Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Chauvin BLM Juror Brandon Mitchell, California Anti-CRT Lawsuit, Rep. Jordan on FBI FISA Violations

May 04, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin BLM Juror Brandon Mitchell, California Anti-CRT Lawsuit, Rep. Jordan on FBI FISA Violations
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin BLM Juror Brandon Mitchell, California Anti-CRT Lawsuit, Rep. Jordan on FBI FISA Violations
May 04, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

Chauvin BLM Juror Brandon Mitchell, California Anti-CRT Lawsuit, Rep. Jordan on FBI FISA Violations​

New information reveals that Juror #52 on the Derek Chauvin trial is an ardent support of Black Lives Matter. New anti-critical race theory lawsuit filed against the Government of California. CIA & FBI on high alert after an attacked and under pressure over FISA violations. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Chauvin Juror #52 Brandon Mitchell is revealed to be a Black Lives Matter supporter. ​

• Photo shows 31 year-old Mitchell wearing a BLM shirt and hat with the words “get your knee off our necks.” ​

• Lawyer Andrew Branca of LawofSelfDefense.com recaps voir dire and jury selection with Brandon Mitchell.​

• Attorney David Pivtorak announces new anti-Critical Race Theory lawsuit against the State of California.​

• The complaint, filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, seeks to eliminate discriminatory practices in government agencies.​

• Review of the lawsuit Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages filed against the California Department of Fish and others.​

• CIA and FBI responded to an attack yesterday after an armed individual attacked CIA headquarters.​

• The gunman, yet to be identified, was shot and killed by CIA and FBI agents.​

• House Republican Representative Jim Jordan is demanding answers from the FBI over widespread FISA violations.​

• A new declassified FISC opinion sheds new light on the many FISA violations occurring throughout the intelligence community.​

• 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 #ChauvinTrial #BLM #CRT #CriticalRaceTheory #BrandonMitchell #GeorgeFloyd #BlackLivesMatter #NewTrial #DeNovo

Show Notes Transcript

Chauvin BLM Juror Brandon Mitchell, California Anti-CRT Lawsuit, Rep. Jordan on FBI FISA Violations​

New information reveals that Juror #52 on the Derek Chauvin trial is an ardent support of Black Lives Matter. New anti-critical race theory lawsuit filed against the Government of California. CIA & FBI on high alert after an attacked and under pressure over FISA violations. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Chauvin Juror #52 Brandon Mitchell is revealed to be a Black Lives Matter supporter. ​

• Photo shows 31 year-old Mitchell wearing a BLM shirt and hat with the words “get your knee off our necks.” ​

• Lawyer Andrew Branca of LawofSelfDefense.com recaps voir dire and jury selection with Brandon Mitchell.​

• Attorney David Pivtorak announces new anti-Critical Race Theory lawsuit against the State of California.​

• The complaint, filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, seeks to eliminate discriminatory practices in government agencies.​

• Review of the lawsuit Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages filed against the California Department of Fish and others.​

• CIA and FBI responded to an attack yesterday after an armed individual attacked CIA headquarters.​

• The gunman, yet to be identified, was shot and killed by CIA and FBI agents.​

• House Republican Representative Jim Jordan is demanding answers from the FBI over widespread FISA violations.​

• A new declassified FISC opinion sheds new light on the many FISA violations occurring throughout the intelligence community.​

• 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 #ChauvinTrial #BLM #CRT #CriticalRaceTheory #BrandonMitchell #GeorgeFloyd #BlackLivesMatter #NewTrial #DeNovo

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers alive. My name is Robert Mueller. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R and R 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 a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, cause we've got a lot to get into. Oh boy. And we have some breaking news, actually, Derek Shovan, his attorneys filed a new motion like 10 minutes ago. So I haven't even read through it yet, but we do have it clipped . We've got a lot of Derek Chauvin's stuff to talk about. There is a , the juror that we've already spoken about, Brandon Mitchell , uh, somebody went and sorta dug through his social media posts and found some imagery of this guy wearing a BLM hat and wearing a BLM shirt, kind of doesn't bode well for that concept of impartiality, that jurors are supposed to embody when they're going through a trial. So we've got a lot to breakthrough on that. Then we're going to change gears a little bit. We're going to talk about more critical race theory. We got into this a little bit yesterday going through the article from James Lindsey that gave us that crash course on what CRT is and why it's so , uh , uh, pernicious, there is a lawsuit that's taking place, an attorney by the name of David pivot, pivot pivot, tow rack is filed the lawsuit actually today against the California and their entire governments . Basically saying that the CRT stuff is highly discriminatory and unconstitutional. And so we're going to go through that because we have some of the Derek Shovan stuff that segment might be a little bit more condensed , uh , but we are going to go through the lawsuit cause it's very interesting and it will be, I'm very curious to see how some of these lawsuits will unfold because we're talking about some pretty important constitutional issues here in particular about, you know , uh, equality and, and uh, the, the inability to , uh, deny certain classes , uh , certain benefits and certain rights. We're talking about discrimination here. We've got a lot of laws about that. And so it sounds like what California is doing is sort of, you know , reversing discrimination, but we're going to go through the lawsuit. We've got a lot to get through there . CRT stuff is everywhere, very pernicious these days. And then lastly, we're going to talk about the CIA and the FBI because yesterday CIA headquarters was attack. You may not have even heard this, but there was a gunman yet to be identified who was killed , uh , right outside CIA headquarters yesterday. And so you're going, what the heck does this? Is this a , you know, Matt Damon coming out of the woodwork, doing a little Jason Bourne action or what's going on here.

Speaker 2:

Then we know that ,

Speaker 1:

Uh , house representatives are sort of really putting pressure on the FBI because of some of the Pfizer violations. There was a new opinion that came out from those declassified opinion that came out of the Pfizer courts that said that, Hey, there's this kind of Pfizer violations all over the place. If you're not familiar with this, we're talking about the foreign intelligence surveillance act and sort of spying on American citizens. Even though this was set up for a foreign surveillance, that's why it's called foreign intelligence. Many Americans are getting caught up in this. Talk a lot about that. Uh , last year when we were going through some of the Michael Flynn saga. And so we're going to talk about that because representative Jim Jordan and Andy Biggs here from Arizona are sent a letter over to a director, Ray from the FBI saying, Hey, while we're not happy with what you've got going on here and we want answers . So we're going to go through that letter. We've got a lot to get to Tuesdays are a little bit shorter than normal. So just wanted to flag that for you, but if you want to be a part of the show, you can do so go on over to our locals platform. It's at watching the watchers.locals.com. So just type that into a web browser, head on over there, you can support the show and I'm really excited about what we've caught sort of , uh , you know, got in store for locals because I think , uh , there's some good ideas being kicked around over there about what we can do. But the point is that's a, that's a separate conversation. If you want to participate in this show, you can do it there watching the watchers.locals.com. There is a live chat over there. So ask a question, leave a comment, LABA criticism, our direction, Ms. Faith is going to clip those. We're going to put those in the slide. So we're going to answer questions in between each different segment and as always, we really appreciate your support, you know, as you know, YouTube demonetized us. And so that's a bummer. If you want to support the show, locals is really the place to do it. Awesome platform, a lot of good people there. So thank you for that. And we're going to get into the news. Of course, there is a new photograph of Derek Shovan juror number 52. Remember this trial just wrapped up and juror number 52, a guy by the name of Brandon Mitchell went out in front of the media and started giving interviews. And when we covered this last week, we were a little bit curious about what he was saying, because if you recall, a lot of the language that he was using was sort of indicating that he kind of wanted to be on this jury panel, use some language like we have to get in there. You know, we have to get on these panels so that we can effectuate an outcome. And you did that, right? He was successful. It sort of reminded me of kind of , you know , elbowing your way into the front of the line or into the front of the room to make sure that you are seated there because you feel like you have an obligation to vote for a particular outcome. That's what his language sounded like. Sounded like, well , this wasn't really a fair and impartial juror, even though during his voice Deere , when he was questioned prior to the trial, starting when we were in jury selection, he gave up a bunch of answers, sort of implying that he had not made his mind up on this thing. Well, now we know he's got photographs of him and BLM shirts and shirts that say, take your knee off of my neck. And you're going, how can somebody like that? Who was in clothes like that with this particular disposition? How can they truly, really be fair and impartial? And this guy got onto the jury and actually was a deciding vote on the conviction. So this is everybody's scratching their eyes go, you're scratching their head going what's this is not right. This is not, you know , a fair and impartial juror here. So we got to break this down, let's go into it. We're going to start over here from the Washington post, which is surprising, you know, they're there , even them, even the Washington post is going, Oh, this is doesn't look too good. So it says your photo of the Shovan juror wearing BLM t-shirt at the March, raises questions of impartiality experts say, so a photo is surface in recent days of a juror in the murder trial of Derek Chauvin's prompted questions. Photo shared by several new sites shows Brandon Mitchell, 31 year old high school basketball coach in Minneapolis, standing next to two relatives, wearing a black t-shirt with a picture of Martin Luther King, with the words, get your knee off our next , as well as a black baseball cap with a letters BLM for black lives. Matter on Monday. Mitchell told the star Tribune that the photo was posted on social media, by his uncle in DC last August during the commemoration of MLK's. I have a dream speech from 1963, he defended his attendance saying it was not a March for George Floyd card , according to the star Tribune. Right? And so I am all for people joining causes. I'm all for people participating in the American experiment and voicing their opinions and their dissents and on and on and on. But that's a different question than whether you are a fair and impartial trial. When you're sitting in a court of law, having sworn an oath that you can be fair and impartial, that you're going to answer questions truthfully, because it sounds like maybe that is not the case here. Yes. We know it was a commemorative speech for MLK. Great. That's awesome. You can go in everybody, go and support that. That's a good thing that we're celebrating MLK. But what he was doing is , was actively advocating for one particular political persuasion in this case, BLM, how do we know that? Because the hat said B L M on it. And it also , uh , he had a shirt. I think we have the image of it. So it's not, not a good look and pretty obviously not impartial. All right. The Hill has some more information for us. Shovan juror on attending the protest. He said it was a good opportunity to be a part of something. Juror who voted for a to convict Derek Shovan is defending his decision to attend a social justice demonstration. Last year, Brandon Mitchell told the associated press I'd never been to DC. I , uh , saying that he went to commemorate. MLK says the opportunity to go to DC, the opportunity to be around thousands and thousands of black people. I just thought it was a good opportunity to be a part of something. During the jury selection process, all jurors were asked two questions as part of jury selection questionnaire. Number one, did you or someone close to you participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis is after George Floyd's desk death, the first desk. Okay. Other then what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality? Mitchell reportedly answered no

Speaker 3:

To both questions. Right ? And if you're somebody who says, okay, well , uh , he got [inaudible]

Speaker 1:

Legally accurate, right? He wasn't at a protest , uh, protesting or marching against police brutality. And it wasn't for that at all. He was there to honor MLK. And so he answered that question truthfully, because it didn't ask, have you been a part of any civil rights demonstrations? It says, did you or someone close to you participate in any demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death? No,

Speaker 3:

He did. It went to DC. He was a Knight .

Speaker 1:

Even in Minneapolis, he was in Washington DC for something that was not against police brutality, it was honoring MLK. Right. That's one way to interpret it. The other way to interpret it is this guy knew what the question was getting at. And he explicitly lied. He was doing the lawyerly thing and said , no , no , I wasn't in

Speaker 3:

DC. Nope. Sorry . I wasn't in Minneapolis. I was in DC. No, I wasn't marching

Speaker 1:

Against police brutality. I was marching for civil rights. Okay.

Speaker 3:

Right. And that's , uh , that's what lawyers do all the time. So legally permissible thing to do Mitchells

Speaker 1:

Separately told Chauvin's attorney during the selection process that he had a very favorable opinion of BLM and that some police officers are great guys. He insisted he could be impartial during the trial. It was directly related to MLK's March on Washington from the sixties. The date of the March, the date of the March on Washington is the date. It was literally called the anniversary of the March on Washington. Mitchell told the star Tribune in reference to the demonstration he attended last year. So right . Technically I think he answered the questions correctly. Other than what you've already described. Have you participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality? So if he characterizes the MLK March the March, the March on Washington, as something that does not fit within that category, something that is not focused on police use of force or police brutality, then you could say, well , he was answering that question appropriately because it was responsive to the question. The question didn't ask about DC or civil rights. It asked about use of force and police brutality. All right . Well maybe yes, but the shirt that you're wearing

Speaker 3:

Certainly looks like it's got, you know, get the knee

Speaker 1:

Off of my neck. It looks like that you are in fact protesting police brutality. So let me take a quick look here. I want to make sure that we have, yeah, we have the pictures coming up. So we're going to go through a couple more articles and then we're going to get to the photographs themselves. The Shovan juror who attended the pretrial rally may jeopardize the guilty verdict. Oh, this was posted , uh , Monday, March , May 9th , May 3rd by Valerie Richardson said the March was held to commemorate the anniversary of MLK's. I have a dream speech, but the national action network build it as the commitment March, get your knee off our next several members of the Floyd family spoke. Okay. Now, so now we're seeing what this looks like, right? This juror, Brandon Mitchell may not have, you know, when he was answering the juror, questionnaires may not have , have considered that to be , uh, you know , uh , a March against police brutality because he was characterizing it as an MLK March,

Speaker 4:

But then you look into it a little

Speaker 1:

Bit further. It was the commitment March, get, get your knee off our necks . Okay. That sounds like a protest against police brutality. And he was there and also the Floyd family spoke. Okay, well, so that gives a little bit of a theme here. Now it's less about just general civil rights and more about protesting police brutality, which the question was in fact asking about. So now you can sort of say, well, maybe in fact, he was lying new photos from the event , show demonstrators, wearing BLM shirts, carrying flags, as well as signs that says I can't breathe, which Floyd repeatedly told police before he died. The March that he went to August 28th was specifically about police brutality, criminal defense attorney, Joe, Tom Marino , who was not associated with the case, told CCO . In fact, it was partly advertised as get off, get your knee off our necks. And it had speakers with the Floyd family, Brianna Taylor and Jacob Blake, which are of course, all three victims of police brutality of police incidents. You know, however you want to characterize that Briana Taylor was shot and killed by police. Jacob Blake was shot, not killed by police. And , uh, George Floyd was , uh, you know, died at the hands of law enforcement. So they were all, they're all speaking. Everybody knew what this was about. It wasn't just a civil rights March. It was more about police brutality. So what does that say about this juror? Did he lie on the questionnaire March on Washington, George Floyd, family urges, protesters to be his legacy. All right. So here we have this one now posted over from the Washington times, August 28th, 2020. And so this is back on that day, right? What is the 220 March on Washington? Thousands of people gathered back in 1963 to do this. And this says called the commitment to, to March the commitment March, get your knee off of our next are referenced to the death of George Floyd who died in may sister of George Floyd, whose death in police custody sparked months of racial turmoil across the U S urged civil rights protestors to be his legacy. My brother can not be a voice today. She said, we have to be that voice. We have to be the change. Floyd was one of several relatives of , of a black Americans harmed or killed speakers , demanded racial justice at the event. So we know what the event was about. This juror knew what the event was about. He was wearing a shirt that had the name of the events on his body, which we're going to see here

Speaker 4:

Shortly . Jillian over on Twitter says, was there a BLM plant in the Derrick Shovan jury? Brandon Mitchell

Speaker 1:

I'm 52 in the Shovan case was seen last summer way before being summoned for jury duty, wearing a, get your knee off our neck shirt with a BLM

Speaker 4:

Hat . Here is the juror. Is this a video? Let's see, Oh God ,

Speaker 1:

That's not a video. So here he was on a New York. I'm sorry. Good morning, America. Uh , back when we were, we covered this previously, but a lot of the language that he was using was about, you know, I wanted to get on the jury panel. I , I sort of, I , I felt like I had an obligation to be there and that other black Americans, if you recall, the news anchor who I believe was also, African-American asked him something about that. You know, what, why, why is it so important that black men are on juries? And you know, the, the regular question or the regular, I think sort of response would be well, because we want a jury of our peers, right? That's what our justice system prescribes. It says you can be convicted based on a jury of your peers. And so if we have African-American defendants, of course we want some African-American people on the jury. So we have a racially diverse group, something that is representative of society, something that reflects society's demographics on the jury panel. Therefore we have a cross section of our peers. Don't want to go back to the 1940s where you'd have an African-American defendant commit some crime at a bunch of white jurors, just say, well , that guy's black. Therefore we should convict him. Right . That was wrong. Then it same, same type of concept is wrong. Jurors are supposed to, you know, follow the law, follow the rules and apply the, apply the law to the facts that they observed in a trial. You don't want it to be about, you know, getting onto a jury panel and then making sure that you get the particular outcome that you want in the name of social justice. And so this gentlemen , I know Brandon Mitchell, when he was on good morning America, with that news anchor, she asked him, what , what, what, what, why is it so important to get on there? And he didn't say well, because we want to be representative. He said, well, you know, we, in other words, we've got some, some things that we want to see happen in this country. We want some particular outcomes. And so we need to get on there so that we can have a voice so that we can have a say in the analysis or the analogy I was asking you last week, I was ask yourself, does this man sound like a fair and impartial juror or somebody who is close to an advocate, somebody who has a cause a position that they want to see reality. They have an outcome that is desirable to them and they're going to do what it takes to get that achieved. And this is what essentially what it looks like Brandon Mitchell did, which is kind of bizarre. You know, this person doing this might literally result in a new trial for Derek Shovan. I'm going to show you the motion that Eric Nelson and their attorneys submitted today about, you know , 30 minutes ago. So here is the picture that everybody is sort of talking about. This is the next generation being socially active, representing in DC. My son, Marcel nephew, Brandon Renee Mitchell, Kay tagged and brother with some hearts over here. So we've got a , this is him, right? He's decked out , uh, get your knee off our next BLM. You see the two BLM fists here being raised up. We see , uh , an image of MLK. Um, uh , all right . I , yeah . Okay. We have BLM hat at the top here. And so he is just fully decked out in BLM gear. He's got it all. And he was somebody who was seated on the jury. Now, if you are not following attorney Andrew Branca over at legal insurrection or on parlor or on Twitter, I would encourage you to do that. Does a great work, did an excellent job on the Derek Shovan case. And he , he posted back on March 15th, day six of the jury selection, it's called voice deer . And so , uh , he, if we go back to his post, we can see what the process looked like for juror number 52 for Brandon Mitchell. So let's take a quick look and just do a recap. Then I want to show you the motion that was submitted this afternoon on behalf of Derek Shovan regarding post-conviction motions and sort of asking for a new trial, because it's looking more and more likely now, you know , if this, if , if another juror comes out, Oh gosh, all right. So this came over from Andrew breakup and this you'll notice March 15th, right? So what are we talking about? This is when the ninth juror was seated. Okay. Three others were were said that we cannot be fair and impartial. They were excused, but on day six during [inaudible] juror number 52 is seated. He's the youngest male. Obviously the jurors are not being shown on camera and to speculate, I would guess that he was black. Got that right. Was described as working in the banking industry, customer focus , nothing much remarkable about the void year of number two. That's the questions he professed that he'd be willing to be fair to both sides. Judge the case only on the evidence and law presented in the court. Even if he thought the law was wrong or should be changed and that he could provide the defendant with a fair and impartial hearing, which is exactly the buzz phrase, right? That's exactly what you want the jury to say. Now we all know that in August of last year, he was doing something totally outside of the, the, the tone of this. He was doing something where he was not impartial. He was an advocate for a cause. And again, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that. I support that. I am an advocate for a lot of things here on this show that I'm not upset about that one bit. What I am upset about is he is so biased. Obviously one sidedly that he then sort of manipulates the questionnaire on the, during voice deer , during jury selection. And this whole thing now might come back to bite this movement in the, but if he does in fact, get a new trial. So Nelson wrote, he said, Nelson said , uh , you wrote, I don't believe Sharvin intended to murder anybody, but having seen the video don't know what reasoning would be. Can you listen to what people say about police training and police practice , uh , with an open mind as to what the reasoning could be jury number 52 said, yes. I'd like to know what the thought process would be. He also wrote in this questionnaire that he wondered why other officers had not intervened when pressed by the defense to explore what this meant. He assumed that Shovan acted wrongfully indicated not necessarily. So he compared it to, if he were driving somewhat thoughtlessly and a passenger prompted him to pay more attention, someone can intervene even if what they are doing is not done with malice. So we have another question here. Nelson says your impression of officer Shovan, did you form the opinion that he was doing something wrong? 52 says, I don't know that he did something wrong, but somebody did die. Even if no intentions doing something, somebody could have intervened and prevented that. Like, I'm not going, like I'm not paying attention and driving my car. So , uh, let's see what else , uh, prosecution passed for. Cause so they wanted 52 on their 50 number , number 52 became the eighth juror. And he said, here we can at this from an objective point of view. And so we'll see, you know, we'll see where this goes. I want to show you this motion that has been submitted. Uh , today. I want to show you this. We'll read through it here. Briefly submitted at 3:59 PM. So filed in Minnesota. Did it ? Justice afternoon, fifth , fourth filed in district court, same court that we have been following along so far. It's defendant's notice of motions and post verdict motions. All right . So now we know let's frame this out a little bit. Trials ended K trial was concluded conviction on all three counts for Derek Shovan . We saw him put in handcuffs and hauled out of court that day. He's not scheduled for sentencing. I believe until early June, maybe June 5th, already been some transport orders are going to bring him back from custody and bring him in, in front of sentencing where the judge is going to determine what length of time he goes away for. And here, now we have something sort of in here in between those two things we have the conclusion of the trial sentencing is coming up, but they're already asking for new trials and wanting to make some pretty significant motion. So let's go through this here we have here motions. Number one, they want the following relief. What are the first, what's the first thing they're asking for an order granting a new trial. They're going to Minnesota law. They're saying that the interest of justice are proper grounds for this. Also the abuse of discretion that deprive the defendant of a fair trial. They're also saying prosecutorial and jury misconduct, errors of law at trial and a verdict that is contrary to the law. That's a lot, right? The specific basis for this motion includes that the court denied the motion for a change of venue saying that, well, this should have been a fair and impartial trial. A different venue would have supported that the judge did not grant that and the court abused its discretion as a result. They're also saying that the court abused its discretion when it denied the motion for new trial on the grounds that quote publicity during the proceedings threatened the fairness of the trial, such publicity, publicity included post testimony, but pre deliberation, intimidation of the defense experts witness from which the jury was not insulated, not only did such acts escalate the potential for prejudice in these proceedings, they may result in a far fetching chilling effect on them . The defendant's ability to procure expert witnesses, especially in high profile cases, such as Sjogren's . And co-defendants the publicity here was so pervasive and so prejudicial before. And during this trial that it had amounted to a structural defect in the proceedings. And we saw this right now. I don't recall the timeline on this, but we did see that I think there was a pig's head in pig's blood smeared across the house of somebody . It was supposed to be one of the defense expert witnesses. I think officer or Sergeant, whatever Brode I think was the, the witness. And , uh, somebody found his old address, went to his house and smeared a bunch of blood all his door. So, you know , whoever the neighbors were or whoever actually own that home, they had a bad morning when they went out to get the newspaper. But the point here is the judge did not.

Speaker 3:

That move venue did not

Speaker 1:

Sort of protect some of that stuff from happening and the public opinion in the , in the court of public opinion, there was so much volatility, so much anger and animosity that the question now becomes will that spill over into the trial, will that go and impact your expert witnesses? Will it impact your lawyers? Okay. We saw this back during the election litigation of 2020, when , when Donald Trump was trying to get a bunch of different law firms to help him out with his election litigation. Many of those attorneys were just sort of bailing, you know, abandoning ship. They didn't want to work under the pressure, same type of concept here. You know, what if, what if the public is? So one-sided that expert witnesses? Just say, listen, I look, I have an opinion on this thing, but it's just not worth it because somebody is going to come to my house. Uh , we know that there was another Derek show of an expert witness. I think it was a Fowler who is also, you know, being sued. And so there's repercussions coming from the people who did step up and advocate on behalf of Derek Shovan and in the future, maybe people just don't want to do that. And then the defense, the defendant is really at a serious disadvantage, just in terms of the availability of resources to help them win their case. This complaint goes on and I wanted to show you this. Let's talk briefly about , uh, we're going to get to the order here in a minute, I think. Okay. So here let's go back to the motion. The court abused its discretion when it failed to sequester the jury for the duration of the trial, or at the least admonish them to avoid all media, which resulted in jury exposure to prejudicial publicity regarding the trial, as well as jury intimidation and potential fear of retribution amongst jurors. And we know this right. We could, because we saw that the Dante right shooting happened right around the corner from where all this happened. There were protests taking place. One juror who turned out to be the alternate was traveling back and forth between the courthouse and Brooklyn center, where the protests were happening. So she was seeing a lot of this stuff, same with other jurors. We had Maxine waters who flew in there, parachuted in from California to come and throw a bunch of stones at other people's houses. And the list kind of goes on, right? CNN with all the news people were there. Everybody was bracing for impact before the jury panel was even before the jury was even sent to the deliberation room. All of this was unfolding for about three weeks during the entire trial judge didn't do much about it. Didn't even really warn him . Citi settled for 27 million max Maxine waters came out and basically made verbal threats. If there's not a particular outcome, then she's going to be advocating for essentially violence. And you're going, what judge didn't even call people back up for voice deer . Didn't even ask them questions. If they heard it says , Oh, I already , uh, admonish them and look, you know, Cahill's got to do that at this point, right? Because the trial is over. What's he going to do? Say , well, all right, we just did this whole thing for nothing. We're going to do it again. It's tough rock and a hard place on this one. State committed, pervasive, prejudicial, prosecutorial misconduct, which deprive Shovan of his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, but not limited to disparaging the defense. Remember we saw that at the end, when he was

Speaker 3:

When , um, uh, Blackwell was saying things like , uh , they're telling you

Speaker 1:

You a story, right? You know, their , their , their , their , their fictional story or their narrative or whatever they want you to believe. You sort of belittling

Speaker 3:

Their interpretation

Speaker 1:

Of the events. And , uh , Eric Nelson brought that up at the end. And it sounds like the judge admonished him and reminded him not to do that. They had improper vouching and they have also failing to adequately prepare its witnesses, court abused its discretion violated Chauvin's rights under the confrontation clause clause when Maurice halted

Speaker 3:

Testify or in the alternative, none of it

Speaker 1:

Testimony got admitted into evidence, right? So under the constitution, you have a right to confront your accusers. And if people are , are accusing you of things, you have a right to present evidence to defend yourself. And so now we've got this really, really tricky , uh , co-mingling of rights. You've got Maurice hall and his right to remain silent. You've got Derek Shovan and his confrontational, right? His ability to go and confront the people who are accusing him of a crime, or who are involved in the accusations against him. Maurice , all was in the car, could have been very, very closely related to the causation. They actually killed George Floyd. We know that Maurice hall historically had provided drugs to George and his girlfriend. And maybe he could testify about what George did. Did he, did he ingest a couple of those pills that were right there in the front seat dashboard

Speaker 3:

Or what, but he didn't testify.

Speaker 1:

Did he, we also have this complaint saying that the court abused its discretion when it's submitted jury instructions to the jury that failed to accurately reflect

Speaker 3:

The law, the court abused

Speaker 1:

Its discretion in violation of Chauvin's constitutional rights to due process when it permitted the state to present cumulative evidence with respect to the use of force. So that means just bringing up expert after expert, after expert, we had a lot of them all talking to use of force. We had the chief , uh , chief of police. We had the LAPD Sergeant. We had, I think, three or four people

Speaker 3:

Use of force. And I don't remember

Speaker 1:

Nelson was objecting to this stuff that it was cumulative, but you know, in , in law, you can't just say the same thing over and over 25 times. That's not a good argument that is duplicative. It's too repetitive. And eventually people go, all right, right. And , and there's something that happens psychologically. You know, I think , uh, the , uh, you know, during world war II, there was Goebbels, right? Somebody said, Hey, if you tell a lie long enough, eventually people will believe it. It's like, if you keep hearing the same thing over and over and over again, eventually you go, okay, that has to be it. And so that's what they're saying happened here. It was, you know , in particular with the use of force, same evidence presented a bunch of different ways. The

Speaker 3:

Court abused its discretion violated

Speaker 1:

Chauvin's rights when it ordered the state to lead witnesses, direct examination. So that's just a questioning style. I'm not real sure how much I heard that or saw that stay out. Uh, you know, leading questions is , uh, is sort of asking questions that guide a witness to the next point. So you can say , uh, isn't it true that on March 1st, you were here, right. And isn't it true after that date? You moved over here and isn't it also true that when you walked in, you spoke to , uh, Mary and it's also true that Mary said so-and-so about so-and-so correct. Yes. And right. So you're, you're asking them questions, but you're leading them through to the answer that you want, which is much more different than sort of a , uh , an open-ended question, which is what you should have on direct examination during a direct examination, you should say. Uh, okay. So, so , uh , tell me what happened on March 1st. They go off into the narrative. Well, I woke up at breakfast. I got my kids ready for school up that , that I went through, the whole thing was okay, what happened after that? You're not leading them. You're giving them the opportunity to fill in the blanks versus on a cross examination . Then you are leading them. Right. You don't want them to give you those big long-winded answers. You want to say, so it's true, right? Yes. And then they go, yes, but Nope, yes or no. Right. And you narrow them down. Okay. So they're saying that this line of questioning or this type of questioning was allowed, even though it's in permissible , the court abused its discretion in violation of Chauvin's constitutional rights. When it failed to order that a record be made of numerous sidebars that occurred during the trial, we saw that happen a lot cumulative effect of these multiple errors deprived him of a fair and impartial trial, an order for a hearing. So they want an order for a hearing to impeach the verdict on the grounds that the jury committed misconduct felt threatened or intimidated felt race-based based pressure during the proceedings and or failed to adhere to instructions. They also want an order granting the defense additional time to thoroughly brief the issues above in light of the time that was required for the preparation of partial transcripts of the proceedings. Any other relief? The motion is based upon files and records in this case presented here by there is Eric Nelson attorney for the defendant from Halberg criminal defense. So yeah, it sounds like right now they're preparing transcripts, right ? Very long trial. They're going to beef all of those up Eric, Nelson's going to review them. What we just saw was sort of a notice, letting the court know that there's more coming on this thing, we're just giving you notice that these are being filed and where they're going to ask for, you know, 60 days, 90 days or the court. There's probably a rule in the Minnesota statutes that say, well, okay, we're gonna , we're gonna have , uh , you know , arguments on this case in 90 days, government, please brief your, your , uh, your, your response to these motions. We'll see where it goes. So , uh, interesting. Very, very interesting. And we're going to see if other jurors start trickling out. I mean, can you imagine if this, if this whole thing has to start over again?

Speaker 5:

Oh no.

Speaker 1:

In the , Oh , let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com patios in the house as , Hey, Robert loved the show. It's looking more and more like this juror had an agenda and even lied to get on the panel. What at this point can be done besides the appeal process, could the judge reject the verdict and declare a mistrial? Couldn't Mr. Marshall be charged with perjury? I think that all of those things are possible. Right? I think that, yes, the judge could, we , we saw what , what Nelson was asking for. I'm not sure, you know, it's hard for me to speak on some of the , uh , specifics on this, because I don't honestly do , uh , appeal or post-conviction work in Arizona. And certainly I don't do it in , uh , Minnesota, but I know the nuts and bolts of it, but you know, each one of these things sounds like it is a reasonable outcome, right? The judge, as we saw in Minnesota, they called it impeaching the verdict, which we'll be going back and saying, ah , this whole thing is tainted because a juror wasn't impartial and a juror did lie

Speaker 4:

On a, on a, on a , uh , uh ,

Speaker 1:

[inaudible] questionnaire. Now, if they're going. So, so here's, here's sort of the problem with this perjury question. The people who charge people with crimes are the prosecutors. Okay. The prosecutors in this case have a favorable juror who helped them get the verdict that they want. So is the prosecution going to now

Speaker 4:

Go and charge Brandon Mitchell with a crime? The jury

Speaker 1:

Gave them the outcome that they wanted. Do you think that that's going to happen? I certainly don't. Uh, Robert , have you ever experienced jury misconduct? Are there criminal or civil penalties that apply in those instances? So there are they're , they're typically admonishments, you know, you'll, you , you, you heard some of that during the show of in trial. I have never had jury misconduct. I can't even think of anybody in our firm that has to the degree that it warrants something. I mean, there's always, you know , a little problems here and there. Somebody is late, somebody is on their phone, somebody is not paying attention. It's sort of, you know, the kids are misbehaving in class type of, of, of gripes, not something that is, you know, that warrants a new trial or a post-conviction relief motion or anything like that , uh, that I have personally seen. Uh, and I don't, we don't even get many calls about it. I mean, honestly, you know, people, people will call us about appeal ,

Speaker 4:

But nothing about jury,

Speaker 1:

Jury misconduct, you know, it's always about something went wrong in trial that a lawyer did or that the prosecution did, but appeal cases almost never come in based on jury misconduct in my experience. So not something that is particularly common best, Amanda says can, and should the juror be charged with perjury? He knowingly lied to the court under oath. You know, that's a, that's a discretionary call, right? You can, you can make arguments both ways. You could take the , the, the crux of the question that was asked on the questionnaire. And I , you know, I think you can make a good argument that he did .

Speaker 4:

He didn't , uh, he didn't,

Speaker 1:

I think that what he was involved in applied now, I think that is total BS, but I'm talking about this from a defense attorney, right? Practice . We all know what he did. He knows what he did. He even admitted it because he was on with good morning, America telling the other woman about this. We all, we got to do more of this essentially. And so, you know, that that is, that is clear. But the, as I mentioned with the last question, they're the people who get to make that charging decision. And they're very happy with the outcome that he gave them. So, you know , uh, there's another situation where this comes up a lot in a domestic violence case. What often happens is it's a man and a woman get into an altercation. Police are called, they show up at the apartment, guess who goes to jail? Want to take a stab at it? Yeah, it's the guy, every time in 99, out of a hundred times, the guy gets arrested. He gets, you know , brought into custody. All right. He gets charged with disorderly conduct, domestic violence, assault, domestic conduct, whatever. Right. Even if she started, it doesn't matter. He gets charged. We go into court. We now set the case for trial cases. Ready for sure.

Speaker 3:

Okay. This, this couple has , uh , let's say reconciled. The other party wants nothing to do with the case. They don't want, you know ,

Speaker 1:

They were angry. The cops came to begin with, they didn't call the neighbor called, okay . Nobody wants the police to show up at the situation. So let's say

Speaker 3:

The female who is the

Speaker 1:

Victim in this case, doesn't show up

Speaker 3:

To court. Government doesn't have

Speaker 1:

Key witness because their victim is not there. Nobody else was there . Neighbors didn't hear the fight. Neighbors didn't see anything. Police didn't see anything. They came after the fact, the whole thing was over. By the time they got there. But when they show up, they got to arrest somebody. So somebody goes away. We sh we , we get ready for trial. The victim doesn't come to court. What happens? She got a court order to be there. She's not there. Government doesn't have their witness. What do they do? They got to dismiss the case. They can't proceed without their witness. Cops didn't see anything. Neighbor didn't see anything defense. Isn't going to get up there and testify. So they have to dismiss the case. But what if the prosecution is really angry now that the victim didn't show up, that's their key witness. They didn't come to court today. So the next question then logically is sort of like what happened here with this juror? Does the prosecution that needed that victim to show up? Do they charge her with the crime for violating a court order

Speaker 3:

And not coming to court 99,

Speaker 1:

Nine out of 100 times? No. Typically, no, unless it's a serious felony case, unless it's something that warrants that type of a response, but it's the same concept here. Right? The prosecution, in my victim case, they do not want to punish the victim. She's already been the victim of a crime allegedly. So they don't want to add insult to injury, right? This guy, same type of situation already on a jury already, you know , did his civic duty, whatever sat through a three week trial made it on there, gave the prosecutors the verdict that they wanted. Do you think that they're going to charge him with the crime? No, of course not. We have no doubt says Tim Poole said that the Floyd family spoke at the event he attended, even with that, is this likely enough for the judicial system to reverse itself. So I think it's absolutely worth taking a very, very good look at this through the court of appeals. I'm , you know , it's too early to speak on this quite yet. I would like to read the full brief that Eric Nelson's obviously going to be preparing, but, but yes, these types of things, in my opinion are persuasive. They are powerful because it's, it's obvious that you had somebody on the panel who was not fair and impartial. And the evidence is just, it's overwhelming and it's , it's not good. N Y renal MD says, I despise what Shovan did. However, if the judge doesn't declare a mistrial, I fear, I feel a fair trial is a distant memory. The spirit of those questions is that we don't stack the jury with activists. Yeah. It's not about that. Right. And , and you know, this, this is a , this is a , not an uncommon question. We talk about this in the law and in the form of jury nullification. Okay. You can Google that and you'll see that that is a legal concept. This is a , this is a thing that people talk about now, judges won't let you do it and you can't do it in the courts cause they will. They will , uh, you know, flip because it's , it's not allowed sort of in the court of law, but this is still something that people do. People will say, well, I don't like that law. It's called jury nullification. The prosecution hates this concept, but you could have the government present their entire case. Let's put this in the context of marijuana. Okay. Let's say that you have a 12 person jury. And three of those people are ardent, ardent advocates of marijuana. They use it. Plant-based medicine. They think it's great. Defendants is now being charged with a marijuana crime because in this jurisdiction, the marijuana is illegal. So you might have those three jurors on there who , who marijuana regularly. They're not happy that this, that , uh, that this law exists. And they're not happy that this defendant is being charged with this crime because they think that the drug war is insanity and the prohibition doesn't make any sense. Okay. So that's fine. That's their personal opinion. They're free to think that, but if they try to impose that political disposition in the jury deliberation room, that's a huge problem. That's called jury nullification. They're not asked to apply the law as they deem fit or ask whether the law should be in existence or not. That's the purview of the state legislature and of our elected officials. It's not the purview of the jurors. The jury is supposed to get in there, listen to the facts of the case, apply the law as written, regardless of your political ideology or whatever your opinions are on the case. And then come to a conclusion in that manner. So if you have in this marijuana example, you have these three jurors, you just say, well , it's too bad, right? I , you know, I think marijuana laws are stupid. And so we're going to vote for an acquittal here. Um, and , and, and on that basis, and that came out, the judge might order a new trial , same thing, same type of thing here. Right? The, the witness here, the juror here is somebody who is clearly biased in one direction. And , and we now know that troubling, okay . Liberty or death says, here's a question if by some long shot Cahill declares a mistrial or the appeals court remains , do you think the prosecutor would put him on trial again? Yes, I do. I think they would have to, and the change of venue would happen, but everyone knows what has happened at this point. Yeah. I totally agree with you Liberty on that one. I think that I, I'm not so sure that Cahill's going to get involved. If I had to guess, I'd say Cahill was just gonna , uh , do as much as he can to send this upstairs. He did. I think a great job running the trial to the best of his ability, disagree with a lot of his decisions, but, you know, he was sort of dealing with an impossible situation. So I think he ran it the way that he ran it. He's going to send it upstairs. We'll see what the court of appeals does. Uh, I'm , I'm very excited to see what the government says in response. This is going to be interesting because this is sort of a kind of a case of first impression. You know, we've had very, very important popular national cases in this country before, but this one sort of had the entire media and most of the elected government officials, all in alignment, rowing one direction. And when that happens and you have a conviction on all counts, and then you have some jury malfeasance, or at least some improprieties happening here, maybe

Speaker 4:

This works

Speaker 1:

Its way up to the Supreme court. And they tell us how to deal with this stuff, because this is going to happen again. We've got Kim Potter's case. We've got a lot of other ones that are going to be coming down the pike. No question. Next up we've got HLB says, defendants get innocent until proven guilty, right? It's supposed to. So does the jury not get assumed to only have facts of the case in mind unless proven to be an unbiased plant based off of the actions and words while being a juror? Wait, does anyone oversee jury deliberations or possible past connections to assure no planted jurors boom, more American jobs? So, so , uh , HLB has a stimulus plan here. Boom, more American jobs for a juror deliberation overseeing, which is, you know , uh, so kind of yes and no, right there, there are other people there who are helping facilitate the deliberations, but no, there's nobody in there like a judge

Speaker 4:

Or a , a bailiff, you know, guiding the deliberations because we don't want the system involved

Speaker 1:

In the deliberations. We want the jurors to deliberate. We don't want a judge to walk in there and tell the jurors had deliberate. Cause they'll just defer to the judge. And we don't want that. We want the jurors to decide. We have inky . Woe says, given the BLM ger , it now makes an even more difficult challenge to get an impartial jury. Because even if there is one juror secretly sympathetic to BLM, that you're would be able to comprise the identity of any disagreeing juror post verdict and bring the destructive mom to the person's homework and destroy their life. Ooh, that's a good point, right?

Speaker 4:

Yeah. You get, you sort of get somebody

Speaker 1:

On the inside and that somebody on the inside can

Speaker 4:

Communicate who the rest of it ,

Speaker 1:

The makeup of who the rest of the jury is so that external pressure can come to bear on them. Yikes. I don't know what that does to the justice system, but

Speaker 4:

Does it look good? All right . We've got last one in the house. [inaudible]

Speaker 1:

MD says, how about the judge charging him with contempt of court in that case? It can be outside of the AGS office, right? Uh, yeah. So the judge, yeah. That's a good point. I think the judge could charge him with contempt, hold him in contempt and uh, and yeah. And penalize him that way. I think

Speaker 4:

The judge could do that. That's a good point. I didn't think about

Speaker 1:

That one, but that's a good point. All right. Good questions. All of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you so much for your support. Really appreciate it. When you go over there and help us kind of keep things on the track over there. It's a great community. Ask questions, download a free copy of my book, get promo codes for everything, download every it's good stuff, watching the watchers.locals.com. All right, so we're going to change gears and we're gonna have to pick up the pace just a little bit. We're talking about critical race theory in particular, there is a lawyer goes by the name of David pivotal rack , who is filing a lawsuit against the government of California over CRT, specifically saying that California, your hiring policies are discriminatory and they're unconstitutional and Durham . We're going to do something about it. So we want to go through this. We spent some time yesterday talking about critical race theory. If you are not familiar with this concept, I invite you to go check out that show or at least that segment we should have that clipped up by now, but it comes over from an article from a guy named [email protected] gives a very nice summation two page summary of what critical race theory is. And it's important. You're hearing it all over the place. You're seeing this sort of , uh , pervade itself into all the different facets of our life and including our government, including in California. So I want to go through this. We're going to have to go through it relatively quickly, but I want to show you what it looks like and what some of these issues that we're arguing about. Let's get into it. So as we see here on Twitter, David PIV, Pivoto rack says we have filed our opposition to the California government's motion to dismiss our critical race theory class action. So what he's talking about, he is forming a class action, which is a large number of complainants . So people who have a common cause or common complaint, bringing them together, suing California, California now filed, what's called a motion to dismiss. They said, no, you don't have any basis for bringing this lawsuit. What are you guys nuts? So what he's talking about is the response to the motion to dismiss. So let's take a quick look at it. He says , um , when we tried to stop them from using racial preferences in hiring and promotions, they filed a motion to dismiss under California's onerous anti-slap law, as an intimidation tactic, using the threat of adverse attorney's fees. This is why we need your help. Please donate so that we can match the government's resources. And when this litigation battle court documents are in the link. So if you want to go support this, gentlemen, check them out at PIV for law , PIV for law over on Twitter. And if you go there, you'll see a direct link to the GoFundMe thing that he's referencing. I think we have a screenshot of it here shortly. So I want to take a quick look first. I think this is the motion to dismiss the response to the motion to dismiss. So California says you can't Sue us over CRT stuff. This is nonsense. We want to dismiss. Here's what he says back. The sole purpose of this action is to affirm the principle enshrined in law. That quote basing, present discrimination on past discrimination is obviously not right for decades. The state of California has embraced merit based colorblind policies with regard to its employment practices. These policies prevent government officials, no matter how well-intentioned from attempting to manipulate the racial demographics of their workforces defendants who lead the California's largest state agencies, bemoaned these race neutral policies and their own agencies as quote institutionally racist,

Speaker 3:

Okay? Simultaneously

Speaker 1:

They accused white employees of benefiting from and perpetuating the quote [inaudible] systemic inequity that has led to their over representation in the workforce. Defendants use this to justify their implementation of thinly veiled, racial quota systems that seek to correct this imbalance

Speaker 3:

Here ,

Speaker 1:

That language. We talked a lot about this yesterday, white privilege and white, this and white, this right. White employees, racial quotas, institutionally racist, systemic systemic

Speaker 3:

Inequity. Okay. Cool.

Speaker 1:

All right . Plaintiffs filed the instant action to enjoin defendants erased, conscious employment policies, which violate state and federal law. So the, the class action, the plaintiffs are suing to stop them from using these policies in their hiring decisions. Defendants anti SLAPP motion fails because it's strained. It's strained reading of the complaint, misrepresents what plaintiffs allege as the basis for the government's liability. The complaints first sentence States that this class action seeks to eliminate discriminatory policies and customs in California state agencies that institutionalized racial preferences. It has made clear repeatedly throughout the pleading. The basis of the lawsuit is not the defendant's speech, but their implementation of racially discriminatory employment policies. So what does all this mean? The slap stuff in California, it's free speech stuff. We've talked about this, right? Uh, basically, you know, you have certain protections and if somebody is suing you in the slap context, I'm having a difficult , uh , memory blank, remembering what we were talking about that or what context we were talking about that in , but , uh, it's essentially free speech. And if somebody is suing you like filing a cease and desist or filing a lawsuit in order to chill your speech in order to stop you from talking, there are rules against that. You can't just do that. You can't just be a billionaire. Somebody makes a YouTube video. You Sue them for saying something that they're lawfully entitled to say, and you want to just try to silence them. Well , there's there's rules against that . You can't do that. You can't sort of use the legal system as a sword to infringe upon somebody else's protected ability to speak. And , uh, here, the government is saying, well, that's exactly what they're trying to do here. They're trying to say that , uh , what we're doing is, is bad because it's just language. We're using things like institutionally racist and systemic inequity. And blah-blah-blah , they're saying the government is saying they're attacking our free speech. They're attacking our ability to communicate these ideas to our workforce. And in the class action is saying , no, we're not. We don't say whatever you want to say. We don't care about that. We care about the implementation of these policies. We care about people who might want to work for you, California government. And you say, no, we can't hire you because you're white. And we have these thinly veiled ratio, racial quota systems. That's the crux of the suit. It's nothing to do with the speech. The speech is problematic. Sure . But it's about what the policies are that you have enacted in California. So it says here even so plaintiff's evidence. Plaintiffs are the class action lawsuit sufficiently establishes the likelihood of success on the merits. There was no question that defendant's attempts to socially engineer. The racial composition of their workforce violates California and us constitution during California's affirmative action period in the 1980s, plaintiff face rejection, while applying for employment at department of game and fish based purely on his race now because of California's policies. He is once again faced with the prospect of this indignity in applying for a promotion, he deserved

Speaker 4:

Desires. This is precisely

Speaker 1:

The type of situation the laws meant to address. And defendant's abuse of anti SLAPP statute to cynically intimidate an employee with a looming threat of an adverse attorney fee award is not something the legislature ever intended when passing the law. So this guy filed suit. They respond back and say, Oh, you're suing us. How about this? How about we rely on this free speech stuff. We're allowed to say whatever we want because we're the government. And if you Sue us and lose, we're going to ask for attorney's fees. We're going to come down. We're going to win the weight of the federal government or the state government here in California. And we're going to make you pay for all of this

Speaker 4:

[inaudible] that you have incurred. They're saying that's ridiculous. Okay . You're not alone .

Speaker 1:

Just, just like the anti SLAPP statutes, prevent somebody from doing that to you as a sword, you can't use the statute itself as a basis for also using it as a sword, claiming that you can get attorney's fees . So this is the go-fund meme . You can see here, class action to stop discrimination in California government. So if you want to support them, go give

Speaker 4:

That a shot. It says this class action

Speaker 1:

Seeks to eliminate discriminatory policies in California, shortly after the national upheaval stemming from the death of George Floyd, the heads of California's largest state agencies started engaging in racially divisive messaging to their employees. White employees of these government agencies were told that they were guilty of bolstering systemic racism and quote white supremacy, purely based on the color,

Speaker 4:

Their skin, these agency heads also

Speaker 1:

QSI employees, civil servants, who have dedicated their entire lives to protecting California's resources of perpetuating the violence of the system. If they did not engage in their bosses , preferred method of political activism talked about this all day yesterday, right? We went through that item by item and the language there that is being promulgated by the critical race theorists is this idea that if you are not actively anti-racist than you are necessarily racist. In other words, if you are not out there every day , screaming from the rooftops, that's racist, that's racist, you're a racist. This guy's a racist that cars are racist. That sandwich was racist. That doorknobs racist. Then you are also a racist ,

Speaker 4:

Uh , bye by my negative ,

Speaker 3:

Uh, participation by not claiming that you're anti-racist or by not actively participate,

Speaker 1:

Creating an anti-racism. You are a racist. And so California government apparently is doing the same thing. Using the accusations as a backdrop, the agency heads announced that the implementation of work policies that are rooted in critical race theory policies intend to Institute racial quotas into hiring promotion and other aspects of employment in violation of the law state government represented by the California department of justice is going to throw its nearly limitless resources to stop this lawsuit and allow these unlawful policies to move forward. So if you want to go and support them, you certainly can want to show you the original lawsuit. This looks like this was filed back on October 13th.

Speaker 3:

And , uh , this is

Speaker 1:

Submitted as we know, by David pivotal rack , right? California bar number or pivot Piff Turac law firm out in California filed October 13, 2020. So this guy has been working on this for some period of time. You can see here, this is a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. So what are they asking for? We have Geier ice and individually on behalf of others, as taxpayers also suing the director of California department of fish and wildlife. And what else do we have? Okay, so declaratory. So we want the lawyer is asking the court for a declaration that the policies that are being used here are not lawful unconstitutional. Also asking for an injunction, which is the fancy way of saying that we w court, we want you to tell somebody to do something we want you to require that they take one particular course of action in this case, very likely haven't haven't we haven't gotten to it yet, but very likely stop using these policies, stop hiring and stop having conversations with employees and based around critical race theory. And then of course they want damages. So damages would mean money, anything, any , anything that was lost, anybody who was supposed to be , uh , promoted and was not well, they suffered some damages. They suffered the difference in pay that they would have received in their new position. They don't have that, obviously. So there should be some compensation for that. So let's take a quick look at the lawsuit. We're going to go through this relatively quickly. Like I mentioned, see if we can sort of tease out what's happening here. This is the preliminary statement. As we know, seeks to eliminate discriminatory policies. Defendants are Wade Crowfoot and Charlton bond . Ham . They are are acting secretary of California, natural resources agencies. They've implemented policies called critical race theory. So these are the people who were being sued after the national upheaval, after George Floyd's death, they made these changes. The introduction, the essence of critical race theory is the promotion of racial homogeneity and resentment towards people of our homogeneity is that he said and resentment towards people of different races. In order to understand that the discriminatory nature of California's conduct it is crucial to understand what CRT is and how it manifests itself began in the 1970s as the study of law, as it pertains to the issues of race, its stated goal was revolutionary political change and repudiation of the idea that the constitution and law would adequately address racial problems in society. We talked about this yesterday, the revolutionary approach, right? Everything is racist. You have to call everybody racist in order to create this division in order to create some separation that will spark a revolution that will spark some cataclysmic changes in this country because if the entire system is racist, if the entire system is systemically racist, well you got to get a new system. You can't fix that, right? If the house is falling down, you can't prop it up with some duct tape. You gotta knock it down and build a new one. That's what they're advocating for here. They're saying that we need dramatic change in this country. The only way to do that is by creating more division critical race theorist. Uh, we have Richard Richard Delgado and Jean Steffan sick and their Seminole text called radio. Uh , race theory. Describe it as, as such, we've already read through a lot of that yesterday. The overarching principle is that racism is not aberrational in society. It is the status quo means every human interaction. The question is not did racism occur, but how did racism occur? Talked about that yesterday. The term systemic racism often used interchangeably with white supremacy. They also talk about that. Any white benefit comes from oppression, which has dub as white privilege, right? This isn't a court document. We have, according to the CRT, all white Americans are racist regardless of who they are and how they behave. They are complicit in upholding white

Speaker 3:

Supremacy. The term

Speaker 1:

Silence is violence originates from CRT. There is no neutrality, no, just being a good human being. Any white person, not engaging in CRT is declared to be complicit in perpetuating

Speaker 3:

White supremacy, California

Speaker 1:

Liberates these ideas by explicitly accusing class

Speaker 3:

Members, civil servants that

Speaker 1:

Have dedicated their lives to California of perpetuating the violence of the system. Defendants also use the quote . Silence is violence canard against class members indicating that unless class members buy into and engage in a specific type of political activism, that the defendants support that California supports that class members are as guilty as those who commit actual racial violence, actual racial violence. If you don't say anything, it's the equivalent

Speaker 3:

Actual racial violence, more

Speaker 1:

Or systemic racism. We have diversion inclusion and equity doctrines. We have that going on. Let's see what else. While technically rooted in CRT, the die industry. What is that? The diversity inclusion and equities is D I E let's read this one after accusing class members of engaging in violence. If they do not ascribe to California's racially diverse ideas, defendant's communications propose to implement a plan of atonement, putting in place training and hiring practices that implement CRT, approved loyalty, owes and racial quotas and CRT. This is what is referred to as di diversity, inclusion and equity. You think they could have come up with a better acronym than that? Hey, we're going to teach you about CRT. Oh, what are you going to teach me? Give you the acronym die, huh? Like the country. All right . So they say, as explained above while the terms carry a certain meaning to the average person, they mean something entirely different in CRT terminology. The word equity in DIA initiatives is not mean equality of opportunity for all regardless of immutable characteristics. Instead it means specifically the use of racial quotas to achieve representation of racial groups in proportion to their overall percentages in a given population, talking about equity and inclusion questions in interviews, defendants justify the implementation of their unlawful race-based policies by falling a dialectical structure that mirrors CRTs indoctrination methodology. And we talked about this yesterday. Remember where I was saying that this is such a beautiful concept, a theory, because anything that you say to combat it, you're a racist.

Speaker 4:

It's like judo, you know, use your opponent's energy against them, topsy

Speaker 1:

The whole situation. Now, if you say, Hey, your CRT theory is stupid and this is asinine. It doesn't make any sense. You know what they say? Oh, you're a racist with white privilege. Yeah , of course you don't know and understand this because you are basically contributing to the patriarchal hedge money that exists in society. So I hope you sleep well

Speaker 4:

Tonight, Robert. All right .

Speaker 1:

So as first, how does this work? How do they indoctrinate you with CRT? First defendants bring up examples of isolated incidents that they claim without evidence are rooted in racism. Can you think of any of those, basically everything isolated incidents they claim without evidence are rooted in racism,

Speaker 4:

Literally everything, everything somebody holds up their hand on jeopardy

Speaker 1:

Racist whole country needs to stop and pause as all the media starts to hyperventilate over that clearly racist second defendants use those incidents as proof of their conclusory allegation that any racially disparate outcomes in society or product of racism, even when the claims are belied by empirical

Speaker 4:

Evidence, everything is racism. Third

Speaker 1:

To quote , dialogue about the issues while making it clear that any opinions opposing the narrative will be met with retaliation. Fourth defendants propose to implement DIA in their agencies through the means of race based hiring promotion and other terms and conditions

Speaker 4:

Of employment. We're very familiar

Speaker 1:

With this stuff. This is going on in California. Now take a quick look at what's going on June 4th, 2020 , defendant published an email. So this is California to all employees insinuating that white employees should recognize their quote white

Speaker 4:

Privilege. So this is somebody from the government, sending an email, talking

Speaker 1:

About white privilege and demanding that employees view every incident between people of different races, as evidence of targeted acts of systemically racist, violence and oppression. Imagine getting an email like that from your boss. You're just a white guy working, hang on, just type in some emails. Hey,

Speaker 4:

Having a good day. Oh how my boss

Speaker 1:

Sent an email. I wonder what a defendant bond ham has to say. Open it up.

Speaker 4:

Email says, Hey, Robert, you white racist.

Speaker 1:

Anytime you get into a little conversation with anybody here at the office, you piece of garbage. I want you to think about how you're contributing to targeted acts of systemically racist, violence

Speaker 4:

And oppression because of your white privilege.

Speaker 1:

I'm just answering emails here. I don't know what you're talking about. White privilege. There it is. Bon M States that his decision to publish the email arose directly from a CRT inspired, inspired thought process. An article to white organizational leaders that said silence is vital .

Speaker 4:

[inaudible] stupid catchphrases. The email itself strictly follows CRT, programming, purpose ,

Speaker 1:

Patchy , waiting the violence of the system, blah, blah, blah. Bonham's invitation to build a cultural of dialogue .

Speaker 4:

Yeah. Right? Meaning what red enlightened

Speaker 1:

The tone messaging of the rest of the email, which demands that employees recognize their privilege and accept CRT is politically biased vision of America as a hopelessly racist nation. Make it clear that the only dialogue that is acceptable is the one that includes CRT approved talking points that are openly hostile to white employees strictly due to their race. That is the definition of inclusion in CRTs. D I E programming folks, if you haven't donated it to this legal cause this is probably a good time to do that. Um , let's see what else we have going on.

Speaker 4:

They have a nice little summation here. First,

Speaker 1:

The speakers engaged in selection, bias of isolated incidents as proof of systemic racism. So what are these isolated incidents? Defendant's a Crowfoot let's say America has a mental illness. White supremacy is a mental illness and manifest itself in so many ways. We are all susceptible to it. You have to recognize it. Even if you're a liberal, even if you support progressive causes, that doesn't mean you don't Harbor racist views because of the society we've grown up in the default of white supremacy exists

Speaker 4:

In America, who was saying this Crowfoot participate in Crowfoot secretary speakers series. So Crowfoot

Speaker 1:

Oh my God. Too many people to keep track of here. Let's see what else we have. All right. We got some questions coming in over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Let's

Speaker 4:

See who's up first two ,

Speaker 1:

All day, every day to eight all day everyday ,

Speaker 4:

It says all it means is it's about indoctrination. Yeah. Uh , very clearly. Right? And it's bizarre, bizarre indoctrination. And

Speaker 1:

It'd be hard. It'd be hard to be an employee, honestly,

Speaker 4:

At one of these places. And just sit there and be told all day, you're a racist. You're right .

Speaker 1:

You're racist. Everything you do is racist. And if you don't, if you don't agree, you're even a double racist and a triple racist. And if you don't speak up, you're a quadruple racist. It was like, all right , I'm outta here. A speech on Lee says, can the U S Supreme court rule these type of state policies as unconstitutional across the, yeah, they certainly could. They could say that this violates equal protection under the 14th amendment easily, right. Or, or a number of other different provisions that I think are probably found elsewhere in the laws in employment law and other civil rights statutes, but certainly right. Equal protection. One particular group is being villainized and demonized relative to another group. That's not equal protection under the law. Not in any way. All a two-way all day everyday says, isn't this just a rewording of the affirmative action. That was canned years ago. Yeah, it is essentially. It is, but this is a little bit more, I would say aggressive, right? Affirmative action was sort of about, you know, fairness. Well, it's, we're just, we're just trying to, even things out a little bit. We want to give some other people, some, you know, some cultural boosts a little bit. Oh , we'll just sort of , you know , uh, even the , uh , the ability for equal opportunity. This is not what we're talking about now. We're now we're talking about the equality equity of the outcome. Now we're talking about demonizing and actually in my opinion, being actively racist against certain races in this country, like explicitly in writing. But what do I know? I'm a white person. I don't know anything about race. I'm just ignorant to this whole thing. I have, I have no opinions, nothing I say is valid because of the color of my skin. Other people have judged that to be the case. And as we all know about judging people on the basis of their skin color, perfectly acceptable thing to do these days, because obviously the CRT theorists are doing it every day. As we see in this court paper , uh , Sharon Quinn , he says, in spite of empirical evidence, don't you just love these folks. It's all about the science folks, dismissing empirical evidence, which is essential to scientific inquiry. It's not, there's not too much about that in this, in this concept, this is about, I think, serious levels of indoctrination to the point where people increase the division in this country, such that it prompts strong calls for action. That is in alignment with their stated and desires. And KIBO says, if race baiting hiring is good enough for Biden must be good enough for California. He announced he would select a woman of color for VP because gender and color shopping is somehow acceptable in practice now. Yeah, I mean, it literally is like that. Right? We saw it yesterday. The CIA had the Latina woman saying I don't check boxes. My life is more than just a box checking exercises. I think her exact quote, and she then spends two minutes and 18 seconds checking all of the boxes. I'm a cis-gender and millennial. I've got generalized anxiety disorder. I got kids. I can speak Spanish. I can speak English a lot. That's that's where this is going. Now you just have to sort of have the rights, racial makeup and gender and gender, gender parts. But I don't know. I don't know that that matters though anymore, because you can kind of just change them at every turn. Last question on this segment comes over from HLB, says, this is not giving up vibes of how they want to convict people of stuff based on their social media history. When that goes public, just kidding. That would get politicians messed up, just kidding. They would hide it. And this sort of stuff never applies to the powerful, well, we talked a little bit about this CRT stuff yesterday, HLB, and I think that there was a good sort of synopsis, a synopsis of what this means and to whom is in particular, what is the critical race theory? What does that do for people? What does it do for the people in power? What does it do for the billionaires and the top 1% for the CEOs , for the CIA, for the FBI, for, for any of our government people, what does

Speaker 3:

Give them? Well, it gives them a lot of talking points, right? They can get behind

Speaker 1:

One way or the other and they can rant and rave about it all day. Meanwhile, all of the little people, the people like me who are, you know , on YouTube and elsewhere, arguing about these things, we're all just sort of wasting our time, talking about locker rooms and gender pronouns and you know, who can do whatever with whom and whatever bedroom, you know , which way from Sunday note to , I just don't particularly care about, but

Speaker 3:

It is making sure

Speaker 1:

Or that we're all not focused on some of the more important things. Like, I don't know, $4 trillion in new spending. How about that? How about inflation that Warren buffet and many others, including the federal reserve say, well , it's my , it might, it might hit us like a sack of bricks come September and beyond in Q4. So, you know , there's a lot of other things that we could be focused on. We could actually talk about justice reform, like meaningful justice reform, or we could talk about, I don't know, racial inequity, white privilege, systemic racism, and all of this crap that is meant to be divisive, not meant to be solution-oriented , which is what makes it so frustrating. All right. So thank you for those questions. Once again, it came over from watching the watchers.locals.com and we've got one more segment to wrap up. We've been talking a lot about the CIA and the FBI, because a while they're kind of everywhere. They're spying on us every which way you turn. And they kind of are just becoming a problem, a problem that people that they should be investigating. They're not the people that they are investigating. Maybe they shouldn't be and around and around we go. So we've got two stories. One a weird thing happened yesterday. I don't know that there's anything consequential here could have just been a weird thing, but anytime you have a gunman who is shot and killed at CIA headquarters, you've gotta just

Speaker 3:

Take a closer look at that, right? Is it Jason born here,

Speaker 1:

James Bond back in business. Who's got eyes on Pierce Brosnan. All right . So let's take a quick look at this story because it's kind of interesting over at the CIA headquarters yesterday, an armed suspect dies after being shot

Speaker 3:

Outside. An armed suspect was there ,

Speaker 1:

Uh , at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia yesterday, NBC news reported to the person was stopped at the entrance gate by armed guards. After trying to enter the facility without permission, FBI confirmed an initial statement on Twitter on Monday evening that a person was wounded. The incident is currently under investigation. FBI is reviewing an agent involved shooting that occurred at approximately 6:00 PM. On Monday. The tweet said individual involved in a security incident outside CIA agency, HQ in McLean, Virginia emerged from his vehicle with a weapon was engaged by law enforcement officers. The subject was wounded has been transported to a hospital for medical attention. The FBI takes all shooting incidents involving our agents in task members. Seriously review POS review process is underway in an updated statement on Tuesday. FBI confirmed that the man died from his injuries after being transported to the hospital. They're set to review the shooting incidents , uh, incident earlier in the statement, the CIA confirmed the agency was responding. They say in coordination with our local law enforcement partners, we are addressing security situation just outside the secure perimeter of CA headquarters. By our main gate, our compound remain secured. Our security protective officers working the incident are the only agent our agency personnel directly involved according to local media, the situation like

Speaker 4:

Road closures in the area, Fairfax County police,

Speaker 1:

We're helping to direct the traffic around it. So, you know, interesting could have just been a one-off, you know, kind of a crazy person, but

Speaker 4:

Yeah, your headquarters, you know, Tom cruise propelled down in there and hacked the system. Pretty impressive.

Speaker 1:

Okay . All right. So what else is happening with the CIA and the FBI? Well, of course they're spying on you and me and everybody that they want to because there are no repercussions for it. Well, Jim Jordan , uh , and , uh , Andy Biggs , our two house representatives who are asking some pretty hard questions about it, want to go through this, we're going to be talking about the FISA court, the foreign intelligence , uh, court

Speaker 4:

And the , uh,

Speaker 1:

Foreign intelligence surveillance court. I've got two definitions for you. We're going to go through them. Let me frame this out here quickly. We're going to go to Fox news. It says the Jordan and Biggs demand answers from the FBI on widespread FYSA violations. After declassified, a FISA court opinion, F I S C stands for the foreign intelligence surveillance court. The F I S a stands for the foreign intelligence surveillance act. So we're talking about FYSA is the entire act. The court vice a court deals with the cases. So house representatives, Jim Jordan, Andy Biggs, they're demanding answers from FBI director, Christopher Ray , which is going to be a long wait because he doesn't have many of them after a newly declassified opinion from the Pfizer court revealed that there were widespread FYSA violation . So, all right, what are we talking about? The Pfizer court or the , the, the, the FISA act is foreign intelligence. I have a , I have a slide on this here, Republicans throughout the Trump administration were vocal about abuses of FYSA after the FBI obtained the Pfizer warrant against Trump campaign aid Carter page, but last week, office of the director of national intelligence, the DNI declassified and opinion from the Pfizer court with oversight from the Pfizer system, which is what we're talking about now. All right . So the foreign intelligence surveillance court, what is it? The court was established by Congress in 1978. The court entertains applications made by United States government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and certain other forms of investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes. So what happens here, the government in charge goes to this special court, called the Pfizer court and says, Hey, we've got these people over in Iran that we want to spy on. They've got some information that's critical to national security. Okay? So they go to the Pfizer court and they say, we need to do this. Here's why it's a special court. That's set up to authorize those foreign surveillance activities. Now, the problem here is when that person in Iran is communicating with somebody in the

Speaker 3:

United States, they pick up the phone,

Speaker 1:

They call into the United States or email or whatever. And the Pfizer court now has granted permission to spy on the person who is the foreign individual, the foreign asset, the person in Iran. But what about the person here in the United States who happens to be

Speaker 3:

U S citizen? W did they, do they have the ,

Speaker 1:

The ability to go and listen to their conversations? Because they're a citizen here in the States, they have certain constitutional rights against government intrusion. And we want to maintain that. We want to protect that. Now the people who are not here who are in Iran, they don't have those same protections. So how do we balance these things out? Well, one of the things that they do is called

Speaker 3:

Masking so that they, they sort of scrub

Speaker 1:

Out the identities of the people who are on the U S side, which is what what's supposed to have happened. Uh, with many of the Trump administration officials, including general Michael Flynn

Speaker 3:

Problem is that a lot of

Speaker 1:

Those individuals were unmasked by the Obama administration, which led to the whole Carter page. And this whole thing that's been going on with the Pfizer problem for a long period of time. So now there was a newly declassified memo. The Pfizer court came out declassified, this memorandum, and they're saying, Oh yeah, you know, those concerns that you had about the FBI using the Pfizer court to not only spy on foreign assets, but also American assets. Remember when they were sort of looking at American people as well in violation of what some of the laws and rules say, there was a lot of that going on, actually. And so here, we're just going to let you know about it , uh, that this , this may have been a little bit more prevalent than otherwise suspected. And now Congress, of course, is not happy about this. Now, quick overview on the Pfizer court and the surveillance act says here, it's a federal court established an authorized under the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978 to oversee requests for surveillance and warrants against foreign spies inside the United States, by federal law enforcement intelligence agencies, such requests are often made by the NSA. The FBI Congress created the Pfizer and its court as a result of recommendations by the Senate's church committee from 1978, until until 2009 sixth floor of the DOJ building. It's been moved over to the courthouse in Washington in 2013, a top secret order issued by the court, which was later leaked to the media from documents called by Edward Snowden required a subsidiary of Verizon to provide daily ongoing feed of all call detail records, including those for domestic calls

Speaker 3:

To the NSA.

Speaker 1:

So we've got all these alphabet agencies working with each other, you know , passing the buck around Edward Snowden, the story, and now there's investigations going on. Whoa, what was this Pfizer court doing? We know that they were supposed to be authorizing surveillance of foreign spies, but what about American citizens? Well, Snowden told us that they were doing that all over the place. And now a new opinion came out from the Pfizer court saying, yeah,

Speaker 4:

Yeah, this was happening very often. So here is the letter,

Speaker 1:

The Congress of the United States, the committee on the judiciary from the house of representatives. This is going over to director Ray . This was authored by reps, Jim Jordan and Andy Biggs ,

Speaker 4:

Dear director, Ray . This letter was

Speaker 1:

Distracted today and sent over their direction. According to a recently released opinion from the Pfizer court, the FBI has been seriously and systematically or systemically abusing its warrantless, electronic surveillance authority, April 26, 2021, the DNI director of national intelligence declassified, a 67 page Pfizer court memo opinion and order from 2020 detailing the FBI's apparent widespread violations of privacy rules in conducting surveillance under section seven Oh two of the Pfizer act. We write to request information about the FBI's IE , illegal spying activities. Now I know many people just say that this stuff, Oh, well, whatever right ? Everybody's spying

Speaker 4:

On you. Phone has cameras all over the place.

Speaker 1:

Every single app says, Hey, we want a permission to access your DNA. And you say, yeah, no province. Everybody else has it. So who cares?

Speaker 4:

This is a pretty important part

Speaker 1:

Of our justice system. It's restraining the federal government. You may be okay with Facebook and Google having stuff all over your house, but when the government does it and the government has the power to incarcerate you and literally Rob you of your liberties, this is a problem. And we got to make sure that we hold the line on this thing.

Speaker 4:

Okay. Government has to abide

Speaker 1:

By the fourth amendment and the rest of the constitution. Lest we all suffer the consequences rules . I'm sorry. Section seven Oh two authorizes the attorney general and the DNI to jointly authorize warrantless surveillance of non us persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States subject to limitations. That's what seven Oh two is for. So for example, seven Oh two says that the adoption of quote, targeting procedures to ensure that seven Oh two acquired information is limited to non U S people to prevent intentional acquisition of us domestic communications. So what they're saying is section seven Oh two provides a mechanism whereby people who will get sort of swept up in these conflict conversation , uh , dragnets, where they're gobbling up all this information from foreign surveillance communications. If they identify us citizens, then there , there are certain rules and provisions and procedures in place to limit the identification of those individuals so that we can protect the U S citizens from warrantless access to their information. All right? Cause this is coming from the Pfizer court, not from , uh , a domestic court. This is a specific jurisdiction for these types of issues. And it's November, 2020 opinion. The court reported the FBI violated the querying standard. Following a department of justice audit about their compliance. The court determined the FBI had missed used its surveillance powers. Finding that the FBI is failure to properly apply its querying standard. When searching for acquired information, it was more pervasive than previously believed. The visor court noted that the FBI official responsible for limited background investigations conducted over 120 queries of 700 to acquire data using names and other identifiers of individuals who had requested to participate in the FBI citizens Academy, a community outreach program, FBI also queried names and identifiers of individuals who needed access to an individual field office for office repairs and others who sought to report tips. Other violations involved , FBI personnel, who failed to opt out of querying raw Pfizer acquired information for reasons that did not meet its intent, such as the FBI analyst who conducted more than 100 queries for analytic paper.

Speaker 3:

Yeah. So you've got this, you've got this computer system that has just

Speaker 1:

Massive amounts of data and information that you have very, very strict. I think we saw this in some of the Edward Snowden movie, right? There was a , the Hollywood remake or interpretation of the Snowden debacle and kind of goes, and he says, well, what do you need? I got, I got this terminal here that I have access to the backbone of the internet to every single bit of data that's been transferred since the beginning of time. It's all right here. What do you need? Give me a name and I can tell you everything about the person. So, you know, this happens a lot. Uh, we see this with misdemeanor cases where police officers who don't have access to certain evidence, go and get access to certain yeah .

Speaker 3:

Evidence. Why? Well, because they're in a position of power and there's nobody to oversee

Speaker 1:

Them. FBI was doing the same thing. There's this database ,

Speaker 3:

Uh , they're supposed to be protocols ,

Speaker 1:

Roles , and rules in order to access that information because it's protected because it's constitutionally sacred information. We've deemed it to be such FBI,

Speaker 3:

Go look around who's Hey, I wonder what Jenny's doing today. That type Jenny, okay. There's Jenny boy .

Speaker 1:

We'll lose it. Right? It's that type of stuff that human beings do, FBI's not immune to it. We've got the Pfizer court further documented. The government has reported numerous incidents regarding searches of FI's information without first obtaining court permission. So just doing it without even going to the court that Pfizer court noted the discovery of 40 queries in which the FBI asset access information for investigations involving healthcare fraud, transnational, organized crime, violent games, gangs, domestic terrorism involving racially motivated, violent extremists , as well as investigations related to public corruption and bribery, all of which were unrelated to foreign surveillance, FBI, domestic law enforcement agency, going, looking up for Pfizer information to use it in their domestic law enforcement sourcing, even though they don't have permission to do so from any court they're going through the Pfizer courts because nobody's watching them. These concerns are particularly disturbing in light of prior FBI misconduct, thoroughly detailed by the DOJ suggesting a of abuses and deficiencies in the FBI's Pfizer process. In December, 2019 and OIG office of inspector general issued a report. Finding the FBI had abused its FYSA process to illegally surveil American citizens associated with president Trump's campaign. Uh , uh, footnote 14 sends us over to the department of attorney generals, a crossfire hurricane investigation. Remember that phrase being bandied about, we know that the FBI has been botching this stuff for a long period of time. The recently released Pfizer court opinion raises more questions. Jim Jordan and Andy Biggs. They want to know, please explain why almost a year. After the OIG report about Pfizer abuses, the Pfizer court found the FBI to still be abusing its warrantless surveillance authority.

Speaker 4:

Why please provide a detailed

Speaker 1:

Accounting of every instance since December, 2019, in which the FBI has queried access. Otherwise used information obtained pursuant to section seven Oh two purposes, unrelated to national security. And number three, please explain what actions you have taken in the wake of Pfizer. Court's November, 2020 memo in order to prevent the FBI from using its authority to investigate U S citizens signed off on by those two gentlemen, we'll see what director Ray comes back with. The FBI guy. We'll see if he has anything useful for us. Remember it took him like four months to tell us how officer Sidney died. We'll see what we get Liberty or death says. I hate the idea of having Faiza . The chief justice, a SCOTUS appoints the judges, no confirmation process is secret. You can be under surveillance and never know disgusting process. Liberty is 100%, right? What happened to the Trump campaign is proof. We should not have a secret court like this too . Easy to abuse. I agree, which is why I'm always screaming about accountability and transparency. We have to see what's going on because when the government puts this stuff behind closed doors, it is ripe for abuse. They have limitless , uh, unlimited power, total monopoly on power, total ability, unlimited financial resources. So they can just basically do whatever they want. And when you create a situation like that, where there's ample opportunity for you to do whatever you want, there's almost no oversight. You have a limited power unlimited resources. You're going to do what you want to do to further your ends . Men and women

Speaker 4:

Are only human ethical, moral guidelines.

Speaker 1:

We'll bend when you're put in this situation like that. And that's exactly what our system has done with the FISA courts. We have leafy bug in the house, says, who are the Pfizer court judges? I don't know them off hand. What's the process for their nomination and appointment? Well , you just heard it from Liberty. Judges are basically appointed by the chief justice and there's no confirmation process. So they just they're there . They're there . Right? I imagine lifetime tenure, like the rest of them. So yeah, kind of a broken process and something that needs to be addressed. We'll see what Christopher Ray has to say about any of that great questions though. All of those of course came over from watching the watchers.locals.com . Want to welcome some great new people who joined up. We've got wokes Bain in the house. We have shot gal. We have guests and we have T N five, nine, four seven. Want to welcome you for, to the community? Very excited to have you here. If you want to sign up, go to this address down here, type this into a web browser, watching the watchers.locals.com big happy shout out to all of you who participated in ask great questions today. Very much. Appreciate it. Also a big shout out to some of those of you who are a part of the community. Now, locals.com. We're going to be cranking out some more content over there. My , uh, my , my second studio is very close to being done. I've got some, some nice little , uh, finishing touches. I got to put on it, but I'm going to start being able to, you know , record a little bit more, produce some stuff on the weekends. Uh, after hours maybe, you know, host a book club hosts some meetups . So I'm very excited about it. I got a lot of good ideas from the locals community. Uh , creator's call that took place yesterday. And so some pretty big ideas. And I'm very thankful to all of you who are helping to make this possible. I mean, literally if you weren't there supporting us, we would not be able to start working on this. And you know, when YouTube demonetized us and when we started to look like we may have been on the outs of YouTube, I got a little bit nervous. I grew up , you know, what, what are we going to do? Our firm relies on this. You know, we have a bunch of employees here who embody the message, right? We want to help good people. Who've been charged with crimes and we want to reform the justice system. This is why I started this channel and started the show. And then YouTube kind of didn't like that. So that made me a little bit nervous, but it warms my heart that there are still people who will say, all right, listen, we're going to be, we are going to build something. We know that maybe conservatism or libertarianism or free speech ism or anti-racism or whatever, you know, maybe it's things are , we're going to be on the wilderness for a little bit, because we all got kind of caught flat footed during this last Exodus , during the last Trump cancellation, from all the platforms during the , the parlor cancellation , uh, there's a , a cabal of people trying to control the narrative that takes place on the internet. That's a scary thing, but the right, and the people who are mostly interested in free thinking, they are responding and they are creating new platforms and new decentralized solutions. And they are fortifying them sense that in themselves against further threats, that's happening on locals and elsewhere. We're just putting our stake in the ground on locals. And the fact that you're helping us build that is such a cool thing. I think it's going to be a very nice home for us for the foreseeable future. And I'm very excited to get to know all of you better. And I'm just grateful that you're there. So thank you for supporting us and watching the watchers.locals.com . If you're not there yet, you can go and get a free copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning. You can download that there also download a copy of the slides. You can get a copy of my impeachment party document. You can download a copy of my existence systems template. You can share links, you can meet all the great people over there, and we want to see you there. I am. Lastly, before we get out of here, a criminal defense lawyer here at the RNR law group. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona, who's been charged with a crime, we would love the opportunity to help we offer free case evaluations. We can help anybody who is in a difficult find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. So whether it's a DUI, domestic violence, drug offense, felony, minor, major, anything in between, we can help. We would be honored and humbled. If you trusted us enough to send your referrals our direction, we'll make sure that they leave our office better than they found us. And that my friends is it for me. We are going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow, 4:00 PM, Arizona time, which is the Pacific time 5:00 PM mountain. We have 6:00 PM central in Texas and 7:00 PM on the East coast for that one, Florida, man, everybody. Thank you so much for being here. Have a very lovely evening sleep well, have a nice dinner, cause I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye .