, doubt it. Patriot Musk says, Rob , do you believe the jurors took this trial seriously and looked at the evidence diligently? No, I do not. I think they did take it seriously, but no , I don't think they really looked at much evidence. She just said that Shovan had his hand in his pocket. Yeah. And I think that one kind of caught me too . I think I've mentioned that

Speaker 4:

It really wasn't right. He was wearing a black glove. So it looks like it's in his pocket, but it wasn't. But that you're said that it was

Speaker 1:

It's. Ed says, last question. I promise. Do you think the jurors understand the concept of reasonable doubt? No,

Speaker 4:

I do not. It's a tough concept.

Speaker 1:

And it's one that defense attorneys spend a lot of time just hammering because it's difficult to grasp. And most people think that if you're in court ,

Speaker 4:

You did something wrong, right? The presumption of innocence is sort of nonexistent . And the idea that

Speaker 1:

The government has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, that if you have any doubt about whether a person committed a crime, any doubt, and as long as it's reasonable, if you have 1% doubt and it's a reasonable doubt, that's a not guilty verdict,

Speaker 4:

But people don't understand that they go, that's fine.

Speaker 1:

It's more likely know . I think T well, Dr. Tobin said that it's , that's what had happened. So I believe

Speaker 4:

Him. Okay. What about

Speaker 1:

All of the other expert witnesses from the government themselves who say that didn't happen? Dr . Bell

Speaker 4:

Or said that the government's witness Tobin came out, pulmonary fixie , a low oxygen. Dr. Tobin said that Dr. Baker comes out. No, it wasn't heart failed. Two witnesses

Speaker 1:

On the government side, both worked , both worked for the government disagreement about cause of death. That's not reasonable doubt. I don't know what

Speaker 4:

Is

Speaker 7:

Sherri Quinn . He says here, we see the total politicization

Speaker 4:

Of the judiciary.

Speaker 7:

When legal process, we have political prisoners, Capitol Hill, seizure of Giuliani's electronics, overriding attorney, client privilege,

Speaker 4:

Edge , Ida pogrom. A purge. Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 7:

It's weaponized. Everything is getting weaponized, including the justice system. It's a big problem share . He says the second problem is that for many years, the emphasis in the culture in education to focus on feelings rather than intellect and reason, most folks have been taught not to engage in critical thinking. That's that's exactly right. And this last 12 months has really shown that hasn't it. We've seen this. We've seen that. Anything the government says, people just lap it up. Just like good little sheep. Oh yeah. Okay. Oh , Dr. Fowchee. Okay, great. Whatever you say I'm going to do. Even when the government lies to you literally, I mean, they've been lying for the last 12 months about a number of things and they regularly do. We don't need to get into that here. Otherwise less. We be , you know, anger, some of the tech Lords , but it is a problem. People just say, well, I saw it on CNN. I'm just going to accept it. Okay. If you want to live your life that way that's I guess that's fine.

Speaker 4:

Uh, but I don't

Speaker 7:

Neither do you, which is why we're here talking together. Farmer's daughter says, Rob, do you think if the jury had some questions for the lawyers and judges during deliberations, they would have had more reasonable doubt or nothing would have changed.

Speaker 4:

So I think you're asking if, if the juror

Speaker 7:

Would have come forward and ask some questions, typically that is sort of indication of reasonable doubt. You know , they they're asking questions. They've got some things that they're thinking about. That's good. We want them to think we don't want them to come through and just across the board have a unanimous, guilty verdict. And so from a defense attorney perspective, when they're asking questions, that's a good thing. Because the worst thing that can happen is they don't ask any questions. They come back out in eight hours, they deliver across the board convictions. We have farmer's daughter says, I've noticed the family, make sure they are out front, immediately after a shooting. Now, do you think it's because the dollar signs after the Floyd trial seems like a dangerous precedent? Yes, I do. And I made the same comment on the , uh , McCaya Bryant shooting, right? We , I saw this, we had the aunt who was out there acting performatively in front of the cameras. She wasn't even there. When the shooting happened, she showed up after the fact to start doing, doing this screaming wailing thing in front of the cameras. I lost my niece. Why? So that she can be a part of the settlement. I think it's 100% to collect money. No question in my mind that she's grieving and mourning the loss of her niece, who apparently was in foster care already. And you know, mom wasn't particularly broken up about it either because she was on camera that night, there were still caution tape surrounding the neighborhood. And she was already out speaking to the cameras. Somethings felt off about that whole thing. But yes, if you're going to get us $27 million settlement, why wouldn't that make your ears stand up? And you want to be a part of that? We have William Lowe's has the juror saying Shovan failing to testify, hurt him, not been brought up. So , uh, I saw that I did not clip it here on this channel, but yes, that this was a part of the interview. The juror said it was probably to his detriment that he didn't take the stand because people were curious on what his thoughts were throughout the entire incident, which was a point that I made. Right. And I still think it was probably the right move, not to put him up there. Uh, I think that this jury would have convicted him regardless as we saw. I don't think anything he would have said would have changed anything about it. And it probably would have just sealed his fate because we're also hearing that they just didn't like him. You know , they didn't like how he was looking. And I also commented about this. I said, you know, I go back in the archives when the judge was asking him, when he was waving his right about testifying, the judge said, well, did anybody force you or threatened you, you know, to, to, to not testify. And Shovan kind of went like,

Speaker 4:

No judge, nobody

Speaker 7:

Puts me under duress. Okay. I got this sorta had that little face in that little smirk and I, and I sort of freeze frame that puppy. Cause it was, I noticed it very clearly. It's that's not a good attitude brother. If that comes across to the jurors, that you're just kind of thinking like you've got this thing in the bag. People can just sense that even from across the room and we've heard some jurors say that, Oh, SOC 71 says rod , big fan. So should have the defense just stuck to simple theme with the trial. Sounds like too much info killed the defense. So I think that it was probably not enough info if , if, if I'm looking at it now in hindsight , uh , because, or , or let's just say that the experts that they presented were not as compelling, they needed , uh, they needed a response to Dr. Tobin. They didn't

Speaker 4:

Have one, which I think

Speaker 7:

Is really what did it, Joe Snow in the house said , it seems pretty simple. Like Morgan Freeman said not too long ago, before we started shilling for experimental gene therapies, we just stopped talking about

Speaker 4:

Morgan Freeman. The voice

Speaker 7:

Liberty or death says systemic racism is a myth. We are to believe that the system is so racist that Kamala Obama was elected. LeBron James became a billionaire playing basketball. I want to make liberals head explode, ask them if the descendants of blacks that own slaves should pay reparations to descendants of slaves. Oh yeah. That's a good one. So yeah, if you're a black person that owned slaves, are you also a part of it?

Speaker 4:

The problem sounds like a white supremacist to me. Right ?

Speaker 7:

We've got Quain Kwane , quite queen in the house as Rob does. It looked like the jury member was reading from a teleprompter. Ooh, I didn't catch that. Looking left a while . Quick, short, I have movements back and forth. I don't know. It looks a lot like a script. Oh, interesting. Interesting. I did not catch that, but I do like to watch people to see if they're reading, you can see that with Joe Biden and you , and you watch him as he's like, watch my eyes. As he's reading, you'll watch his eyes go up and follow the text . I don't have a teleprompter on here, but his eyes will go up and you'll see that he kind of

Speaker 4:

Loses it. And then the person who's who's running the teleprompter stops it. And then he, his eyes come back down. He catches the next line.

Speaker 1:

And that little bit of panic that you see as his eyes , as his eyelids, just kind of opening . I'm not a body language expert, but I love to watch this stuff. And I've watched a lot of people in , uh , you know, clients, courts, judges, prosecutor, everybody,

Speaker 4:

You can kind of see it. He gets a little bit panicky.

Speaker 1:

Then the, then the thing stops. He catches back up. Sometimes he'll make a little bit of a remark out there. He'll go up, you know , uh , you know, Oh shucks, whatever. Oh , I'm an old man.

Speaker 4:

Then he catches back up, continues on with the reading. It's pretty

Speaker 1:

The obvious once you see it, in my humble opinion, Joe Snow says when Nelson started his cross about isn't it reasonable. If there was a gun battle occurring, I literally lost what little patience I was able to muster to hear him out. Cops blaming is for cops not trial lawyers in my humble opinion.

Speaker 4:

I think it's a good opinion. I think it's a good opinion.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. Nelson is not without criticism here. Right? Nelson, I think he did an excellent job. Uh, you know, I'm not, I'm not a person to , uh, you know, try to belittle another attorney's performance unless it's something that's grossly incompetent or anything like that. But Nelson, I thought did a very nice job. I mean, he, he was in one of the most difficult trials. I think that any defense lawyer could find themselves in and he, he held it together. He did a good job. Uh, Larry light says, Rob, can you compare this to the clear and convincing evidence standard? So beyond a reason , uh, I can, I don't have my chart in here today. Um , I will bring my chart in here another day. Larry, I have a chart that rocks through all the different tiers, but it's, it's a lower standard. So clear and convincing is sort of the middle tier standard. You have a preponderance of the evidence, which is sort of like 51% likely we say beyond a reasonable doubt is like 80%. If you want to use percentages and then clear and convincing is sort of , um, uh, in between the two of those. And so you can sort of flesh that out, however, however you want, but it's a lower standard than the criminal standard. And in criminal law, it's beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the very highest standard that we have. So that will be for other, I think that's for like child custody and those types of cases. But I don't do that type of law. Doodle do says, why were the private notes of the jury made public while she gave them to the news media? So that's why they're out there. Was she paid to release them? I don't know. It looked like a total virtue signal to me, probably like she knew that riots were happening close to her home and wanted to make it obvious in public that she was on the side of George Floyd. So the writers wouldn't come after her. Oh , maybe yeah. It could have easily been that, right. It could have been, it could have been that situation. I don't know,

Speaker 4:

But it is, it is interesting.

Speaker 1:

Right? She kind of approached the media said here are all my notes. Take a look at everything.

Speaker 4:

Curious beverage break . All right . So great questions

Speaker 1:

All came over from watching the watchers.locals.com . Thank you so much for your support and your love over there. We are going to change gears. That was a very long segment. I get off on the showbiz stuff ,

Speaker 4:

Got to tighten it up a little bit, but now we're going to change gears. Joe Biden is expected

Speaker 1:

To announce that he's got a new tax proposal along with a lot of other new spending proposals that are going to be coming down the throats of you America. So get ready for it. He also wants $80 billion to beef up the IRS so that they can come and collect that money. So if you all have had some thoughts about, well , maybe I just won't pay it. Oh no, no, no. W when we're talking about confiscatory taxes, when we're talking about essentially the government coming in and stealing your life away from you in the form of taxes, Joe Biden is ready to rock and roll $80 billion to beef up. IRS audits of high earners. This story comes over from the New York times,

Speaker 4:

Says president Biden

Speaker 1:

Is looking to pay for his ambitious economic agenda and shift more of the nation's tax burden to the wealthy will oppose giving the IRS a proposed giving the IRS an extra

Speaker 4:

$80 billion and

Speaker 1:

More authority over the next 10 years to crack down on tax evasion by high earners and large corporations, the additional money and enforcement power will accompany new disclosure requirements for people who own businesses like yours, truly that are not organized as corporations like many law firms and real estate partnerships and other high earners who could be hiding income from

Speaker 4:

Government, which we don't do IRS agents, okay. We pay our taxes and it makes me mad every time we do it, but we do it. And for us ,

Speaker 1:

They're high earners who could be hiding income from the governor. Mr. Biden's goal is to raise hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for childcare or education and other programs while making it harder for high earning Americans to evade or avoid taxes. If the president is successful, individuals who earn more than $400,000 a year would face a higher likelihood of a tax audit, regardless of how much income they report on their tax forms, a person familiar with the plan said, so we're going to go through some math right now. I did some math. Now those of you who have been around the channel know that I'm not good at this. So what I did is I did some calculations, not on the fly. I did them before the show. I probably still bought something, but we're going to go through it because I want to show you what this looks like in practice, right? We're talking about $80 billion here. What the heck does that even mean? Nobody even knows anymore because we're talking about trillions of dollars. We're talking about , uh, you know , a 1.3 trillion budget, 1.9 trillion Corona. I can't even keep track of all the trillions of dollars that we're spending on a regular basis. What, what difference does $80 billion mean in the grand scheme of things? Not that much. So what we want to do is we want to compare and contrast this. How do we put that into real numbers that you and I understand we're going to compare it to the New York police department, the N Y P D. And in order to do that, we got to keep track of a couple of different numbers. The first of course is this first one, $400,000 a year.

Speaker 4:

What is the threshold where this new $80 billion? Where does that kick in? Okay. We already have the ,

Speaker 1:

The IRS, their budget's about $11 billion right now. So

Speaker 4:

He wants to beef that up 80 billion over 10 years. Okay. So that's another 8 billion

Speaker 1:

A year. So we're going to go from 11 billion up to $19 billion.

Speaker 4:

So that 80 I'm sorry, is that 8 billion, which is one

Speaker 1:

10th of the ten-year plan now has to be applied towards whom what does that for what's for enforcement of people who are making over $400,000

Speaker 4:

A year, specifically,

Speaker 1:

According to this article, we need more money to go after those high earners. Okay? So you follow me 400 grand. That's the threshold. If you make more than that, this kicks in. Now we don't even know what that means. That could mean that you're a married couple. So you're , you're, you're, you're, you're filing jointly or you're two individual people earning you both earn 200,000. You combine those file, a single tax filing. If that exceeds 400,000, those two people can ,

Speaker 4:

I don't know, but 400,000,

Speaker 1:

That's the threshold. All right. So now we know that base number. If you make more than that, you're going to be dinged by president Obama, Biden, whatever the same thing. All right, next up, we've got empowering. IRS is one of the

Speaker 4:

IRS proposals he's going to unveil when he adjusts his Congress today,

Speaker 1:

His administration will portray that effort coupled with new taxes that it's proposing on corporations and the rich as a way to level the tax playing field between typical American workers and very high earners who employ sophisticated efforts to minimize or avoid taxation. So we've got to keep another number out

Speaker 4:

Here, 80 billion. It's going to

Speaker 1:

Be parceled out over 10 years, it's going to be a 70% increase. So we're going to keep track of all of those, all you people who are judging me on my math 10 years, it's going to be a 70% increase over the agency's entire funding levels. The administration estimates that the financial lift is going to net

Speaker 4:

700 billion. So they're going to spend

Speaker 1:

80 billion to get 700 billion, pretty good ROI. Mr. Biden plans to use the money raised by the effort to help pay for his American families plan, which is going to detail to lawmakers. Tonight. Now this plan follows another already $2.3 trillion infrastructure.

Speaker 4:

Sure. Package this one's going to cost 1.5 trillion. It's going to have

Speaker 1:

Versatile . Pre-kindergarten fade up federal paid leave program efforts to make childcare more affordable, free community college for all. And tax credits meant to fight poverty.

Speaker 4:

The government's

Speaker 1:

Been fighting poverty my whole life, and apparently they're not doing too good about it. Uh , to help pay for that. Spending the administration wants to raise taxes to 39.6% up from 37%. They also want to increase capital gains tax rates. To those that earn more than 1 million a year Biden will also seek to raise tax on income that people earn more than 1 million a year, blah, blah, blah. All right , so we have some numbers. We've got 80 billion partial out over 10 years.

Speaker 4:

There's 8 billion a year, eight times 10

Speaker 1:

Equals 80. Got that. 70% increase current budgets about 11, 11 billion. They're going to bump that up by another eight a year, about a 70%.

Speaker 4:

Okay. Following me. All right . So now what do we know? Let's take a quick look at another

Speaker 1:

Story. Biden defines $400,000 as wealthy. So here's what that buys in a big city. So I want to show you this first and foremost, 400,000 really isn't that much money. So, you know, here you have a family of four, how do they survive off 400,000 living in an expensive Metro area? Basically, if you go through all these expenses, you have a 401k contribution, you know, monthly, we say that's three grants . You bring it home about 33 a month, total, which is a lot of money, right? That is a lot of money. You're bringing home $33,000. Okay. That's a ton of money, but it goes, it goes quickly. If you're living in a high income or

Speaker 4:

A high area, I expensive area. So we've got, you know, tasks ,

Speaker 1:

Well income after 401k, we get a tax bill. We net, after you get 33 after taxes come out, cause you're already getting wrecked on taxes. You get paid 33,000. You only take home 21 of that, okay? Because the government is already wrecking you. Then you have expenses, daycare, three grand preschool, two grand. You have food for four , two grand, which is pretty inexpensive, $65 a day. On average, you got a five 29 plan for school, you know , for saving for your colleges , uh , kids, you got a $6,000 mortgage in a nice area, right? That's a nice area. That's not San Francisco for a family of four, but that's a nice, that's a nice property, property insurance, all of the other incidentals umbrella, healthcare baby toddler, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, total expenses, another 21,000. So what do you take home at the end of the day three bucks? And it's not just, you know , uh, San Francisco it's, it is San Francisco, but it's also New York city, Boston, LA San Diego, Seattle DC, Boston, Miami Honolulu, and probably getting close to being Arizona pretty soon. Cause everybody's moving here to , to escape the hell holes of some of these other States. So it's a big problem. 400,000 is not that much money anyways, but, but okay. But those are the rich. So now you have a family of four living in one of those cities. That's going to get wrecked by this new tax bill. So good, good. Right. Apparently , uh, it , it's not all just Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg is running around. These are actual families that are going to be wrecked as a result of this. So that's great. But the real reason I wanted to share this story is because of this number by national measures, those making 400,000 belonged to a rarefied group, they represent the top 1.8% of taxpayers. Okay. So now let's take a look at this number.

Speaker 4:

We , we, we know the threshold 400,000. We want to take the total

Speaker 1:

Tax base. How many people are paying taxes in America and of those people who are those let's identify the quantity of those people who are actually making more than $400,000. What percentage of the tax base is that 1.8%? Okay. So now we know only 1.8% of everybody who pays taxes in America is going to come under scrutiny of Joe Biden's new plan , right? So this doesn't affect most people. This is one of their talking points. Uh , this doesn't affect most people at all only affects these, these people. It's 1.8%. Not , it's not that many people. It's just 1.8% of the taxpayers. So let's take a quick look and see what level of enforcement they want impose on that 1.8%, because we now know only 1.8% of the people make over $400,000, pretty small number. So we need, so we need another eight, $8 billion a year to go after those 1.8% of people, because that's all that's paying over 400, that's making over $400,000 in this country. Sounds like a pretty big expenditure, but I could be wrong. Let's take a look. So we go back over to the 2017 data. This is the best data that I could find on this topic. And we're going to note here that we had all taxpayers. We had 143,209, 143 million , 295,000 tax returns filed. Number of total returns. Those people who are in the top 1%, they make up 1.4 million. If you're in the top 5%, we have 7.1 million returns. So if you just do the math, if you want to find the top 1.8% on this, what we're going to do is we're going to take 143 million total returns times 0.018. And that that's the 1.8% of returns that are above the $400,000 threshold. And what does that give us? We get 2.57, 9 million returns. Okay. So now what we're trying to do, and I know this is probably mind numbing for most of you, but what we're trying to do here is identify what portion of America is now subject to, to the intense scrutiny of this new IRS proposal from Joe Biden. So we know 400,000 and up. We know that only 1.8% of this country makes above $400,000. And we now know that of every single taxpayer 1.8% of all taxpayers is 2.57, 9 million people. So this new infrastructure is going to be focused on about two and a half million people, according to 2017 numbers. So we're going to just round that up. We'll call it even 3 million. Let's say a lot more people say another 500,000 people are in that threshold countries getting Richard great. We have 3 million people who are now subject of this new IRS enforcement scheme. Great. So we're going to round that up. And what we know already is that 80 billion spread over eight or 10 years is 8 billion a year. So we've got some other numbers. Now, as I mentioned, we want to compare this now that we know how this works. And , and w we know we have a population of 3 million people who are going to be enforced because that's all the people that make over 400 grand. Are there any other agencies or entities in this country that have a similar structure and how do they work? Yes, there are, we have a number of different States and a number of different other enforcement agencies that are a part of those States. Let , maybe we can see how they work and see how this might apply and compare to Joe Biden's new plan. So let's take a look at the New York police department. We go over to NYU, New York, and you're going to see here that their budget. This is the fiscal year, 2020 operating budget for the 10 largest largest agencies in New York. So you've got the fire department, they get about 2.1 billion. You've got department of corrections, 1.3 billion. You got the department of education, 24 billion over here. You have the NYP D right. 5.6 billion. We can even say you can basically round that up to about 6 billion. So about $6 billion every year ,

Speaker 4:

Year to run the entire NYP. Okay. The , the largest police agency in the country, they take

Speaker 1:

6 billion. Joe Biden wants to add on another 8 billion to the area .

Speaker 4:

Yes. All right. So that's even bigger than the NYP D all right . Well, the NYP D is just New York. So, I mean, it's not that many people, so maybe it may

Speaker 1:

Makes sense since we're talking about a federal agency. All right, well, let's see what the NYPD does. So if you break down their budget, we've got about 1.6 billion for patrol. We've got another 1 billion for communications , uh , chief of the department for whatever those needs are detectives transits , another four to 94 million school safety, 327 million intelligence and counter terrorism , 315 million housing Bureau for the police department, 204 million. So you can see that it's not just sort of, you know, running around doing patrol. It's a lot of administrative stuff. Actually, most of it is , uh, less than I would say. Maybe a third is patrol. The rest of it is all other stuff. Transit, transportation, detective Bureau, Greg , right now , a lot of money is going into other things. And it is a big agency. So that $6 billion is being split up a bunch of different ways. Counter-terrorism school safety. We've got a housing Bureau out of the NYP D so what is 8 billion going to do for the IRS? This is what 6 billion does.

Speaker 4:

That's a lot. And 6 billion

Speaker 1:

Gets us. A lot of people, too . A lot of employees, we go over to the NYP. What does it get us? Well, 55,000 employees. You can see here, a chief of personnel, this guy, Martin Miralis, he's responsible for the recruitment and selection of all their employees and says that they have 55,000 members of the

Speaker 4:

Department monitoring

Speaker 1:

Assessment, training development for all of those people. So 6 billion in New York gets us 55,000 employees

Speaker 4:

Who are a part of the personnel for the NYP D and how many

Speaker 1:

People live in New York, 8.4, one 9 million.

Speaker 4:

Right now,

Speaker 1:

This is all gonna make sense in the next slide. So you can see here NYC population, the New York city population,

Speaker 4:

8.4 8.419 million.

Speaker 1:

And this number is going down, right? It started trending down in about 2017. I'm going to guess it's continuing to go down as people bail out as a result of the pandemic. And so we've got a lot of numbers here. It's all going to make sense right now. Thanks for following along. So let's take a quick look and compare and contrast these two situations. So first and foremost, here's what we've got the jurisdiction. We're going to take a look at this top row. The jurisdiction, when we were talking about jurisdiction, we're talking about the pool, the population of people that are going to be subject to this new government bureaucracy, to this new amount of oversight. What's the scope of the project? What are they trying to control? What are they trying to impact? Take a look. The NYP , as we know, because we know the population of New York, their jurisdiction is

Speaker 4:

Four , one 9 million people, the entire city, cause they're NYP

Speaker 1:

Biden. The IRS interrogators are going to be covering. We're going to say a population of 3 million people. Okay. Up from the 2.5, we know about 2.5 million filed tax returns over one, sorry. Over $400,000. They're in the top 1.8%. We rounded that up for 2021 numbers. So we have about 3 million people out of the total tax base, which is 150,000 filed returns.

Speaker 4:

So we know that now, then we know

Speaker 1:

The cost per year. The NYP D budget is about 6 billion. We're going to say maybe 7 billion for this year. And we know that the Biden, IRS interrogators, their increase of budget is going to be 8 billion, 80 billion over 10 years. It's 8 billion a year. And that to their 11.3 billion budget already. Now we have 19.3 billion is the new budget. We're really only focused on though

Speaker 4:

Billion here. Cause that's the new amount. These, this 8 billion

Speaker 1:

Is being directed at these 3 million people. We're going to do further analysis on that. How many employees does the New York police department have? Well, we know it's about 55,000 because the office of their personnel director just told us that on the previous slide. Now we also know if you Google the IRS numbers that they currently have 74,000 employees. So they're bigger than the N YPD already. And we already know from the article that their budget increases about a 70% increase. So if we just translate that to new employees, we're going to go from about 74,000 to about 126,

Speaker 4:

Right? Total IRS employees.

Speaker 1:

But when you do the math on that, now we say, we take the total new employees with the 70% increase. We subtract 74,000, the original employees that leaves us with 52,000 new employees, roughly the same size as the

Speaker 4:

Higher police department for the New York police department. So now that we know these numbers, we can do a calculation under the,

Speaker 1:

In New York police department. How many agents per people, how many agents per population do you get? You get one police officer for every 153 people in New York. How do you get that number? You just divide the two

Speaker 4:

Jurisdiction, 8.4 million

Speaker 1:

Divided by 55,000 employees. You get one,

Speaker 4:

The agent per 153 people. One officer, you do this

Speaker 1:

Same calculation with the Biden IRS. Now you get one to 57. Okay? So the concentration is about

Speaker 4:

Three times greater in New York.

Speaker 1:

You get one-to-one about one-to-one 50 in the IRS. You get about one to 50. So it's about three times more intense

Speaker 4:

It's because they're focused on you at a much higher concentration.

Speaker 1:

And when you do the same calculation, you get a dollars per person breakdown in New York, it costs $831 per person per year. In order to ensure that that person gets police protection, right? The , the government

Speaker 7:

Is , is it's costing the government, that amount of money to enforce their services. You can call it government protection, or you can call it a waste of money and harassment by the police. I don't care how you characterize it, but that's

Speaker 4:

What it costs. Same story over here,

Speaker 7:

Biden , IRS interrogators. They're going to cost $2,666 per person per year, because we're going to take the new $8 billion that they're spending. We're going to divide that by the 3 million people who are part of the jurisdiction, and we're going to get $2,666 per person. So somebody can fact check me on all the math here, but what I wanted to show you is essentially what the government is doing here.

Speaker 4:

They are bringing in an entity that's even bigger

Speaker 7:

Scope and size. Then the NYP to focus on about 3 million people every year to make sure that they can just grind those people out and squeeze every ounce of revenue out of them for the coffers of the federal government. Now, many of those people of course, are people who run businesses, who employ people who start new, new ideas, create new things. And so what's going to happen when they start skewering them with these new agents. It's not going to go well for the government, right? And , and the , and these people are just going to bail. Uh, I think some of the highest earners in this country are just because I've had enough I'm out and they'll just find a different place to locate , uh , to relocate. It could be different. Cities could be different countries. Uh, we'll see what happens, but it's , it's not good. And you know, this, this, this, some of this does make sense. If you take a look at these numbers, the dollars per person right here, you would imagine this number to be higher in general. I'm not critical of this number. I think that makes sense, because these are higher level agents. These IRS agents, they're going to be scrutinizing, you know , a ton of records, a ton of financial records for some very high earners and powerful people. So you want, you

Speaker 4:

Would imagine that their technical

Speaker 7:

Skillset would be higher. But my point in all of this, I know this is sort of a boring topic. I've glazed over myself, but it is just to show you the heft of this $80 billion is going to get us a national New York police department , uh, every year, something that is focused on just 3 million people that are the 1.8% of the highest income earners in this country, $400,000 and above, which is really not that much money for a lot of people who are living in some higher areas that have a family of four as did the numbers that I showed you from

Speaker 4:

Their new site detail for us, massive

Speaker 7:

Bureaucracy, massive, massive, a new entity. That's going to almost double the size of the IRS. And Biden's very happy about this. He's going to penalize the hell out of , uh , out of rich people. And we're going to see what this, what this does. It's not good. It's not good. We have still, the administration believes its efforts to invest heavily in tax collection.

Speaker 4:

It says

Speaker 7:

It is steadily lost personnel and remains partly stuck in the 1960s era information technology. That's going to raise more revenue than any individual tax increases by making it harder for high end high earners to hide income, not earned from wages, which I totally don't believe that at all. I mean, I really don't believe that. I , I think that most, you know , rich people , uh, and I , I don't put myself in that category, not at all. Uh, and , and, you know, without getting into the details of my personal finances, but a lot of what I do here is being reinvested back into the business. I'm in growth mode. And when the government wants to take that money off the top, I can not be in growth mode anymore. I can't hire more people. I can't do more marketing. It is a big problem. Then they start wondering why the, you know, the unemployment starts creeping up and people are not growing anymore. It's because of these confiscatory tax policies, it's really reprehensible. And I will tell you this, the, the, the rich people that I do associate with, because there's , I'm a part of some networking groups where I'm a tiny little minnow, a tiny, tiny fish in a big pond. They don't want to go to jail. They're not hiding their revenue from the IRS. Are you out of your mind? Somebody who's worth many millions of dollars. Do you think that they're going to just, you know , like illegally hide revenue from the IRS

Speaker 4:

And risk going to federal prison?

Speaker 7:

No, of course not. These people have financial advisors , teams of people who help move their money around legally. So if you're just going to have a bunch of people going in and forcing this to collect money from high earners, earning, hiding income, not earned from wages, according to this article, that's ,

Speaker 4:

That's stupid because they're ,

Speaker 7:

They're not doing that. They have too much at risk. They're not going to risk, you know, saving a couple, a couple of percentage points on their yearly revenue. They're not gonna risk federal prison for that. Most

Speaker 4:

Of them, some of them will Democrats

Speaker 7:

On Capitol Hill have spent years pushing for more IRS funding. Yet some conservatives say additional enforcement spending could quickly draw a political backlash, particularly from high earning, small business owners. Who'd become more frequent targets of audits. Yeah. I'll tell you this. Yeah. I'm not happy about it. Republicans criticized the agency repeatedly in the Obama administration for targeting conservative political groups, including several affiliated with tea party for tax scrutiny, federal watchdog concluded in 2017 that IRS officials had also targeted liberal groups, not just conservative ones in questioning. So we, yeah, so it's sort of, it's sort of, Oh yeah, they , well, they, yeah, they did target those conservative groups, but they also targeted

Speaker 4:

Liberal groups. Maybe we don't use the IRS as a political tool

Speaker 7:

For either administration. How about that? Or we just get rid of it altogether. Might be a good idea. Too many economists and tax expert experts welcome the proposal, which they said would help reverse years of declining enforcement. The plain is good news for honest, filers and businesses said somebody over the tax law center, previous administrations have long talked about trying to crack down on tax evasion, head of the IRS. Charles Rettig told a set of committee that the agency lacked resources to catch tax cheats, including those who hide income

Speaker 4:

From cryptocurrencies.

Speaker 7:

Uh, they're coming after the crypto coins boys. It's not good for my cloud country. That I'm a big fan of, but

Speaker 4:

That's all right. There's

Speaker 7:

There . There's some very smart people working on that problem.

Speaker 4:

Way smarter than I am.

Speaker 7:

We're going to defer to Balaji Srinivasan on that one. The erosion of resources at the IRS was detailed in a CBO report last year, examined the agency's from 2010 to 2018. The annual budget declined by 20% and its staff declined by 22%. Good. Good, good, good funding for act activities fell by nearly a third with less money and less staff. They were forced to become more lax at enforcing the laws. Top 1% of earners have become far less likely to be audited in a recent years. That was because they were far more likely than low or middle income Americans to earn money from businesses, capital gains, or other sources that are not wages. So they of course want to close that gap and they are going to do so today they're going to unveil all of that. Now, here is Larry Kudlow, who is saying that Biden will weaponize the IRS as Obama did in previous years, going after specific businesses for their political disposition. I don't care if they got liberal ones as well, inappropriate across the board Fox business network host Larry Kudlow warned that president Biden's massive tax hike planned , particularly affecting capital gains inheritances and cash injection to the internal revenue service will spell disaster for American workers and us global competitiveness. Here he is.

Speaker 8:

President Biden has proposed the highest capital gains tax probably in history. I'm not quite sure about that, but I do know it's the highest in the past 50 years, plus at 43.4% added with the corporate tax that gets you to over 50% well over 50%. And then of course, state cap gains will get you close to 60%. Nobody in Europe is even close to that. Average is 18%, not even Bernie Sanders, beloved Sweden, which is 30% by the way, China is 20%. And by the way, China's 25% corporate tax would be lower than our 28%. So we will be above everybody. And the combination of jacking up taxes on companies and their profits and their gains, or anytime you sell a small business, you pay capital gains or sell a farm or ranch, by the way, Tim Biden may eliminate the stepped up basis for capital gains around the death tax. Meaning heirs would have to sell assets immediately. That's the plan that the Penn Wharton school claims would raise $113 billion with respect. I have my doubts and I think so. Yeah ,

Speaker 7:

Enough of that, you get the gist of it, right? Very high, not so good, but I think that's part of the plan we're already sort of primed up for universal basic income. A lot of people are very excited about getting money from the government on a regular basis. I was last week, I talked about my uncle, my aunt and uncle were in town and we had a dinner that one night on after the show, then we had a brunch the following week, they were here all weekend. We went out to a nice brunch and it was at a very nice restaurant. And it was something that was very interesting. We, we, the , the service was just terrible, horrendous, right? And I'm not typically somebody who even cares about any of that. I just said, whatever , I'm in a restaurant, I don't care. And we kind of noticed it. And the manager, it's a very expensive restaurant in on my uncle , uh , likes to treat everybody very well. We go there and the manager came over to the table, right after the event, right after our , uh , the bill was due and came over and said something like I am so sorry that the service was bad today. Um, I need to explain myself. We have not been able to find employees. We have not been able to keep staff hired. We have raised our wages. We have offered people money to show up for interviews. Nobody wants to work because they're getting unemployment. They're getting government money and hospitality industries are being wrecked. A lot of the low-level entry-level position jobs are being wrecked. I'm hearing this from other attorneys, other law firms, other small businesses, they can't find entry-level help because people are already making more money off of the government subsidies. And so if you wreck small business that induces people to demand more compensation and more benefits from the government, those people will continue to vote a certain way. They're going to vote for one particular political party that promises them raises every year. It's the government supplanting small business with big business. It's Amazon wiping out the small guy it's legal zoom or someone . One of these big corporations wiping out small law firms. It's the realtor companies, you know , uh, you know, buy a home Zillow, whatever, wiping out the small realtors. And it just goes on and on and on. It's the , uh, the, the conglomeration amalgamation of the bigger corporations that are working in conjunction with the governments in order to squeeze out the little independent people. We see this everywhere you go, you see this on YouTube. They want to beef up the authoritative sources like CNN, MSNBC, Fox news, I think. And they want to squelch out the little voices, same reason that the New York times and a lot of these old institutions are freaking out about sub stack. And some of these other entities that allow these smaller creators to have a say and have a voice in our society. Same with the small businesses, small businesses are the backbone of this country. They run everything around us, and they are typically at the receiving end of the government's brunt because they don't have the same leverage that these big people do. Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, all of these people, all of the big tech companies, all of the big inner international conglomerates. They have paid lobbyists that go in and , and, you know , hash it out with these senators and these representatives and all of the different executive officials in any administration. I don't, I don't have that. Uh, you know, none of my legal friends do, we don't have like that. We're at the mercy of the government. So when they come out here and start screaming about Amazon or Walmart or any of these people, they're all going to be able to whittle around the rules and navigate their way through this thing. Guys like me and other small business owners, you know, the hair salon or the restaurant, we have a whole different set of hurdles that we got to deal with. And the administration, the government in general, Republicans, Democrats, whomever, it doesn't matter. They both just want to wreck your pocketbook for their own expenses. And if your business gets destroyed in the middle of it, who cares? Because that's one less, that's one less contingency they have to deal with. They'd rather

Speaker 4:

Either keep the big fat

Speaker 7:

Cats who were part of the multinational corporation . Yeah .

Speaker 4:

Happy because they keep their coffers full. Right guys

Speaker 7:

Like me, I don't know . I don't have tens of thousands of dollars to go donate to these politicians and their political action committees or any of that stuff. So what do they care about me or my law firm? They don't,

Speaker 4:

They , they do

Speaker 7:

Want to make sure that they can harass the hell out of us with audits and seize more of our income. Every single time that we generate some value in this world, they want to take a little bit off of it. Sharon Quinn . He says, why don't you

Speaker 4:

80 billion? Why not 80 trillion? That would do a lot more ,

Speaker 7:

More damage as well as giving many golden opportunities for pork. Well, we're trending that way, Sharon. Why not? We have Sharon says, doesn't anybody get it? That it's peoples with money who hire other people, people with money, hire other people. I never got a job from somebody who didn't have more money than I did. Econ test says zero, zero K . Let's not forget that if you have an LLC or sole proprietor, those revenue look like revenue, but may not all be take-home exactly right. I have two companies and some of that revenue I need to capture to reinvest in the company next year, just because my revenue looks like 400 K, that does not mean I personally can spend 400 K. It is not disposable income. Aidan test is 100%, right? Same thing here with me and my business partner, right? We're we're we're partners at our firm. And , uh , at the end of the year, if we have any revenue that's on our books, they, they attribute that as personal income to us. Um, I'm , I'm not taking that home. I need that money for next year so that I can go hire three more employees, build a bigger office, do some marketing and you know, train my team on whatever the latest thing is.

Speaker 4:

Can't do that. Got to get rid of that money. You got to , you got to spend it here is

Speaker 7:

And why renal MD says any audit is time consuming and costly. I am sure Biden didn't go full asset forfeiture. I'm surprised he didn't go full out. That's probably coming down the pike says, how about auditing? The secret service Hunter Biden had his guns and misdeeds covered up by the secret service. If we can all just say, come on, man, forget about Hunter Biden. Give him a medal of freedom. We can have a , we can save a ton of secret service coverups . Good to see you doctor. It's a good

Speaker 4:

Point. Yeah. I mean, look,

Speaker 7:

They want to audit all of the little people, but when we want

Speaker 4:

Audit them, they tell us to get bent.

Speaker 7:

You get a frigging body camera footage from a North Carolina. We have Patriot must says there is anticipation that altcoins in cryptocurrency is going to skyrocket. Soon. This could put a lot of people over that 400,000 Mark for taxes. Could this be the plan all along to tax people, holding cryptocurrency? I think that, yeah, I'm not. I'm not sure that I would give the government any credit on thinking that far ahead, but certainly, yeah, they definitely don't want to tax the cryptocurrencies, which is why a lot of people are concerned about being on the exchanges because they're interfacing directly with the government. We have, see the veil says, unfortunately, if companies and certain individuals like Bezos did pay their fair share and not pay less in taxes than their secretaries. Whereas I've witnessed the GM of a company. I worked for paid less in taxes than an $11 an hour worker. Then this tax focused by the federal government never would show up and listen, I'm look , I am for rich people paying taxes. I am not against that. I think that everybody in this country should pay taxes. Every single person in this country should pay taxes. And I've said this before on this channel, I know it's not a really popular opinion, but I honestly, if you are not a tax payer in this country, I don't know that you have skin in the game enough that you should be participating in the governing of the country. And I mean that sincerely, I know it's not popular, but if you don't, if you don't listen, here's the downside. If you do not pay taxes, then

Speaker 4:

Why, why wouldn't

Speaker 7:

You vote yourself? A raise every election. You just vote yourself, whatever the government wants to give you because you have no skin in the game. You're not contributing anything to it. So you can just say, Oh no, that sounds free. Healthcare sounds great to me because I don't have to pay for it.

Speaker 4:

Why wouldn't you take it? So

Speaker 7:

Why do people who have no skin in the game who contribute nothing, get to dictate how the rest of the country is run and how they spend their money. It's insane. But we do it in the sake of democracy and in the sake of full participation at any time you even asked for a signature, because we say, Hey, we might want to verify who you are when you're participating in this great American experiment, this beautiful thing that we have here called a Republic. Uh, we want you to participate in it , but we just want to check to make sure you are who you say you are. Holy crap. It's the end of the world. Everybody flips out. This is Republican voter suppression and white supremacy. You have Stacey Abrams out there who is, you know , spinning cartwheels, freaking out about this massive assault on American democracy. It's ridiculous. And it's all about political maneuvering. When w w at the end of the day, what we end up with is a bunch of politicians who do nothing. They go around the different constituents and different groups, and they promise them everything that they want in order to induce them to vote for them. And then they deliver nothing on it. So I'm all for rich people paying taxes. I'm all for everybody contributing equally in this American experiments . But when we start penalizing one particular group over another group,

Speaker 4:

It's a problem.

Speaker 7:

Good questions. All of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com.

Speaker 4:

Alright ,

Speaker 7:

And our last segment of the day, we're going to wrap this up. We've been talking a lot about police shootings in this country,

Speaker 1:

And we have several more to go through unfortunately or not exactly shootings, but we'll just say officer involved deaths, and this is becoming a trend. This is becoming a pattern. I think it's already been going on for a long time, but we are noticing that the media is reporting on this at a higher level. And that some of these situations seem to be sort of , uh, becoming more aggressive. And it's becoming this thing that we have to address, unfortunately. So we're going to talk about three cases today. We're going to start off with Andrew Brown Jr. Andrew Brown, Jr. We've already talked about it. Previously. He's being represented. His family is being represented by Ben Crump. The same civil rights attorney who represented the Floyd family, got them a $27 million settlement. We talked about this earlier in the week, but there is a video apparently of a multiple officers firing rounds into Mr. Andrew Brown Junior's vehicle causing him to die. He's not, he's not with us anymore. This is a , this was a shooting. And the video has not been released. We talked about this when we covered it earlier in the week that I think this is reprehensible.

Speaker 4:

I think that when we talk about this, on this show,

Speaker 1:

Accountability, transparency, so that we can get justice. We have to see what is going on behind the scenes so that we can prescribe some remedies for this. And too long. We've seen that police departments and governments cover up their misconduct. They cover up their malfeasance. They try to wipe everything and sweep it under the rug. And that is just not acceptable anymore. So we were very upset. I was critical about the fact that the police department was not releasing the video. They were allowing everybody else in society to, to generate and craft the narrative because they weren't, they weren't being honest. And so when you have to default against them in that situation, if they're not going to be transparent, they lose the argument. I think that's the end of the discussion there. And they're their justification for not releasing this information was all about the fact that well, there's due process. We're doing our investigation. And in North Carolina, they need a judge to sign off on it. Many other States, this stuff just comes out. But in North Carolina, for some reason, they got to have a judge approve it before it gets out. Well today that bizarre judge, judge Jeff Foster

Speaker 4:

Denied it. Information

Speaker 1:

Is not coming out. Body camera footage is not coming out. Let's go in and see why that is North Carolina judge on Wednesday, rejected a bid to have body camera footage of the Sheriff's deputies shooting. Andrew Brown Jr . Released to the public. They said the man's family though, would be allowed to view it. Judge Jeff Foster said turning over the footage to news. Media could affect a potential trial of law enforcement officers who opened fire while serving a warrant on the 42 year old black man in Elizabeth city, North Carolina,

Speaker 4:

The release

Speaker 1:

At this time, the judge said would create a serious threat to the fair, impartial and orderly administration of justice. Foster ruled from the bench. Confidentiality is necessary to protect either an active internal, internal or criminal investigation or a potential internal or criminal investigation. So we don't even know if that has happened yet, right? We don't know if there isn't

Speaker 4:

Active or potential criminal

Speaker 7:

Foster order , the sheriff to allow Brown's immediate family and lawyer to privately view the body camera footage from four deputies within the next 10 days, he ordered the sheriff to blur faces or name tags of the deputies involved prior to showing Brown's family. John said , judge said, he'd revisit the issue in 30 to 45 days. Court will in his discretion. Judge said consider at that time further release of the video based on the factors they exist at the time in many States law enforcement footage, such as video shot from a dashboard of police cars or officer's body cameras is considered to be public record creating a defined simple path for that to be publicly released. That's not the case in North Carolina, which requires a judge's order to allow the footage to see the sunshine district attorney. Andrew Womble said Brown's car can be seen in footage moving backwards, and then forward each time making contact with the officers. Okay? So now we have some information as it backs up, it does make contact with law enforcement officers. At this point, the car is stationary.

Speaker 4:

There is no movement

Speaker 7:

And the officers are positioned around the car. The next movement of the car is forward. It is in the direction of law enforcement and makes contact with law enforcement. It is then, and only then that you hear shots. So you see where this is going. The vehicle is a weapon. Cops are surrounding the vehicle, backs up, hits the cops

Speaker 4:

Don't shoot goes forward, hits the cops. Then they shoot the V .

Speaker 7:

Cole is a deadly weapon and the vehicle is going to be considered to be that I'm going to guess. In this case, you can see what the prosecution is already doing. Attorney Michael [inaudible] , who is representing news media outlets said there is absolute public interest in releasing the recordings. Of course, there is petitioners are not here to indict or vindicate law enforcement. They're not here to indict or vindicate

Speaker 4:

Mr. Brown. They are here in the

Speaker 7:

Interest of advocating for transparency in the hopes of aiding a national conversation. We find ourselves in County attorney Michael Cox at the Sheriff's office supports the release

Speaker 4:

Of the videos, said, disclosure

Speaker 7:

Will give the public some ability to understand what happened that day. We want to protect the independent investigations by the SBI , as well as the FBI said, Cox, the County attorney. However, we do not believe the release of the footage will impede those inquiries in any way. So the government itself wants early. So why doesn't the judge, but Womble opposed the immediate release of the footage supporting just a private showing to Brown's family. He said widespread dissemination would hurt the chances of seeking a fair, impossible trial against the deputies. So a little bit different here, right? The government has the video here. In Floyd's case, there was bystander footage.

Speaker 4:

This is a little bit different.

Speaker 7:

Womble said you cannot swing a skunk in front of a group of people and ask them not to smell it. That is an interesting one. Don't swing a skunk in front of people and ask them not to smell it. I liked that prosecutor promised to make a decision on possible charges in 30 days when he'd either release all recordings or hold them back for trial, HP Williams , representing law enforcement involved in the arrest, set his clients also oppose release of the footage. Of course they do. The officers are very distraught over what happened. They feel for the family of Andrew Brown. And they said, we believe the shooting was justified. So family wants it out. Sounds like Michael Cox County attorney supports it going out, attorneys representing the police. They don't want to know . Of course they don't. This is the judge today,

Speaker 9:

Five body camera videos be disclosed to Cleo fare B and his immediate family within one degree of kinship and one attorney licensed to practice law in the state of North Carolina that is disclosure , uh, that the video be held from your lease for a period of no less than 30 days and no more than 45 days. And that , uh, that will allow to allow completion of any investigation being undertaken by the SBI and by the district attorney's office in this County. Uh , number three, that the state is to notify the court when such investigations completed and the coordinates discretion will consider at that time further release of the video , uh, based on the factors as they existed at that time. Uh, the disclosure, the video shall occur within 10 days and the past Kent County Sheriff's department is ordered to blur or redact all facial and identifying features of the officer's shown prior to disclosure. That means facial features, name, tags, any identifying information of those offers officers prior to disclosure.

Speaker 7:

So I'm going to guess it's pretty bad if they're not releasing this, that they're going through so much of this, that the judge is not releasing it. They've got all of these different sort of deadlines in place. They all have these different people reviewing. It's probably not good. Even if the vehicle is technically a weapon, you know, at that point in time, you just go, all right , can you just get out of the way? Let the guy go. You know , you have to kill him right there. Can you chase him down and see if there's another alternative going to speculate that that's probably what this looks like, but we'll see. Cause we don't have any video. We're going to talk about another one though. This one is out of California. Unfortunately police in Alameda, California, under fire for the death killing of Mario Gonzalez. His story over from the AP. This involves the Los Angeles police department. Hispanic man was pinned to the ground for more than five minutes in a video recorded arrest and unfolded as a jury, Minneapolis was deliberating in the Floyd case. Autopsy findings on the cause of death have not been released family of 26 year old, Mario Gonzalez blamed the police, accusing them on Tuesday of using excessive force and escalating, escalating. What should have been a minor encounter with an unarmed man? Herardo his brothers said the police killed my brother in the same manner. They killed George Floyd and his statement. San Francisco Bay area city said it is committed to full transparency. They're going to look into it. Death is under investigation by Alameda County sheriff they've hired an attorney to conduct an independent probe . Three officers involved. The arrest are on paid leave in Zola is the man who was killed. Stopped breathing, following a scuffle with police on the evening of April 19th at a park where officers that confronted him after receiving nine one , one calls said he appeared disoriented or drunk. Police statement said that , uh , Gonzalez had a medical emergency after officers tried to handcuff him. Arrest took place just hours after

Speaker 4:

For the jury in Chauvin's case begin deliberating nearly , uh ,

Speaker 7:

To a near in Alameda, nearly hour long video from the officers . Two body worn cameras were released late Tuesday shows police seemingly talking to a day's Gonzalez who struggles to answer questions. When Gonzalez doesn't produce any identification, the officers are seen on video trying to force his hands behind his back to handcuff him. But he resists. They take him to the ground. They repeatedly asked him for his full name and birth date . We're going to take care of you. Okay? We're going to take care of you. One of the officers says in the video, I think you just had too much to drink. Okay? That's all later he adds Mario, just please stop fighting us. Gonzalez who weighed 250 pounds. It's grunting shouting. He lies on a face down on woodchips while the officers restrain him . When officer puts an elbow on his neck and a knee on his shirt ,

Speaker 4:

Which is a very curious, so is an elbow on the neck, okay. Or not is a knee on

Speaker 7:

The neck. Okay. Or not. We know that's not, but what

Speaker 4:

About the elbow? And what about the knee on the shoulder? Officer says he's lifting my whole body weight up at 1.1 . Okay .

Speaker 7:

Officer also appears to put a knee on his back and leaves it there for about four minutes. As Gonzalez guests for air says, I didn't do nothing. Okay?

Speaker 4:

God Gonzales .

Speaker 7:

His protest appeared a weekend. After about five minutes, he loses consciousness. The exact same freaking

Speaker 4:

Case

Speaker 7:

Shortly before he stopped breathing. One officer asked the other thing. We can roll him on his side. The other answers, I don't want to lose what I got.

Speaker 4:

Man. Video shows officers

Speaker 7:

Rolling Gonzalez over and performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation. They are also seen administering at least two doses of Narcan, which has given to counteract opiates. He was pronounced dead at a hospital

Speaker 4:

Shortly thereafter.

Speaker 7:

Police also made two public calls. The dispatchers received about Gonzalez to prompted them, to send officers to the park. One caller said he was kind of talking to himself and not making any sense. He said, I mean, he's not doing anything wrong. He's just scared my wife, the car ,

Speaker 4:

Not doing anything

Speaker 7:

Wrong. Second man told the dispatcher that console has had two drugstore baskets with alcohol bottles and that it was , it appeared. He was breaking security tags off of it .

Speaker 4:

Here he is. Gonzalez had a four-year-old son, main caretaker

Speaker 7:

Of his 22 year old brother who has autism

Speaker 4:

Jeffrey Hall

Speaker 7:

Professor of criminology at South Carolina. And an expert on police use of force said, officers should have rolled him over. As soon as they could keeping him on his stomach was probably the worst thing that could have happened once they're controlling him. As we learned from the Floyd trial, with all those medical experts, their position or compression is deadly. Obviously he's in some sort of medical crisis, but what's the goal. What are they trying to do with him? Was he a danger? So here he is two officers coming upon him. You can see down here in the bottom corner, it looks like a Walgreen's a basket or something or CVS basket. Maybe that's full of alcohol. He's walking down. We have a little bit of a clip here from the body camera footage. Uh , let's see what we've got.

Speaker 10:

This is all coming back to you now. No , it's not that it's okay. All right . We're just, we just got to figure out what's going on. All right. So we just get your cooperation real quick here . Okay. I got it , man . Mario , put your hand behind your back. Okay, please. Please put your hand behind your back. Mario, Mario, Mario, he put your name behind your back . Okay . Don't fight us. Just gotta relax please. Mario , Mario, Mario game behind your back. You got it. You good?

Speaker 7:

All right . So you see where that goes, right? We're not gonna play the whole thing, but it , it, it starts to go sour at that point in time. Right? And you can hear sort of a little bit of a different disposition here. And the first instinct is when you read it, you want to just sort of go, I can't believe the officers did this again. Are you kidding me? We just watch what happened to George Floyd. We just went through a whole stinking trial. How could you possibly do something similar to that? Why, why is any joint going anywhere near a defendant's neck or back anywhere in this country might be something that you're saying, well, the , the , the reality is you have to do that, right? You have to get physical with people who are not following commands. And in this situation, the officer was being very, very diplomatic, right? A little bit of a different tone than we got out of the Shovan trial, which is a positive thing that I want to note. We just, you know, in the Chauvin's case with George Floyd, you know, knocking on the car with a gun, basically drawn in this situation, the cops like, look, Mario, please, man, please, please stop. Please stop resisting. You can, you can almost hear it in his voice. He's he's like trying to just make sure that they can negotiate with this guy. And , uh, he's, he's suffering a medical emergency, a mental health crisis, whatever you want to call it, we're going to learn more about this. You know, this could have been an alcohol death. This could have been a drug. Overdose is , could have been a heart problem. Like in Floyd's case, we just don't know

Speaker 4:

No yet, but it is in the past

Speaker 7:

Tagline . So we'll learn more about that and continue to follow that story. And then we're going to change gears and go back across the country. Over to Chicago, we have another police shooting involving a guy by the name of Anthony Alvarez, 22 years old. And this story came over from Fox news, newly released body camera footage shows Chicago police officer fatally shooting a 22 year old man who was alleged to have a gun while running away from the cops late last month. So Chicago's civilian office of police accountability called Copa , which we've talked about on the show on Wednesday, they released dozens of police and third-party videos, as well as the nine one one call related to the shooting of Anthony Alvarez. This happened back on March 31st. So just about a month ago, one of the videos shows the officer ordering Alvarez to drop the gun twice as he chases behind him, allegedly firing five rounds. Alvarez appears to be running away from him. At the time police video shows a firearm was found just feet away from Alvarez after he fell, after being shot tactical officers from Chicago PD, try to stop and speak with Alvarez. In the early morning hours

Speaker 4:

Of the poor Toga park out of

Speaker 7:

Copa said on Wednesday, the tactical response report released with the video and audio footage indicates police were trying to conduct an investigatory stop at the time Alvarez, who was familiar with the officers fled as they approached . So here's a picture.

Speaker 4:

The guy police had Alvarez father of a two year old, allegedly, allegedly,

Speaker 7:

Just a gun, which led to a confrontation with the police. Doherty's posted a picture on social media of the weapon. They said they found at the scene

Speaker 4:

Autopsy report from cookie

Speaker 7:

County showed Alvarez died from multiple gunshots wounds. Copa recommended the officer who fired his weapon, quote, be relieved of police powers during the pendency of the investigation. And then during a subsequent press conference, police superintendent told reporters, the officer had been placed on routine administrative leave for 30 days when on Wednesday, Mary mayor, Laurie

Speaker 4:

Lightfoot and Alvarez family through attorney

Speaker 7:

Called for peace ahead of the videos release. And so this is the statement over from Copa . Now you're going to now notice this it's a little bit different, right? They wanted him

Speaker 4:

On , uh, on release and a administrator

Speaker 7:

Leave . But now they're recommending that he is , uh, Oh no, this is the letter , uh , relieved of powers , uh , during the pendency of this investigation. So I'm sorry I read that wrong. I thought that they were canning this guy. They're not for immediate release Copa releases, video and other materials. This is the press release today. The civilian office of police accountability released video and other materials of the officer involved shooting based on the information.

Speaker 4:

And they're recommending , uh , that the officer who discharged his weapon be relieved of powers during the investigation. And they say

Speaker 7:

Chicago PD, tactical officers attempted stop and speak with Mr. Anthony Alvarez, an individual familiar to the officers . Alvarez fled as officers approached leading to a FERC pursuit by the officers during a brief for foot pursuit, officers made verbal commands to drop the weapon. Then a Chicago police officer fired his weapon multiple times, fatally injuring, Mr. Alvarez materials released today include the relevant body worn footage. Third-party video, blah, blah, blah. If you have any more information, contact us. All right . So it sounds like he's running away. They shot him. I have always said that is not the right move. Whether it's Ray shard Brooks or anybody, somebody fleeing you don't, that's not a justification to shoot them. I'm sorry that you can't catch them, but you don't get to kill them. Now it needs to be lethal force going back the other way. This is a ratio Brooks case. Remember what happened in that situation? Uh , he was asleep at the wheel. They stopped him for DUI. They knocked on his car. They pulled them out of the car. If they were going to arrest him. When they two officers, when they were maneuvering his hands behind his back, he broke free, grabbed. One of their tasers was running away, reached back. The taser had already been expended. So he couldn't shoot it. Officers said that was deadly force . They shot him, killed him. That case is still pending, highly critical of that. It wasn't deadly force. In my opinion, it was unexpended taser that couldn't even function anymore. They shot him as he was running away because they were embarrassed that they got embarrassed. So they executed him. Let's see if that looks like this one here is the next body camera footage.

Speaker 10:

Well ,

Speaker 7:

All right . So , uh, he didn't die in that video. He's not dead right there. He dies later. So nobody died in that video, but that was a body camera footage. So you saw that, right? All right . Let's take a quick, listen in and see what else we've got going on. Questions from locals.com says as much as I hate , uh , chairman of the boards in the house, what's up. Chairman says as much as I hate the fact that they haven't released the video. I have to admit after watching the Shovan trial in the months preceding it , I can't help. But wonder if this judge is doing the right thing by waiting to release it. It's a valid point chairman, right? Many people are going to be asking themselves this, okay? Like if you're going to automatically convict somebody, we're just not going to show you the stuff anymore. Courts are going to almost have to do that in order to protect the sanctity of the trial. And the Darla series says I don't blame the judge after seeing what was done in Minneapolis with the footage, only show a sliver of the video, get everyone outraged release. Only other parts, month, months down the line after people have already made up their minds, then use it in court to get an emotional conviction. Yeah, you're right in the dark, right? This, this is going to be the response. Why wouldn't it be? We have Jeremy says based on how the officers in the Floyd case were tried in the court of public opinion. I think the North Carolina judge could be protecting the officers in this case to only be investigated and tried by professionals when the news and the public make it impossible for the officers to be tried fairly, they lose the privilege of viewing the evidence. So good, good point there, Jeremy. I mean, you, you know,

Speaker 4:

Are more

Speaker 7:

Courts and judges going to be inclined to go this route. I don't like it. Okay. Personally, because I default to accountability and transparency. That's sort of the motto here on the show. It's what I kind of live by. I want to see it because I don't like the fact that a lot of this stuff is sort of settled behind closed doors

Speaker 4:

Because it doesn't get settled. It gets

Speaker 7:

Swept under the rug. Public needs to see it so that we can hold these people accountable. But I also understand your perspective. What's the judge supposed to do ?

Speaker 4:

We'll do here. So it's like the judge releases it. Then we criticize the judge for Chris ,

Speaker 7:

An environment that is not conducive to a fair and impartial trial. If the judge doesn't release it, then we say, well, you're not being accountable. You're not being transparent. We want to see that stuff so that we can hold everybody accountable. Then when the judge does release it, we all get mad. And we say, well, all right , well, that person doesn't deserve a trial. We should convict them without one

Speaker 4:

Rock,

Speaker 7:

Hard place. Judges are right in the middle of it. And why renal MD says I'm confused. What role is the prosecutor performing? If they are against releasing the video in North Carolina, it seems bizarre to me, is that part of their legal role? Well, so their , their role is to determine whether or not to press charges. So they're going to review the video. They're going to decide whether they want to charge the officers in that shooting

Speaker 4:

And they can, they

Speaker 7:

Can make that decision, right? They have discretion as to whether or not to charge a person. And so let's say they don't charge them. They say we reviewed the evidence. We're not going to charge them. So now you can release the videos because it's not going to impact a trial against these officers. Cause we're not going to charge them. I think that's why they brought that up. Hey Rob, have you had a chance this comes over from, Quain

Speaker 4:

Says you had a chance to

Speaker 7:

Look at the New York state rifle and pistol association versus correlates . I have not. I have not taken a look at that one. Let's uh, let's go ahead and write that down right now. Rifle, Pistol versus core . Let's I'm going to take a look at that. Just sent that over to Ms. Faith. We're going to queue that one up. Good question though. Uh, I like those cases next up. We've got

Speaker 4:

That . Uh, Joycee beans says, Hey, Rob, loved the show. Thank you for

Speaker 7:

The informative and educational input on a daily basis. Well, you're welcome. Joycee thank you for being here on another note. I admire the vascularity on your arms. Oh , okay. Any specific exercises you can recommend for that? Thank you. In greetings

Speaker 1:

From Sicily. So you don't miss faith puts those as the last question in my slides because , uh , I don't know how to answer those things. And she likes to stop me at the end of the show. If you're talking about these babies though. Hmm ? These puppies. Yeah. I like to, I like to nudge those up a little bit, you know, I don't like to bring them out on the show too much because that can be a little bit pompous. I don't want to be seen to be an egomaniac on my own YouTube channel, but I do like to lift weights. And so for my bicep days, I did that yesterday. I typically break my, my sets into , uh, my , my workout days into four days. I rotate them. So I do a push day, which is typically chest and Tris on a , on a , let's say on a Monday, I also do abs and a little bit of cardio on those days. Then on Tuesdays, I do, let's say on day two, it's a back-end by day. So it's a lot of pull ups , a lot of pull exercises. I actually have a whole worksheet that I, that I wrote on this. I have a whole bunker plan. I'll post that over on locals as soon as we get off here. So I'll share with you my bunker COVID exercise plan stuff that I was doing with body weight . But day two is pull days, day three are really shoulders, heavy abs, and then some cardio, which was today and then day four are , are typically legs. And I will, we'll rotate those around every single day. So morning routines are always exercise before I come into the office. And that's part of my existence system, which you'll notice is right here. And so this is a part of my new course. One of the things that I do every day is I go down this list of my daily metrics, where you see discipline equals freedom. And so today, of course I worked out. So you'll notice I took my supplements as well. I sort of take a , uh , I do take supplements , uh, typically, you know, they're they're [inaudible] and then I'll also take sort of a very low dose of creatine because I lift so much weights. I workout every day . So that's kind of a rough, a rough schedule there for back in biceps days. Uh, if you want to build up these guns, make sure you get a permit for them, but they're , they're dangerous puppies out there , boys. But what you're going to want to do is a lot of pull-ups a lot of pull-ups a lot of pull exercises. So pull ups , I mean, you know , strict pull-ups I have , uh , two , two , uh , risk grips versa grips that I'll do a lot of pull-ups on. If your risks are going to fail out, a lot of pull-ups , uh , you know, wide grip, close grip, then I'll also do a close grip pull downs on the cables. I will do straight bar , uh , lat pull downs. I'll do seated cable rows , uh, and then I'll do biceps. So most of, most of my biceps actually come from the backs from the back exercises. Cause you're doing a lot of pulling, which is why I lumped them both into the same day. So then on, on bicep days, I will also do , um, you know, barbell curls. I'll do standing dumbbell curls. There is a pure strength machine that I really like , uh, that does biceps sort of concentration, curl biceps , uh, seated. I'll do a cable curls, but that's about it. I mean, I really don't spend a lot of time on biceps. Most of it is sort of , uh , connected and comes from the, the back really exercising the back. If you work a lot of the back, you're going to be pulling and pulling and pulling and it's going to, it's going to naturally work your biceps . So , uh , thanks. Joycee beans for letting me talk about that. I can, I can talk about that stuff all day. I know a lot of people think that that format is actually antiquated. I hear a lot of people criticize that four day split. They say, Oh no, that's like the 1980s. That's like Arnold Schwartzenegger era, which is true. I mean, I grew up reading the modern encyclopedia, the encyclopedia of modern bodybuilding by Arnold. I haven't actually over there. And he , he talks a lot about sort of splitting it up into those types of days. But a lot of people today, they all talk about CrossFit, right? It's just sort of a full body workout every day, you know, confused . The body changed a bunch of stuff. You know, you can do that. I've done that. I've done CrossFit , uh , for a long time. I, you know, it's, I think it's fine. I think it's good if you, if you'd like to, you know , if you'd like that, if you're , if you're more interested in some of the environment and the community around CrossFit, but when I go to the gym, it's kind of my sanctuary. It's kinda my special time. I like to be alone, listen to music. It's kind of meditative for me, but I, I created in , uh, in COVID era, a bunker gym exercise plan. It's on an Excel spreadsheet. I'll give you four warning on this. It is intense. It's a lot, it's too much. So I'm going to post this over on locals.com and I'll actually add it to my existence systems course, which is this template. So you can go and get access to the course. I'll also throw in my exercise plan before Warren do not do the plan. As it says, pick a couple exercises out of the different blocks. I explained my four day split, pick a couple exercises out of the different blocks. Don't try to do all of the exercises in each block because you'll go you'll you'll you won't be able to move the next day. Uh, trust me. Okay. I've tried it. It's, it's very intense. It's not meant to be exhaustive. It's meant for you to pick two or three or four or five exercises out of each particular day and then do those things. And if you have any questions about the exercises, just Google them, just go right onto YouTube, take that exercise. That's in my spreadsheet and plug it into YouTube. And you'll see what the exercise is. And most of this stuff was designed to do , uh , at home or with very limited gear. So when, when, when , uh, when lockdown hit in Arizona, all of our gyms shut down . So I was fortunate enough that I had some space and a squat rack and a pulley where I was able to sort of cobble together some exercises. And so this plan was built around that. I had a pulley , I had a barbell, I had some dumbbells. I had a squat rack, but that's it not a full gym. So every exercise on there is for limited, limited equipment limited gear. So anyways, I'm going to post that. If you want to check that out, please do. Thanks for indulging me. Thanks for letting me put these puppies on camera. Uh, people hate when I do that, my mom , I kiss my biceps around people in my life. I said , I just I'll give it a little kiss. I'll say, do you want to , do you want to give it a little kiss too ? You want to show some love over to this? You know , show me some love, hate it. Everybody hates it. I have never done it one time and had somebody actually laugh at it. Never not once everybody hates it. It's universally hated, which is why not going to do it right now, but just picture me just kissing my bicep and making that face at you like, Hey, huh? Hate it. Nobody likes it. So I'm not going to do it right now, but I do. I do do it in front of people in my life because why wouldn't I so great questions. Of course, those all come over from watching the watchers.locals.com . These are tremendous. People signed up very recently. I wanna give them a shout out. Sarah from Swan is in the house we got, Jen says 29. Welcome to you. I am pure. One is in the house at the gold standard. Joined up. Good to see you. Hi , deserts in the house. Welcome curious. One Oh one. Let's give these people some red arrows. Oh man. The mouse is not working right now. Keenan Keenan matinees in the house. We have Lee Roy TMD. Welcome to you, Tina Lou . Good to see you. Stand stands in the house. Chasse scout summer account . We have Liebow 36 joined up what's up Frankie. We have flying wombat. Number 20 ones in the house. Little Panda Cubs here. I think a little Panda . Somebody thought that they were a Russian bot, but that's not real. Colby. M is in here. We have Rick in Texas. What's up Rick welcome. We have first amendment who also joined up. We had some great questions who came in from all of you there on the screen. You know who you are. And I want to thank everybody on locals who helped us, who help us on a daily basis by posting great links, posting articles, posting comments over there. You know, today I am actually I posted that I'm going to be building a separate studio at my home. So if you notice right now, I'm currently at the office. Uh, but it's sometimes a little bit of a hurdle for me to, you know, sort of travel in here on the weekends and evenings and things. And so I posted on locals that we're gonna be building a studio , uh, at my, at my residence. I have a little corner. I'm going to tuck it all back in there and I needed some help on buying a new computer. And so I went over to locals and lo and behold, some amazing people over there gave me some excellent advice. It was actually really, really helpful. So I pulled the trigger and made that decision. And so it's a, it's a community, right? And so I want to invite you as somebody who is a part of that community. You know, if you need something, if you need help, if you, if you , uh , you know , want to share an idea or have some questions, it might be a forum where other people can help you with that. Just like they helped me. And it's a community where we can all support one another in the things that we're doing and my Fox and I onion, and a lot of , a lot of other people there gave me some good advice. I'd buy that computer. It's a good one. So I did. And I'm going to get that set up and I want to thank you for that, right? We're , we're sort of helping each other in our endeavors. And I want to invite you to go be a part of that. It's at watching the watchers.locals.com.

Speaker 7:

You can get some good stuff when you're over there, including my book, it's called beginning to winning. You can download a PDF if you're a member and you can also buy it on Amazon. If you're not, you can get a copy of all the slides that we just went through today. Those are available for your download. If you want to impeach any elected official. Now you've got a template there. I mean, that's how amazing this little community is. You can download it an impeachment party template. You can also get a promo code and the template for my existence systems document. If you want to sign up for the course, I walk you through this template. This is the one that I filled out for today. It's got my affirmations on here. It's got my freedom block. My brings energy block. I wrote down what I'm at , what I'm grateful for. So I have here. I'm grateful for, I had a coaching call with some people who are in my coaching program. I have a payment system on my website's working again. I'm very grateful for that. I got a new haircut today. I'm grateful for that because gratitude is the greatest vibrational energy and frequency in this universe. Do you know what your gratitude for? Do you know what you're grateful for? Do you ask yourself that every day , if not, you might want to create a system like this called existence systems, a system for your existence. There was a promo code for that over on locals.com. If you want to check it out, or if you just want to buy the course, it's at Robert mueller.com. It is available for you so that you can create your own existence system that looks like this. And that's it for me. My friends want to thank you so much for being with us, being a part of the show today, we're going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow before we get out of here. Last reminder, I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group. We're in Scottsdale Arizona. We offer free case evaluations. We love to help good people. Who've been charged with crimes, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. We help people with DUIs, drug offenses, domestic violence. Anytime somebody is in trouble with the law. We can help. We can also help people clear up old records. So old cases that need a warrant quash. If you want to expunge your record, if you want to reapply so that you can restore your right to vote, possess a firearm, apply for federal benefits. Those are all amazing things. You deserve those same

Speaker 4:

Rights. We can help you get those back. So

Speaker 7:

If you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who has been charged with a crime, we would be honored and humbled if you sent them our direction so that we could have the opportunity to help, we'll make sure they leave our office better than they found us. And we'd really appreciate your trusted referrals. That's it for me, everybody. I want to thank you so much. Once again, for being here with us today, we're going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow. It's at 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM out there on the East coast. And for that one, Florida, man, everybody be well sleep well, have a nice dinner. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.