Chauvin Juror Brandon Mitchell Podcast, Alaska Couple FBI Raid, Rayshard Brooks Officer Rolfe

Chauvin Juror Brandon Mitchell is also a podcaster! More experts weigh in on Juror #52’s role in the #ChauvinTrial. An Alaska couple has their home raided in connected to the Capitol Hill Riots. Officer Garrett Rolfe is reinstated to the police department after shooting and killing Rayshard Brooks. 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 still in hot water over participation in the 2020 March on Washington.​

• Brandon Mitchell also wore a “Get your knee of our necks” shirt during a podcast on YouTube.​

• Clips from The Wholesome Podcast featuring Juror Brandon Mitchell.​

• Paul and Marilyn Heuper, known as the Alaskan Couple, have their home raided by the FBI over involvement in the January 6th protests.​

• Federal District Court of Alaska issues search warrant to raid the couple’s home, seizing jewelry and other items.​

• Review of the search warrant and affidavit authorizing the raid and evidence connecting Marilyn Hueper to the Capitol Hill Riots.​

• Officer Garrett Rolfe, who is currently being charged with murder for the shooting and killing of Rayshard Brooks, is reinstated by Atlanta Police Department.​

• Officer Rolfe will be entitled to full backpay because the Atlanta Civil Service Division did not receive due process.​

• Review of the Civil Service Boards Finding of Fact and Order reinstating the officer.​

• 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 tips@rrlawaz.com or tag @RobertGrulerEsq on twitter.​

#WatchingtheWatchers #AlaskaCouple #BrandonMitchell #RayshardBrooks #GarrettRolfe #AlaskanCouple

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

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 in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. 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

Speaker 2: 0:29

With the politicians,

Speaker 1: 0:32

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

Speaker 2: 0:45

Can shine that big, beautiful

Speaker 1: 0:47

Spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our very system, with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot of news to get to. We're going to start off by revisiting Brandon Mitchell, uh, Derek Shovan juror number 52. Ben speaking about him a little bit because of his 15 minutes of fame, he's been out in front of the media. And, and now that might cause some problems for the government's case against Derek Shovan. In other words, there may be a new trial that has to happen because of this one. Juror goes by the name of Brandon Mitchell. He is a, was also on a podcast. He was wearing a shirt. And so we got to break down what is going on here and kind of wanted to buckle. This whole thing is really turning out to be. So we're going to go through that story. Then we're going to change gears. We're going to talk about this new one that is, uh, still closely related to the January six Capitol Hill riots. We're talking about this Alaskan couple that had their house raided by the FBI. Apparently they were looking for Nancy Pelosi's laptop. So they thought it was in Alaska. In this couple's home, they got a warrant. They went and did the rate. Whoops, got the wrong person. Sorry about that. So we actually have a copy of the search warrant, the affidavit that was submitted to the district court, into the federal district court, out of Alaska that we want to go through. We have some pictures, some images want to see what the FBI was thinking. How did they come up with this connection that obviously was erroneous. So we're going to go through that story.

Speaker 2: 2:11

Then you may remember if you've been with

Speaker 1: 2:13

The channel for some period of time, we covered a story last year involving an officer. It goes by the name of Garrett Rolfe shot and killed another man named Ray shard Brooks. There was a series of police shootings that happened back to back, uh, sort of right in the aftermath of the George Floyd death. And we covered this one. And this was a situation that is back in the news because the officer Garrett Rolfe, the person who did shoot and kill Ray shard, Brooks, he's being

Speaker 2: 2:37

Charged with murder and the Atlanta police department just reinstated him.

Speaker 1: 2:43

And guess what? They're going to give him back pay for all of the back time that he did not get paid for when he was suspended or terminated from the force. So, uh, okay. All right. Well, we got, I guess we got to get into that because the Atlanta civilian division, the board that makes these decisions, they released a statement, basically explaining why they made that decision. Even though, you know, this officer is being charged with murder right now. Well, he's still he's okay. We can bring them on back in. So, okay. We're going to go through that in more, we've got a lot to get to, if you want to be a part of the program, the place to do that is over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. That is our community where we have a lot of fun and we share links and comment throughout the day. And we've got some other fun things kind of in store that I will share with you very, very soon, but you can also download a copy of the slides that I'm about to go through. And if you're not familiar with the program, we'll take questions at the end of each segment. So I'll go through some of the news. And if you want to share a question or, or share a comment or ask a question, or even criticize something that you heard here, please feel free to do that. The place to be in order to participate, is it watching the watchers.locals.com type that in a browser, support the show, and then you can join in on the fun. All right. So let's get into the news of the day. Juror number 52, Brandon Mitchell. We know that he is somebody who is a part of the deliberation process for the Derek Shovan trial. And he has been somebody who has been out in front of the media very recently now sort of, you know, happy that he got to play his part. He got to serve a role in this trial. And we've covered this a couple of times now on this channel, but we're going to go through it again because there's yet another revelation. There's a podcast that came out very recently after the other incident that we talked about. Remember there was the March on Washington, March for Washington, and then there was another August incident. And we're going to go through these piecemeal because this may in fact, trigger a new trial. This may trigger something else, uh, to happen with the Derek Shovan case. And good Lord, we just finished that. Are we going to have to do this again? Are you kidding me? All right, let's go to the story. We're going to start by going to NBC news. This was written yesterday by Jenelle Griffith says that a juror in the trial of the Derek Shovan case for the former Minneapolis police officer, of course we know killed George Floyd participated in a summer, March on Washington last summer, a move that is coming under scrutiny after Chauvin's attorney requested a new trial on several grounds, including juror misconduct. The attorney Eric Nelson did not refer to the jurors participation in the March in his request for a new trial on Tuesday. Shovan who is white was convicted last month of second degree murder. We all know that in a photo from last August commitment, March that surface recently, the juror Brandon Mitchell, who is black, is seen wearing a t-shirt with an image of Martin Luther King, Jr. And the phrase, get your knee off are next in the photo. He's smiling alongside two other men wearing a hat that said BLM, which stands, of course for black lives matter. Mitchell did not respond to request for comments, but he was defended the defendant, his participation in the March, which was held on the 57th anniversary of King's. I have a dream speech at the first March on Washington. Mitchell told the Minneapolis star Tribune that he did not view the March as being against police brutality. Right? And so this is one of the questions many people are saying, well, okay, maybe it was just a civil rights March. Maybe it had nothing to do with George Floyd. Maybe this was not even about police brutality. This was just about civil rights, that something we have been celebrating and cherishing in this country for a long time. And we want to encourage that. So maybe that's all it was. And maybe this isn't a big deal, but the questionnaire we're learning that was on the juror questionnaire, uh, the question specifically said something about any anti-police or protests that were marching against police brutality. So we're going to take a look at, uh, about how this breaks down and maybe if there is some overlap there and he says that this was 100% not a rally for Floyd. He said 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 he said, now this is the image, right? This is what we talked about earlier in the week, the next generation being socially active, representing in DC, my son, my nephew, Brandon Renee Mitchell, and my brother. Right? And so this is the image that first came out. This is him with the shirt on it, right? And this was the March for March, March on Washington protest in commemoration of MLK and said, and this says, though, right, this is BLM that has to have the BLM fists here. Then we have get your knee off our necks. And then we have the hat that says BLM. So obviously very clearly an anti-police movement. Get your knee off of our next, who had the knee on Floyd's neck while it was Derek Shovan who's a police officer. And so he's saying, you know, black lives matter, the whole movement sort of originated out of anti-police brutality. And so the, the, you know, the idea here that this was not about George Floyd, when he's wearing a t-shirt that says, get your knee off our neck, which was the crux of the entire case leaves a little bit to be desired. Some have speculated that Mitchell's participation in the March could be grounds for an appeal, but legal experts said it was unlikely that it alone would be enough to overturn Chauvin's conviction. So we have Dimitri shakin, a vet professor at the J John college of criminal justice. He says, it's certainly possible that this will be used to support various post-conviction efforts of which one is an appeal. The end of the day, irrespective of his specific comments, there would have to be a showing that he had he not served on the jury or disclosed this information. The verdict would have been different. So in other words, if we would have known, could this have been consequential, you know, in other words, is this some sort of an error that wouldn't have adjusted the outcome anyways? You know, who knows, right? Who knows what happened in that deliberation room? Maybe we haven't really heard from any other jurors have we yet. And we heard from the alternate who came and spoke out, but she wasn't in the deliberation room cause she was relieved before the deliberations started. So we also know that a lot of the jurors didn't even exchange information. They weren't exchanging names or contact information. You know, they weren't there. Everybody was being very careful about not saying too much, according to the alternate juror who was excused. So according to this attorney, he says that's a very high standard to meet. However, it is possible that Mitchell and other jurors could be questioned during what is called a Schwartz hearing to determine whether an outside influence prejudice. The jury Mitchell said that the photo was originally posted on social media by his uncle around August 28th in March. And that the two men next to Michelin in the photo are his cousins. Mitchell said that he has no recollection of wearing or owning the shirt. Floyd's brother and sister, uh, felonies and Bridget Floyd spoke at the March in Washington last summer, which again goes against this idea that it wasn't, it was 100% not for George Floyd, right? That was his quote. He says it was 100% not a rally for Floyd, but then when he go over here, it says, well, yeah, he's Floyd's brother and sister spoke there as did other relatives of other people who have been shot by police. So it was clearly a Floyd related protest and an anti-police protest Nelson and John styles spokesman for Minnesota attorney general, Keith Ellison, whose office prosecuted the clays, the case declined to comment on the photo Mitchell, a youth basketball coach was the first juror to go public about the trial and the deliberations. He has said that, uh, during the trial, he never watched the bystander video of Floyd's deadly encounter with the police because it was too gruesome. Um, maybe you believe that Mitchell told star Tribune that he had answered no to two questions on a questionnaire for potential jurors. What were the questions? The first asked whether he or someone close to him had participated in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after Floyd's desk death. And he could say, of course, no. Right? Cause he was in DC. The second asked other than what you have already described above, have you or anyone else close to you participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality. So you can see the difference between the questions. One says in Minneapolis, the other one says, have you participated in protests? Which from my reading of that, my interpretation is any protest, any protest that has ever happened ever. Yes he did. It was about police use of force and police brutality. Cause he had a shirt on and said, get your knees off our necks. It's just, I don't even know that there's an argument there. So we have here during jury selection, he told Nelson that when he learned that he was a potential juror in the case, he was surprised and shocked. Mitchell wrote on the questionnaire that he had a neutral opinion of Shovan and Floyd with respect to show, when he wrote in the questionnaire, I do not believe the defendant set out to murder anyone. However, based on the video, I'm not sure about what the reasoning could be, which is interesting because he told Nelson that he didn't watch the video. Right. He said, I couldn't watch it in its entirety because it was too gruesome. But then he says, well, based on the video, I don't know what the reason it could be. So, you know, who knows how much of any watched asked by Nelson, whether he recalled writing that Mitchell said no, but that he stood by it. Mitchell said that he hadn't seen parts of the video, which brought international attention to Floyd's death two or three times, but never in its entirety. He discussed the case with this friends and family, but not posted any opinions about it on social media, wondered why other officers at the scene did not do anything. He told Nelson that he knew some officers at his gym who are great guys, but did not know enough about defund the police movement to form a strong opinion of it said he had a favor, favorable view of BLM. He interprets it as a statement, as opposed to a movement said he felt neutral about pro police blue lives matter movement, which I would write. You know, does anybody believe that? Now it only became a thing to combat BLM, whereas it shouldn't be a competition. Ultimately he said he could be an impartial juror. Uh, Mari Moriarity a defense attorney. Minneapolis said the ultimate question is, did Mitchell misrepresent who he was or who he is. She said she does not see how, even if there is a source hearing that the trial judge could find Mitchell untruthful based on what is now known, how even if there is that the trial court could find that he is untruthful. All right, let's carry on the phrase. She says the phrase, get your knees off our necks and become a rallying cry. Moriarty said Sharpton's national news network promoted. Get your knee off of our next Mark. Oh, Ostler another law professor said that if Nelson is going to appeal over Mitchell, he would have to prove that he was fooled somehow or that Mitchell was dishonest in his answers, which I think at this point is pretty obvious. He said he believes Mitchell was forthcoming during the jury selection process thing is he was honest about his underlying belief, which is that he felt favorably about BLM. The attorneys knew that they also knew that the attitude based off lived experience is not a reason to bar anyone from jury service. Yeah, that's true. But he also didn't answer that questionnaire appropriately if he would have asked if, so, let's just say on that question, number two, that said anything about, have you been a part of any police protests? Any one of them? And it didn't say any, but it said other protests, have you been a part and have you been in protests? The answer is yes. On that. If he would have said yes, then Nelson would have inquired further and dug into that and maybe he could have said, okay. Oh, you were, Oh, what protest was that? Oh, it was the March for Washington. Oh, well tell me more about the March for Washington. Uh, who was there? Uh, while Floyd's family, the entire family was there and they spoke. Yeah. Uh, were you there supporting a cause like maybe that would have Nelson to have his oppo research people to go and find that, find these photos and you could have had this juror stricken for cause without even using a peremptory strike, but that didn't happen because the juror was dishonest. He didn't, he didn't tell him that he, in fact, so not good Osler said that it's important to note L Nelson ended with peremptory strikes to burn, which meaning he, you know, he did not use his peremptory strikes, which I think supports the fact that there is this, that this could have gone differently if Nelson actually had peremptory strikes left, right. This is where you just get to strike a juror for, for no reason that you have. I mean, you have to have a reason you can't strike them for a race-based reasons or those types of things, but you just without objection. Yep. I'm just going to use this. I get to use this card. This juror is not going to be on the panel. So Eric Nelson had those. If we would have taken a deeper dive into this jurors activities, because he would have been honest in that second question, then presumably Nelson would have said, Oh, well, that's a pretty big problem. For our case. We don't want people who are wearing shirts that say, get your knee off our neck in public protests throughout America on the jury panel because it shows that you're not impartial. And he would have used a peremptory to boot him off of the panel. But he didn't know. Cause the juror was dishonest. We, he says, uh, we can't write off black jurors because they have lived their lives as black people. And that's not what anybody's saying here. All right. Nobody's saying at all, nobody we're just saying don't be dishonest on a jury questionnaire. All right. So next up we have Andy NGO who says Brandon Mitchell, the Shovan juror. And I know it's Andy. No. Andy NGO says the Jovan juror who previously attended a BLM event, wearing a, get your knee off our neck shirt says he didn't remember owning or wearing that shirt. But as recently as six months ago, he wore shirt on a podcast. Oh, it's right there. This is the wholesome podcast. So six months ago, if we go back six months ago, that's going to put us in what? December, December the March was in August. Now we're in December and he's wearing the same shirt again. So he forgot twice. Presumably he washed it and put it back in his closet again and pulled it out to wear it again. But he forgot about it. So he says he doesn't remember. He wore it on a podcast and Tampa Bay channel 10 says they're reporting it as well. It shows Mitchell. He there's a photo of this recently circulated online. These star Tribune reported shows Mitchell standing with two cousins already showed you that picture. He said he doesn't recall wearing or owning the shirt. Then somebody found this podcast, the wholesome podcast. How do you feel about dating someone who is abstinence? So this was posted six months ago. It doesn't have a lot of views. Uh, currently at the time that we got this screenshot, but going to guess that maybe it gets a little bit more of them. Uh, let's see, what's happening over here. It's been posted on this channel called B Mich, short films, podcast, documentaries, almost everybody can relate to. So if you want to go support another channel, you're free to do that. Of course. And this is a clip from it. So I have not listened to this. Let's see what these gentlemen

Speaker 3: 16:33

We're talking about. The podcast wholesome be Mitch, AKA podcast. Poppy. We got a wave. You trade with no waves today. We here with a DJ, the DOD or whatever you go by now. But what I want to know is like, so you gotta, you gotta girlfriend, somebody you single. I don't, I mean, it's too much already. Okay, cool. That's all you gotta say. I just want to free face resilient. Do that. I just want to, before I ask this question, I just wanna make sure I'm asking the right question. So let's say y'all out date, you know, whatever y'all dating people and you come across a girl, she like she's practicing abstinence or she celebrate, how do y'all feel about Dana? Somebody that that's, they, you know, that's how they get busy and you can't have it. No, I can't.

Speaker 1: 17:27

Well, that's a good question. I'm actually kind of curious where they're going to go with this. What is that gentleman's opinion? And I don't think that their mikes are hooked up because the, you can't hear the audio is a little bit off, but they're making a good attempt at it, you know? And I, I can empathize all right, with trying to start a podcast, right? I've done. It didn't work out too well. You know, and then here we are. I made some adjustments and some changes. So, you know, I want to be compassionate and empathetic to gentlemen. They're having fun. They're talking about some issues. And I encourage that. I honestly, I really do. I encourage people to stand up and speak up because if you don't do it, then you're going to live a life of silence. And that's going to have consequences that are probably going to be more severe than the consequences that are associated with speaking out and being involved in something. So I'm ha I'm I'm I, I support it. Right? Love a podcast. I'm not trying to even throw shade. I'm still going through my own. You know, I still have the training wheels on this show. So I'm not trying to be rude about that. Uh, but, but it is, it is curious that, you know, just the simple fact, what they're talking about has nothing to do with George Floyd or Derek Shovan. It has to do with dating somebody who is abstinent, which is, you know, a thing. So yeah, it's an interesting conversation. They're they're out having these conversations or getting involved in, you know, civil life. America love that. Love it. I do. I love it. And I think that they should be encouraged to do that, but we also have some pretty interesting evidence here in the form of a t-shirt that also says the same thing that he w wore, uh, back in August, get your knee off our next BLM with the double fist raise. And it's it's it's it's that right? It's for all of us to see. So this idea, well, I just didn't know about it. I was Oh, no, no. Nobody's buying it. Let's take a look at some of the comments. Oh wow. Okay. We've got a lot of them here says, don't worry, guys. He doesn't remember owning this shirt. If the shirt fits you must acquit. You're kidding me. I love it, bro. We caught you in 4k. Matter of fact, you caught yourself in 4k. This must be the emperor's clothes. The clothing, the appeal is on you dude, which is a, uh, you know, I mean, think about this, right? Think about this from his perspective. I mean, what an awful situation for him now, if you're a Derek Shovan fan, this guy is your personal hero. This guy may single-handedly be responsible for Derek. Shovan walking away after the country has just been sort of put through the meat grinder. Here we are. Again, somebody who is very interested in making sure that they can be a part of this social justice said that it clearly had an interview with another news anchor. I forget her name, but he said something to the effect of, we need to get more black people on jury. She asked him about it specifically, why is it so important? We have black people on jury panels and he said, we need to get out there and, you know, sort of express our opinion so that we can be a part of some of these decisions and sort of implying that the idea was to enact some social change by getting onto the jury panel. I sort of elbow elbow in your way in there in order to reach a specific outcome, which of course is not the appropriate thing to do. If you're a juror you're supposed to be fair and impartial. Now, you know, some of the feedback or, or the, the pushback on that really has been about this idea that while we want African-American people on juries, we want a cross section of our peers. It's a jury of your peers after all. And the African-Americans make up a significant portion of this country and they should be on jury panels. I'm not saying that I never made the argument that they shouldn't be on there. That's insane. That's a ridiculous argument. But what I am saying is that if you're going to put anybody on a jury panel, they're supposed to perform a function that is that of a juror, not that of an activist. And we don't want that going either direction. It really scares me that this could be going that direction. If we're going to get, you know, a BLM or any other organizations, Antifa people who are sort of actively trying to shove people onto juries in order to influence outcomes. That is a scary proposition across the board folks, because for as, for as much as I hear about how racist this country is and about how every single element of it is systemically rooted in the original sin of racism or slavery or whatever. Well, listen, there are a lot of African-American people who are going to be going through the justice system. And if, if, if this comes to the point where the system is now being weaponized, do you think that is not going to be used against that demographic? Like somehow they're going to be the only demographic that is immune from that type of legal action. No, of course not. It's not a win for anybody. It's a watering down. It's a dilution of the justice system. It's not appropriate. Don't care what color you are or what the reason is or whatever excuse you think is justifiable for getting onto a jury panel and trying to influence the outcome in a way that is not consistent with your duty, your role and the execution of the law. You don't just get to get on there and make a decision because you think that's the appropriate place.

Speaker 2: 22:00

Policy, outcome, the appeal. Yeah,

Speaker 1: 22:03

It is on him. So somebody who is very active and thrilled to be a part of the process may be the person who literally ruined the whole thing says, Oh, you lied. It's it's not like we didn't know it all, but here's the internet is forever proof, pure brilliance. You can't make this up. All this evidence of the drugs and assistant the elephant sized heart. The two 10 over 200 over one 10 blood pressure, I think was even worse than that. It was like two. Uh, it was even higher than that. I think it's two to 20 over one 60 something and a four hour deliberation makes so much sense. Now, dude, you EFT up funny how you don't remember the clothes you wear for your own podcast. Interesting strategy there, but nice shirt be ashamed. If this went viral, this man actually infiltrated jury duty. Do you remember what you wore now? Juror number 52,

Speaker 2: 22:48

Uh,

Speaker 1: 22:49

Painful, so painful that we're going to have to theoretically do this again. And it's warranted. It's absolutely warranted because it was an unfair and imp not impartial.

Speaker 2: 23:00

And there was a lot of evidence

Speaker 1: 23:02

That was sort of tipping the scale that direction. Anyways, the$27 million settlement, Maxine waters parachuting in there, we had, you know, additional shootings right around the same time, no void deer, no change of venue. And the list goes on and on. Now we have an actual juror who was protesting on behalf of a particular cause directly connected to this case. How can you even faint that this was a fair trial? You can't anymore at this point. And it's largely due to this juror in conjunction with the other things. It's just sort of confirmatory. Let's take a look@somequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. If you want to support the show and we would really appreciate it, that's the place to do it. So first one in today

Speaker 2: 23:41

Comes from pedo, says, people need to imagine this in reverse.

Speaker 1: 23:46

Let's say Shovan was acquitted. Then a picture surfaced of one of the white jurors attending a back of the blue rally wearing a free Shovan shirt. Did Mitchell say it was an MLK rally? All he wants, but his shirt directly refers to George Floyd. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. It's a great question. What happens if that is the situation? If we have a, you know, a white juror who comes back out, we find that we go on social media, he's on a podcast and he's having a conversation about something unrelated, but he has a free Shovan shirt on, or, you know, all lives matter or back the blue. That would be a catastrophe. Okay. I would be sitting here going, that's a cut. That's the worst thing. Okay. This is terrible. We need to have another trial and do it again because that is not appropriate. Same thing here. And I think, I think the other side would even agree with that. John Dillard, 52 says what can happen for the juror about, for lying about attending the protest. So it's a good question. You know, there are technical answers for this. So the juror could, could theoretically be charged with, uh, misrepresenting himself. I'm sure there are Minnesota statutes that say it's, it's a, it's a crime. You know, it's a, it's an actual crime to lie on official on an official government document. His defense would be a, well, I forgot. I didn't know. I didn't see. I didn't understand the question or whatever. So then the prosecution would have to decide whether that was a valid defense. Whether they think that they have enough justification evidence, probable cause to support a conviction against him and then decide whether or not to charge him, uh, judged, you know, contempt orders. There there's, there are penalties for it. But the question

Speaker 2: 25:14

Really is does

Speaker 1: 25:15

The prosecution that has the power to bring a criminal charge against him? W why would they do that? What, what's the point of doing that? Right? It's the same thing that happened with Maurice hall. The, the theoretical co-defendant, who was in the front, uh, uh, the, the front seat, the front passenger seat in George Floyd's vehicle, right? The government, if they wanted the truth in this case to come out, if they wanted all the facts. And I mean that like all the facts to come out, because they're supposed to be sort of an independent investigative body to go and do justice, not to do convictions. So if they really wanted everything out there, they would have offered Maurice hall, unqualified immunity. Yup. Come in testify. Tell us what happened. Tell us about the pills. Tell us about that. Any transactions, whether you sold anything to Floyd, we're going to give you total immunity for anything you say, but they didn't want him to testify. Cause it would have wrecked their case probably. And they didn't offer him immunity. So why would they do this in this case? Right? They, this jurors on their side, this jury found in, in favor of the government. So they're going to turn around and charge him with a crime, even if they could, why would they do that? So this would have to be something that the judge would initiate and we would see where it goes. But I don't, I don't foresee any consequences for him other than living with the fact that he may be the one person in this country. That's responsible for Derek. Shovan walking free two years from now. And I mean, that genuinely, uh, because of, because of this, now you can't blame him for that because all of this stuff happened before, but I think you can blame him. He should've been honest about it, but you know, I understand people make mistakes on forums. I get that all the time, but dang, right, this is, this is a what

Speaker 2: 26:47

A weight to bear. All right, Liberty, your death

Speaker 1: 26:49

Says, I think that any of these issues on their own might rise to being unfortunate. 27 million riots, Maxine waters, the drive by on the national guard, Mitchell's conduct the threat of being doxed while not even being sequestered, but put them all together. And we do a totality of the circumstances.

Speaker 2: 27:05

This is review. I will, I hope will lead to a mistrial.

Speaker 1: 27:09

The case to be remanded due process of law and guarantee of an impartial jury is to impart important. Yeah, I totally agree. I totally agree with that actually Liberty. And I think that this is a good summation of this and you did

Speaker 2: 27:20

A nice job bringing in all

Speaker 1: 27:22

Of the issues that I think we are, we have seen. And when you bundle them up together, yeah, it, it doesn't feel fair. It doesn't feel impartial. And now

Speaker 2: 27:31

The jurors who was making the was deliberate deliberating, clearly

Speaker 1: 27:35

Biased. All right. We got the, uh, we got the DUI guy in the house. Oh, Hey, by the way, the DUI guy is coming on the show tomorrow. We're going to do it. I think at four 10, we have not spoken before, but he's also got a YouTube channel. So go check them out. The DUI guy, another criminal defense lawyer, we're going to be speaking with him tomorrow. We're going to do an interview before the first segment of the show tomorrow. So we're excited about that. Let's see what his question is. We've got, he says, as a fellow attorney, I know how hard it can be to vet jurors for everything they do in their private lives lives, especially in this high profile case, it's impossible to catch everything. Yeah, it is. And you know, a little bit of a, of a curious question I was thinking about last night, the DUI guy, maybe we'll talk about this tomorrow. I'll get your thoughts.

Speaker 2: 28:14

But I wonder,

Speaker 1: 28:17

So I, so I'm not implying that Eric Nelson did anything unethical or anything like that, but I wonder, we know that his social media team did research on this person or, or all of the potential jurors because he brought it out in a line of questioning. He asked a juror about, it said, Hey, did you ever go to a protest or something? No, I never did. And says, okay, well, cause on Facebook we found that you did you, in fact did. And he goes, Oh, I forgot. I posted that. And it was a very obviously biased post. And I don't think that juror made it onto the panel because of that. And so, you know, we know that Eric Nelson was out in fact, doing, doing some deep research. My question would be, you know, what if, what if he didn't know about this? What if he didn't know? Let the juror on there anyway,

Speaker 2: 28:58

As a backup plan. Oh,

Speaker 1: 29:01

Don't even like to suggest it, but in the event that, that Shovan is convicted. Well, what will we know? We got a tainted juror here. Obviously. Juror lied. Well, we'll ask him about it. Hey, have you been any protests? No,

Speaker 2: 29:12

I have not. He's gone. Hm Hmm. Got a Facebook post that says you were in the event that Shovan gets convicted. Now you just bring out your Badger card.

Speaker 1: 29:22

Ooh. Now that is not, not appropriate behavior. Okay. That's not, no, I'm not implying that. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying it's an interesting thought experiments. If that did happen, we have Sharon Quinny in the house, says on the t-shirt really quite cleverly done image since it conflates the civil rights movement. Picture of MLK, along with the knee off next anti-police brutality, George Floyd incident. What it's really saying is that the George Floyd incident is symbolic of the according to critical race theory, universal oppression of blacks by whites, the neon, the neck, and BLM is just a continuation of the great work by MLK and supporters of authentic civil rights. It's a really potent example of propaganda art. It is. And it, I think that's a good point. And it is very in fact, uh,

Speaker 2: 30:08

Effective. I

Speaker 1: 30:08

Think, I think it's very effective, which is why it caught

Speaker 2: 30:11

Wind, right? It, he was wearing it because

Speaker 1: 30:13

It spoke to him. Let's see here. He says, under darkness here, he's going back through some old episodes. Hey, look at this. You can see the color difference here. Right? Look how kind of muted that is little purple, little red. And now over here on this side where you can see me right now,

Speaker 2: 30:28

I look to be a little bit yellow. So we're still trying

Speaker 1: 30:31

And work out some of the, some of the colors. But I think this looks a little bit better. All right, anyways. So he says the darkness here, I'm counting@leasteightquestionablejurorsbasedonearlierepisodesatwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Thanks for the shout out in the dark green equals a known juror. Blue equals highly questionable red equals potentially questionable at best. And so he actually went through, this is one of our summations, uh, when we were putting this together during voice, dear, thank you for doing this in the dark. Uh, and so we went back and let's see what we've got. So we have unknown launch. So this was a no, no, let's see. Coach coaches, youth sports. Yeah. Green known juror. We got some questionables potentially questionable questionables in the red. Yeah. Yeah. It was a, it was an interesting, interesting sort of thing to do remotely digitally, you know, I've, I've done jury selection of course, but I

Speaker 2: 31:18

Never done it this way on the other side,

Speaker 1: 31:21

Kind of listening in. So it's kind of interesting. Uh, all right. So thank you for that. In a dark LT, 13 says I would love the behavior panel to review his jury interview. I just heard it and you can tell he is making up everything. Yeah. So, so I think you're talking about the behavior panel. There's this, there's this other YouTube channel. I can't remember the name of it right now. I think if you go into like body language experts, it'd be the first one super popular channel has grown like crazy, but they bring these four expert witnesses on and they watch people on videos. They did the Prince Harry Megan Markle thing. I watched some of that one because I don't particularly care about that issue, but I just, if somebody posted it over on locals, Oh they all, Oh, they posted on, um, Hunter Biden, which was fascinating. Yeah. That, that the panel did a review on Hunter Biden during, I think it was a CBS interview with something like that. And they're like, Oh yeah, this guy is just flat out lying about everything. And they go, you know, person one goes, person two goes, three goes forgoes. So it would be interesting to hear what their take is on Brandon Mitchell. But again, they wouldn't be able to watch it. Right. Cause all of this was sort of off the record. They can only hear it and make judgements based on the tonality of his voice, which I'm sure they could. Do. We have patio says, is it possible that the defense knew about Mr. Mitchell's photos and sat on them to use for the appeal? I just brought that up pedo. They could have maybe got him excused, but this way they can get a change of venue for the second trial. So I just brought that up. That would not be an ethical thing to do,

Speaker 2: 32:45

But you know, probably,

Speaker 1: 32:47

But, but it's a good question. And I'd be curious if he did that. Very good question. Liberty or death says if they grant a new trial, would Shovan be let out on bond. Oh, that's a great question. You know, I don't know

Speaker 2: 32:57

The answer to that. Um, yeah, I would think so,

Speaker 1: 33:02

So right. Cause you would vacate the ruling and you would remand for a new trial and I think you have a return to your original release conditions. That's, that's what I would speculate because this is a tainted conviction. The conviction is not, not good because of the lack of impartiality. So the argument would be no, you get, you get a new bond again, you, you vacate the conviction remand for a new trial, start it over again. So he gets back out of custody. I, I think that would be my argument leafy bug in the house as is it usually harder to get a conviction in a new trial? So I, from a defense perspective, I think that,

Speaker 2: 33:37

Uh,

Speaker 1: 33:38

That it can only get better for Shovan from here. Let's just, let's just put it that way, you know, uh, ordinarily, you know, this is not a common thing. I can't give you a general answer on that. Whether it is more common or not, I just don't know the answer to that. Uh, but this is something that I think can only get better, right? He was convicted on all three counts. Can it get worse than that? No, it can't. So the worst that can happen is you got to go through it again and he gets convicted again. So what is already been convicted and arguably, right. We can't have a, an, uh, an impartial trial in Minneapolis anymore. We already know what happened this last time. The last thing we want to do is do it again and then have to do it again because we didn't do what we should've done the first go round. So now this justifies a change of venue, this justifies sort of, uh, uh, you know, continuances, extensions of court dates, because a lot of that initial furor I think is going to have dissipated. I'm not sure you're going to get the same level of volatility for a second trial. And I mean, that not because it's any less important just because people have Shovan fatigue, right? I mean, how many, how much of the country is going to want to go through the trial again? Otherwise they'll just say, well, he was convicted. They'll move on to the next thing. We don't know if it's going to be the same level of animosity volatility, protests, outrage that we saw this last go round in Minneapolis. And last question in the house over from watching the watchers.locals.com says, uh, comes from farmer's daughter, what's up farmer's daughter says, hi, Robert, hello everyone. If what you suggested happened with Eric Nelson and he did know about that, could he be disbarred? So, you know, I, I don't want to sort of speculate on that because I don't, it's a tricky, you know, it's a, it's a delicate conversation about, about an attorney, a criminal defense lawyer and their duty to their clients and their duty of sort of candor to the other side, right? Yes. There's a, there's an argument here that Eric Nelson maybe should have disclosed that if he knew about it and that the government should have, you know, w we should have agreed to have dismissed that juror. And you've got this obligation to be candid with the court. You've got to, you know, you've got an affirmative

Speaker 2: 35:33

Duty to that regard, by the same token, you've got

Speaker 1: 35:38

A very affirmative duty to your clients, right? Your client is sort of got the cards stacked against them. In my opinion, you've got the prosecution who is coming against them. You've got the entire weight of the prosecution's office, not, you know, thousands of employees typically unlimited budgets. You've got the courts that are largely in my opinion, oriented against defendants. Anyways, you know, they're all part of the same bureaucracy that just wants to shove people through the system with very little regard to their humanity. So they're part of the problem in my opinion, but it is still something that, you know, you've got to, you've got to draw a line in the sand and protect your client. So, you know, if something like this pops up, you gotta be asking yourself, you know, is it my responsibility to sort of alert everybody to this thing? Uh, you know, maybe, maybe he knew about it, maybe he didn't. And he just said, all right, well, if this person gets, you know, I'm going to, I'm going to object and that they let this person on for cause then that's the court's problem and they can figure it out.

Speaker 2: 36:25

But, you know,

Speaker 1: 36:27

It's, it's, it's hard to say on that one. Uh, I'm gonna punt on that question. I'm not going to give you a solid answer on it. I really don't. I don't know what the answer is in terms of disbarment. I think that the answer would probably be no, but I'm not an ethics. I'm not ethics counsel. And,

Speaker 2: 36:42

And I don't want to, uh, I don't want to speculate on something that is just, is just totally

Speaker 1: 36:49

Speculative. Right? We have no idea what happened with Eric Nelson. I think he did a great job as best he could with an impossible trial and,

Speaker 2: 36:55

And, um, and you know, we'll see where

Speaker 1: 36:58

He goes. He's filed his motion. He's going to file a more formal brief later down the road, but we may be going through this for the foreseeable future, Derek Shovan

Speaker 2: 37:08

Again again. Yeah, maybe, maybe again.

Speaker 1: 37:12

All right. So we're going to change gears. We're going to talk about, uh, Alaska. No, we didn't. We don't ever really venture outside of continental United States,

Speaker 2: 37:20

But we're going to, I don't know,

Speaker 1: 37:23

Alaska couple, who was allegedly involved in the January six Capitol Hill riots had their home raided by the FBI. Very recently. It just happened, uh, late April. And so we're going to go through this story, not only, uh, where are we going to sort of flush out some background here? What happened with this couple? We're also going to look at the affidavit that was submitted into the Alaskan federal district court that justified the basis for the home raid and what they were looking for was Nancy Pelosi's laptop. But lo and behold, it wasn't there. Why? Because they had the wrong identity. They did, they had the wrong couple entirely, but the couple still had to wake up with FBI agents, standing over them with firearms in the middle of their home, because the judge signed off on the warrant. Is anybody going to apologize for that? We'll see. So legal insurrection, great blog. They did some heavy lifting on this. We're going to go over to their article posted today by, uh, so I'm sorry. This was posted on Saturday, May 1st by fuzzy slippers. And we're talking about it now because the affidavit is now available. So we're going to go through it. The Alaska couple was rated by the FBI, why they attended the January six Capitol Hill riot armed FBI agents reportedly broke down the door of their home as they slept in their beds. And it costed them with guns drawn, demanding. They turn over house speaker, Nancy Pelosi's laptop. Remember this when, when they raided in the women, when they were in the Capitol building, there was a guy who was in her office with his feet on his desk. But apparently there's a conference room in close proximity that had a conference room laptop that, you know, they would put PowerPoint slides on or whatever they do. Somebody took that laptop. So that's what they were looking for. The couple had like tens of thousands of other patriotic Americans attended president Trump's January 6th rally. And like the vast majority of those in attendance, they did not enter the Capitol building the FBI, however, is apparently working under the misguided and dangerous belief that they simply attended it. That simply attending a Trump rally is suspicious insurrectionist behavior. So fuzzy slippers of course says, this is a slippery slope and it is horrifying. Now the Alaska Watchman reports that the name of the couple are of course, Paul and Marilyn Hooper owners of Homer in and spa. So they woke with a start at 9:00 AM, April 28th, when a dozen armed FBI agents kicked down their front door in an investigation associated with rep Nancy Pelosi stolen laptop speaking, April 29th to a radio host. Paul, the, one of the, one of the, the, one of the couples recalled that he was alarmed and shocked to come out of his bedroom with seven guns pointing at him. And his wife said it was a little alarming. When I turned around the corner, the first thing they did was started barking out commandments. Ultimately the couple was handcuffed and interrogated for the better part of three hours before being released in the end, it was a case of mistaken identity. Don't you hate when that happens? You assemble a whole SWAT team and a raid team, and you go, and you

Speaker 2: 40:19

It's the wrong house. again, Lou didn't you check

Speaker 1: 40:24

The hoopers were in DC for the rally with president Trump, but they never came close to entering the Capitol building. And they certainly never took, took her laptop. So apparently the FBI went off half cocked because Marilyn Hooper was wearing the same coat as some other woman who did enter the Capitol. Here's what they look like. Even though they don't really look alike at all. So we have here, uh, at the ellipse, we have a picture of Maryland Hooper waiting for Trump to speak in DC at 11:13 AM says wearing my usual quote, uniform black scoop neck, neck tank, wireless headset masks with my name scar for the cold day, red, white, and blue striped button down shirt peaking out, okay. On the left side here and

Speaker 2: 41:08

Folks, this isn't illegal yet. It's not illegal

Speaker 1: 41:10

Yet to go and support the president Trump or any Republican. You're still allowed to go out there and protest and same

Speaker 2: 41:17

For the other side. Okay. We also see that,

Speaker 1: 41:19

You know, lunatic law enforcement departments around this country also want to arrest protestors. We have a whole situation here in Arizona where there's a lot of back and forth round and around we go because our Maricopa County attorney and their office arrested a handful of protestors for no reason. So it's happening on both sides. It's insanity. It's ridiculous.

Speaker 2: 41:39

But this one not even close, right? This one, they rated somebody's house with 70

Speaker 1: 41:44

Agents with guns. Let's take a look. Did these people look at them

Speaker 2: 41:47

Anything alike? And you know, it's funny. I actually

Speaker 1: 41:51

Actually got somewhat decent at doing this because when I first started practicing law, I used to do a lot of photo radar tickets, a lot of them.

Speaker 2: 41:58

And there's one, uh, let me,

Speaker 1: 42:00

Let me be careful here. There's, there's a judge, uh, in Arizona, we're going to leave it at that who, uh, who was, who was a lot of fun to work with on photo radar tickets. If you practice in Arizona, you probably know who I, who I'm talking about, but this judge does not like photo radar. Tickets just doesn't like them. And so, uh, that's very abnormal for, for photo radar judges, because most judges recognize that these things are huge cash cows for local municipalities. And so they, they get sort

Speaker 2: 42:25

Of reappointed, you know, unofficially

Speaker 1: 42:28

Based upon some of their numbers. And if they're dismissing photo radar cases all day long, they're not making that much revenue. So in this situation, this judge, for whatever reason, I don't know, you know, he just felt secure in his position. He just didn't like photo radars. So what we would do, what I would do is I would go in there and, uh, I would, I would hold up two photos. So I would take the photograph of the photo. Radar violation shows a picture of somebody driving, right? Never my client. And I would also take a photograph of the, uh, the motor vehicle photo of our client. I would bring them both in there and I'd say, look, judge, here's a picture blown up of our client's MVD photograph. You can see all of the feet facial features and I would blow it up. And I would say, okay, well, we'll compare it to the photograph that the government is providing us. And so I would sort of blow that up also. And it would kind of look like this. So this one obviously is

Speaker 2: 43:17

Much more pixelated than the other one.

Speaker 1: 43:19

And when you blow this up, you're going to see that there are some, you know, you're going to see some really sort

Speaker 2: 43:23

Of, uh, grade

Speaker 1: 43:25

Areas. You know, it gets, it gets very blurry and sort of pixelated because it's not a high resolution image. So when you blow it up, it's sort of just like a, it looks like a color blob. And so what you do then is you compare and contrast the two photographs. So you would go over here and you would say, okay, look. So this woman right here looks like the ear lobe actually has a detachment. So right here, we have a little bit of a blank space in a blank space right here. This woman does not, this ear lobe looks attached right here. So obviously this is just clearly not the same person. Right. It's it just, it just isn't then you'd also say, okay, well, let's take a look at the eyebrows. And so you blow this up and you say, okay, so right here, we have about an inch in. Then we have sort of a, a

Speaker 2: 44:03

Bizarre little, you know,

Speaker 1: 44:05

Northern protrusion going up North. And it looks like there's kind of a clear delineation here on the eyebrows. Like there, like there's a, an actual crease here or a break where it changes directions, right. About there, this woman's over here, it's kind of over here. It's further down on the side of the face, whereas this woman's is closer to the front of her face. And so you just go, judge. I mean, obviously like the nose is different, you know, we can't really see the nose here, but yeah, it looks like this one maybe is a little bit longer and narrower, whereas this one's a little bit shorter and wider. Right. And so you just go through that with the judge and just do that. And judge would go, Oh yeah, clearly. Yeah. Obviously ears don't match eyelids don't match, nothing matches. And judge would go, ah, so it's about 50 50. If it's a 50 50 tie goes to the defendant dismissed. And we was like, it was a, it was just great because we would do that. And we'd just point out people's facial features and a very successful track record out of that court using that strategy. Now that's not really a legal strategy and it's kind of a legal strategy, but it's, you know, it's a practical application of what we see the evidence that's in front of us and the government's cameras are. So, you know, out of this particular jurisdiction, I will set it. There are cameras are so terrible that when you blow up their photographs, uh, they, they, they get pixelated like that. You can't see anything, whereas some other cities around the Valley because of that strategy, they've upgraded their cameras. So now they have like 4k cameras. And so if I blow it up, I'm like, yeah, I can see the pores on that. Person's face. So my strategy doesn't work as well anymore on some of those other, uh, some of those other cameras, but this was like six years ago, seven years ago. So I'm sure that doesn't work anymore for anybody who cares anyways, tangent, but this is what's happening here. Right? They're comparing faces, uh, facial features one to the other. And so over here, uh, we have another person unidentified gal over from fbi.gov says her hair, her hair parts on the opposite side. Right? So it looks like, uh, opposite side. She has darker hair, big earrings, right? Big earrings here, no earrings here, a ugly sweater that I'd never wear. She says, so she says, it's an ugly sweater. She has a black coat like mine and nappy hair like mine, she's white. So I guess some similarities, you know, it's the FBI just think all white people are the same, that's racist. So here she says, you know, there are some similarities, Homer, the resident, Mary Hooper left, posted this photo on Facebook to show the physical differences between her and the woman. The FBI agents thought that she was, it doesn't even look anything like her. I mean, the eyes are totally different and it's a totally different, even I color, it looks like not even remotely close, uh, but the FBI good enough for government work. Okay. So it says, these are our crack federal law enforcement agents at work. So that is from fuzzy slippers. What a shameful disgrace, the Alaska Watchman continues. Paul said the agents ransack the house, left a huge hole in his front door, which they offered to replace hoopers were in DC, but only to quote peacefully protests. That's what we were there for. He said we never broke any laws. In fact, he said, they'd never even entered the Capitol building. There were almost a hundred yards away. Agents showed Paul a photo of the woman who did enter the Capitol and asked if that was his wife. They had the same coat on. He said, my wife is much better looking than that. Good for him. While separated from her husband, Maryland was told agents, uh, was told why they were at our home. They said, we're here for Nancy Pelosi's laptop. So I guess it was stolen. And it's still at large. She said, the agents then claimed they had positively identified Maryland as being in the Capitol building. And that they wanted to know who she was working with. When repeatedly told she was the woman in the photo she responded saying, I would like to know how I split myself into two locations because I didn't know I had that power good for her. So first of all, remember to not talk to law enforcement officials in these situations now, luckily they, you know, no repercussions came out of this thing,

Speaker 2: 47:44

But you know what

Speaker 1: 47:46

If they said, well, we don't believe you. We think you are that woman. And, uh, that you've done something with this laptop. Okay, well, they get taken into custody and now they're dragged out of their houses. So they got lucky that they were able to sort this out, but that doesn't happen all the time. First photo agents showed her was very fuzzy and depicted a woman wearing

Speaker 2: 48:01

A similar coat. They showed her a picture of the

Speaker 1: 48:03

Photo of the woman's face. She told them, Oh, that's obviously not me. Why don't you show me that photo to start with the woman in the photo has detached ear lobes. Just exactly what I pointed out, Marylands are attached. She said, so check the ear lobes. There are two things you want to check on. Facial features. One is going to be the ear lobes. Some peoples will attach down to the base of their, their skin on the side of their jawline. And the other thing that you want to check when you're doing quick, facial analysis is the widow's peak right here. You see, I've got a pretty good one. Uh, you know, I've got a very pronounced widow's peak. It's, it's a point right here. So a lot of people don't have that. So they'll just have just sort of a, a square line even across the board. So if you want to just, you know, quick and dirty or the ears attached, do they have a widow's peak, then you can hone in on some of the other specifics on those AISES and all that stuff. So

Speaker 2: 48:49

At no point was the couple

Speaker 1: 48:51

Read their Miranda rights or charged with a crime. The agents left after three hours without offering an apology. They also took her phones and laptop. These are such garbage people. The agent suggested that she was lying and not cooperated. At some point, this madness has to stop. It says fuzzy slippers, simply attending the sitting president's rally is not a crime federal or otherwise, but this government's Trump derangement is completely out of control. Actually, let me amend that. None of this is about Trump per se, but it's really about a silencing and terrifying through government power, any non woke American who refuses to toe the regressive ideological line, fuzzy slippers, legal insurrection, go check them out. Let's go through the search warrant so we can take a quick look at what is happening here. We have the application filed in the United States district court for the district of Alaska application for a search warrant. What are they looking for? Evidence of a crime contraband property designated for use intended for use? Let's see the offense description. What do they say? Knowingly enter or remain, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, unlawful entry at the Capitol buildings with the intent to impede or disturb a session of Congress. All right, so we have an affidavit. We're going to go through that. We see the different code sections that they're investigating, and this was signed off on by a judge. Honorable Matthew M Scoble is what it looked like city and state Anchorage, Alaska signed off on April 22nd. So let's get into this. The affidavit in support, in support of a search warrant signed off on by Wendy Terry. So who is she with? She is with the United States requesting authority to seize. I'm a special agent with the FBI. I'm assigned to Anchorage. Uh, I have been, uh, investigate terrorist organizations during my time violent crime squad prior to June, 2014, employed with a police department since joining the FBI received formal training at Quantico, Virginia five month course, hundreds of hours of instructions, numerous investigations, and the facts here come from my personal observations, training and experience. Got it. Probable cause the FBI, us Capitol police and others were assisting law enforcement agencies in investigating a riots related to the Capitol building. We got the Capitol building stuff, 580,000 square feet, January six, it was close to the members of the public. Got all that as a proceedings continued in both the house and the Senate vice-president Pence was present. 1:00 PM, known individuals broke through the lines. One 30 us Capitol police were there. Then we have media reported showing a group of individuals outside the Capitol chanting hang Mike Pence. I know from this investigation that some individuals believe Pence possess the possibility, the ability to prevent the certification of the election. Then we have here photograph two 25, B two 25 a and this is, is basically what we're talking about. So this woman looks like she was in there on January 10th. We have Paul Hooper posted on Instagram, Maryland approaching the Capitol as Patriots. There is a righteous revolution to take back our country, keep praying. We are only getting stronger and will not quit until our country is restored. There was a once in a lifetime experience to be surrounded by a million Patriots who love this country. Something I'll never forget. Stop the steel. Okay. So that was posted Paul Hooper posted that. Now we also have here, let's take a look. What is, we also have this picture. We have this picture here, FBI special agent reviewed the surveillance footage. So this is from Paul who posted this discovered Maryland Hooper is also on video between two 39, two 46 in the rotunda interior door. So there they're just basically saying that this is them right now, right? Leading into the balcony, Maryland Hooper enters the speaker of the house's office. So they're saying right there I go to that video. You'll see it as well. They're saying here's another image. We have another image. So they're, they're taking pictures from inside the Capitol building, but I'm having a difficult time finding Maryland anywhere. I don't see her here. Don't really see. See here on January six, she is seen in a video recorded by a bystander in speaker Pelosi's office in the Capitol videos shows Maryland Hooper, except it doesn't reach in from outside the captured area of the recording. Disconnect the laptop, hand back her gloves to an unknown male. Once her cable was removed from the laptop, the recording ended, the device taken was an HP pro book, six 40[inaudible] laptop, Maryland Huber. You can see here, which is not Marilyn. Huber is a walking, leading to the hallway. She reaches her handout, metallic ring on her right hand. So they're looking for identification stuff. She's also seeing a pair of black gloves in her hands. St. Jackie, both rings. They got the laptop. So here, right? So this looks like the same hand because we're matching it here. We have the same creases on the jacket. And presumably you're going to see some of the same rings that you'll see over here. So it says they got the laptop, right? So they've got that. We have here, there's the ring right there. And the same creases on the jacket, which definitely looked like they match

Speaker 2: 53:37

This here. And this here

Speaker 1: 53:40

Clear that up. Yeah, we can see that. All right. So then we have a department motor vehicle query revealed the driver's license, photograph belonging to Maryland Hooper. This is exactly what I did with my photo radar tickets. The FBI confirmed the women in photograph two 25, a and B was Maryland Hooper by comparing her driver's license photo. Then she was served. The provider was served with the preservation letter related to Instagram controlled by Facebook. So they get those documents. Grand jury subpoena was served to provider to get access to that department of motor vehicle also looked up Paul Cooper, Maryland Hooper was identified by a third party as a person in an FBI, BOLO photographs, witness number two, known and confirmed she's in person. All right. So the identification of subject premises database shows that Maryland Hooper last applied for permanent fund dividend. And we have an address. They live at the subject premises. So this is apparently a house. This is the property to be searched. They've got rooms for rent in this property. Here's what they want to take following items to be searched and sees for the property listed

Speaker 2: 54:42

Jewelry

Speaker 1: 54:43

Book, laptop, which obviously was not there any other property which was stolen, which is obviously not there. Any containers, photographs, images, records, computer records, information to be seized,

Speaker 2: 54:56

All of it, which is irrelevant because they have the wrong person. All right. Well,

Speaker 1: 55:01

I would have liked to have seen a copy of that MVD photograph in there. Cause I would have really liked to have seen what they were comparing it to now notice they didn't include that. Why not? Well, I don't know why maybe because it doesn't look like the same person because it's not the same person, but they submitted the evidence of the surveillance photographs. Where's the MBD photograph so that we can match the two, just like you would do in a simple photo radar case. But I don't, I don't maybe the FBI, maybe that's too much. We have questions from watching the watchers.locals.com. First one in the house is from Sharon. Courtney says, so how much do you think this couple can get when they slap them with a humongous lawsuit, it's quickly becoming illegal to have anything to do with Trump exhibit a Rudy Giuliani. Yeah. I mean, I'm sure they're going to lawyer up. I know this. They're not going to get$27 million. That's for sure. We have leafy bug in the house. As I heard in an interview with this couple that the FBI team knocked on their door early in the morning, there was no answer. Apparently their bedrooms at the back of the house of the feds went and got breakfast, came back at 9:00 AM and decided to break the door down. Is that really how search warrants work?

Speaker 2: 56:03

Uh, uh, no.

Speaker 1: 56:04

I mean, I don't know. Right? I've never executed a search warrant. Maybe that's how they do things. Oh, we're a little early. You want to run down to Denny's and get a grand slam. Yeah, that sounds good. Yeah. Before we kick in this couple's home and then sort of ransack them while they're in bed with multiple firearms, because, uh, we, we got the wrong identity. I'm hungry. I need some energy before we do that. Don't you Baranski says if everyone in the FBI and CIA are POC and gender fluid, maybe all CIS white people look

Speaker 2: 56:33

Same. That's a good point. It's hard to tell, you know? Oh no, I know it's hard. Yeah.

Speaker 1: 56:39

I know it's confusing. It's really complicated. These days. We have our last question on this segment comes from Nadar. Bless yours. Says, I want

Speaker 2: 56:47

To know where these supposedly pro-America and pro-freedom

Speaker 1: 56:52

Lawyers are at. If this was the less people being locked up, lawyers would be lined up for a mile to work pro bono. The lack of effort from the quote, right, is exactly why the left is so dominant. That comes from[inaudible]. It's a good point. The dark I've been, I've been saying this, I've been saying this since the election happened. I've been saying that the Republicans who are getting their AEs hate handed to them hand over fist, it's embarrassing how bad their legal team is. Now I'm look, I'm trying to do my small part in this thing by, by sort of talking about these issues and it's not a left or right thing for me, it's a government thing. This is the government that came into these people's houses. I think unjustifiably because of a bump

Speaker 2: 57:33

Headed error, then there should be consequences for that. And if they did that for Antifa, I would also be angry yeah.

Speaker 1: 57:39

About it. But they don't because they're picking on one particular demographic at this moment in time. All right. Next up. All right. Great questions. Thank you for those. Those are coming from watching the watchers.locals.com. And we got one more segment of the day. We're talking about Ray shard, Brooks, officer Garrett, Rolfe, the man who is being charged with murder for shooting and killing Ray shard Brooks last year is now back on the Atlanta police force. So of course, officer Racia, officer Garrett Rolf is a police officer. And back on June 12th of last year, there was an incident that took place right outside of a Wendy's. We talked about it on this channel and we did a breakdown and analysis. Was this a legitimate shooting or not? And we're going to do a quick recap on this. And then we're going to go into the story because Ray shard Brooks obviously is dead and Garrett Rolfe was charged with, I believe, 11 different criminal violations, including felony murder, okay. Four for shooting and killing him. Then he was just recently

Speaker 2: 58:35

Re sort of rehired, re unsuspended, re admitted

Speaker 1: 58:40

To the Atlanta police department. And they're going to give him back pay for all of the time that he missed. And many people are scratching their heads saying, wait a minute, why is your prosecution, the prosecutor's office in Atlanta charging him with murder. But the police department, which is sort of closely connected with the prosecutor's office, right? Because the police go and they charge people with, or, or, or arrest people for crimes. The government then prosecutes those crimes. So

Speaker 2: 59:04

They're very closely related. If the prosecution is prosecuting

Speaker 1: 59:08

A police officer with murder and the police department brings him back onto the force.

Speaker 2: 59:13

What what's happening here? This doesn't, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Yeah.

Speaker 1: 59:16

Not to mention the fact that he shot and killed somebody who was running away from him. All right. So let's get into the story. We're going to do a brief recap. Then we're going to go through the actual analysis. I want to show you what the Atlanta civil division board, whatever the agency that gets to make this decision about whether Garrett Rolf can in fact continue to be an officer. They have a four-page page

Speaker 2: 59:36

About why they decided the way they

Speaker 1: 59:38

They did. So we're going to go through that. We're going to start by going over to N Y mag.com. The story written by chasse, Danner, or Chaz, maybe it says everything we know about the killing of Ray shard Brooks by the Atlanta police. So this is a story back from June 18, 2020 on Friday, June 12, 27 year old black man Ray shard Brooks was shot and killed by Atlanta police. And what mayor Kesha bottoms called an unjustified use of deadly force Brooks. His death comes weeks after nationwide unrest. After the George Floyd, Garrett Rolfe, the officer who killed Brooks has been fired and now faces 11 charges, including felony murder. The other officer on scene, Dave Rosen is facing three charges, including aggravated assault. So this happened about, you know, about a year ago, coming up now, what happened during the incident, sir, shortly after 10:30 PM, Friday night, two Atlanta police officers. They rolled up on Ray shard, Brooks. He was asleep in his car, obstructing other vehicles in the drive-through lane of a Wendy's restaurant on university Avenue in Atlanta. Okay. This happens a lot, right? I've been doing DUI law for quite some time. Now this happens a lot. People drink too much alcohol. They fall asleep in their car and they typically

Speaker 2: 1:00:47

Do it, uh, in, in

Speaker 1: 1:00:50

Inopportune places. And this happens, right? People will go through a drive-through they'll they'll feel like they're intoxicated, make a quick stop on the way home, not endorsing it and not condoning any of this stuff. I don't think what Rachel Brooks did was admirable or a good thing, or that this is conducive to how a society should function, but these things happen, right? And the point here is what do we do as a consequence of these incidents? Let's go through the story. According to the Georgia Bureau of investigations, which is investigating the shooting, the officer gave Brooks a sobriety test, which he failed. GBI says that when officers then went to arrest Brooks, he resisted in a struggle and sued prompting. One of the officers to deploy their taser Brooks was able to obtain the taser before trying to run away. According to GBI officers, pursued Brooks on foot. And during the chase, Brooks turned and pointed the taser at the officer, the officer then fired his weapon, striking Brooks, Brooke was taken to the hospital, but died following surgery. So I'm going to show you two videos. We're going to take a look at sort of a side angle video, and we're going to take a look at a bystander video. So you'll notice on this first video that there are a lot of cars here that are sort of in line for the Wendy's, right? A lot of people are hungry.

Speaker 2: 1:01:58

It's what is this? Uh,

Speaker 1: 1:02:00

You know, almost midnight, people will go, gotta get something to eat. So this is the Wendy's outside camera. We're going to watch this angle. Then we're going to watch, we're gonna watch another angle from above

Speaker 2: 1:02:10

High standard. In both of these videos, we, we

Speaker 1: 1:02:13

End it right before the shooting takes place. Okay. So right before the officer actually discharged his weapon, we don't see Ray shard Brooks fall to the ground. There are no, no, no. Nobody dies in this video. We learned that he died later after the fact in a hospital, but still a content warning. I have to be very specific about these things because of YouTube. So content warning, right? This is coming up. I'm going to show you this. Nobody dies in this video. So this is just the, the interaction between two people. Here it is. And there's, there's no sound here. So there's what we just saw. Okay. And it stops right there. The officer basically pulls his gun out and shoots him. So let's watch that one more time. And you're going to see running away ratios, running away turns with the taser gun comes out, pop, pop, pop, and that's the end of it. Okay. So that's what a lot of this question was about. Whether, whether this was self-defense so allegedly, the taser was already discharged because they tried to tase him. So there was a kind of an empty taser. And he turns around like this aims the taser back. So, you know, people who are sort of on the side of law enforcement, they say, well, that was a deadly weapon, right? The taser could be lethal deadly force, even though it's less than lethal force. You know, the people are saying, well, you could hit them in the face or you could tase them and incapacitate them and then get their guns. So it could be sort of an extension or an evolution from non-lethal force into lethal force. And those were the arguments. So in other words, what Garrett Rolf did was self-defense he was justified in the shooting because he was responding to a threat of deadly force. I don't buy that at all. I mean, we can see this right here. He was literally running a way, right? He's he's running away from the guide. And as we're going to see in the next video, what I w truthfully, what I think this is all about is the officers are very mad that this guy just whooped their butts truthfully. So he's running away. He's that this guy just kicked their AEs right on camera. And so, as soon as he gets the first opportunity, he pulls out a gun. Doesn't want to chase them anymore. Guy is running a way, not a threat has a taser gun, which argued my, my, I could be wrong factually on this, but I think it had already been expended. And there are two officers they're both chasing him. So I thought that this was a, was in fact, a murder. I thought that this was an angry officer who was just trying to, you know, stop a fleeing suspect. Now you can say that what Ray shard Brooks did was bad. It wasn't assault on the officers that they could have shot him earlier. And I wouldn't have, have argued about that, but when he's running away, when he is fleeing at that moment in time, you no longer get to use deadly force because the threat of deadly force against you in the other direction has dissipated. And he is now fleeing. So you don't get to shoot somebody in the back after the threat has already dissipated. So that's been my perspective on it. I know it's not a popular perspective with many of you, but it is my perspective. And I just wanted to share that with you, if you missed the last time that we talked about it. And so I want to show you again, this, this second video. And again, we stop this before there is the shooting, but this is a little bit more, more violent, because what we're going to see is if you watch the full video, what you see is that they actually did. They do give him some field sobriety tests. When we went through this in depth, we covered the whole body camera. And I actually, that we got penalized for that, for this specific video, because we went through all of it. And, and, and so we're being careful on this one, but previously they go through all of the field sobriety tests and he fails them because he's under the influence. So then they, they go to arrest him. He's negotiating with them. He's being very friendly and cooperative. They go to arrest him and he's got prior. So he knows he's probably going back to prison. So he freaks out. And this, this turns into an altercation that we're going to pick up right here, because a bystander who's sitting in a car starts to record. They pull out their cell phone, Oh my God. Something happening right here. And we're going to pick this up. Now, you're going to notice it's two officers on one ratio card Brooks, Ray shard, Brooks is still able to break himself free. These officers were not there. Their take-down skills were lacking and he breaks free and then runs away. They're both obviously irritated about it. And there's even while we're going to get into the rest of the story, but let's take a watch at this second video.

Speaker 4: 1:06:17

[inaudible][inaudible]

Speaker 1: 1:06:42

So, so the camera then pans over and you see sort of the rest of it, but we're, we're not going to show that obviously. So that's what you saw, right? It was, it was an altercation, I think, arguably in the middle of that tussle, if there was a gun that was, that went off and, and Reshad Brooks was killed. Yeah. You're in the middle of a fight. But once he gets up and runs away from you, that has ended. And so, you know, you don't have to shoot somebody at that moment in time, you radio backup, call the helicopter, go on a foot chase. You're going to capture the guy. You don't need to shoot him and kill him in the back, shoot him in the back and then kill him. So this is what we have police identified. The officer, of course, this is officer Wolf, Garrett Rolfe, who is the officer who was charged with these crimes, 11 crimes, including murder for the officer who shot him, Fulton County district attorney issued arrest warrants in the shooting death, 11 counts, felony murder, aggravated assault, criminal damage to property violations of OTA office. Officer Devin Brosnan is also being charged with aggravated assault. Howard said the district attorney's office was able to interview 10 witnesses to the shooting and watch eight videos that recorded the event. Those videos include surveillance, body camera, personal cell phone video. They also viewed physical evidence, including inspecting the crime scene, canvassing the area examining tasers that were used prior to bringing these charges. Howard said they concluded from the witness statements that that Brooks never presented himself as a threat, which I disagree with. He was there for, for, uh, about, about 10 seconds, even though Mr. Brooks was slightly impaired. His demeanor during the incident was almost jovial. Howard said which he was, but until the arrest took place. And that's what I was talking about. He was very friendly. Well, you just let me home. Let me drive home. Right? Trying to be cooperative and tell hands behind the back. Then the incident happened. Howard said for 41 minutes, 17 seconds, he followed every instruction, answered the questions. He never displayed any aggressive behavior during the 41 minutes and 17 seconds. Howard said, following the shooting, the officers failed to give Brooks any medical attention for two minutes and 12 seconds. They also say that during those two minutes and 12 seconds, officer Rolfe actually kicked Mr. Brooks, as he laid on the ground while he was there fighting for his life. Officer Brosnan actually stood on Brooks's shoulder. Howard said his office concluded at the time of the death, that he did not pose a threat to the officers at the time of his death. Right before

Speaker 2: 1:08:48

That he did. Okay. And

Speaker 1: 1:08:51

Were officers are supposed to be trained and not impulsive reaction

Speaker 2: 1:08:56

People, right? If, if, if somebody injures you, you might say, well, I just

Speaker 1: 1:09:00

Just responded, right? I was, I instinctually responded. I hit him back or I did something else. Or I pulled out my gun. I acted irrationally. I acted stupidly because of my emotions. They got the better of me. I wasn't thinking clearly I did something nuts, right? We've all been there, all done or said something that was like, I can't believe I did that.

Speaker 2: 1:09:16

Well, law enforcement, when

Speaker 1: 1:09:18

It comes to firing your weapon, you're not supposed to succumb to those same pressures. You're supposed to say,

Speaker 2: 1:09:24

All right, that two seconds ago,

Speaker 1: 1:09:27

One second ago, that was deadly force. This is not anymore. And not make that mistake. He did. So here it says, we have also concluded that Rolf was aware that the taser in Brooke's possession, it was a F it was fired twice. And once it's fired twice, it presented no danger to him

Speaker 2: 1:09:43

Or any other persons. Howard

Speaker 1: 1:09:45

Said, Brooks enrolled for 18 feet and three inches. Apart at the time, the first shot was fired. At the time the shot was fired. The utterance made by Rolf was

Speaker 2: 1:09:51

Got it. Okay. A fleeing person, 18 feet away got him. Howard said,

Speaker 1: 1:09:58

Office is recommending no bond for Rolfe and a$50,000 bond

Speaker 2: 1:10:03

For bronze Brosnan, Atlanta mayor quiche, Keisha

Speaker 1: 1:10:07

Lance bottoms released a statement about the decision Wednesday saying is my hope justice will be served. Georgia Bureau of investigation is also investigating the shooting. Howard said he worked with GBI and ADP to reach the decision on the charges that GBI said, Facebook posts. They were not aware of charges would be filed. All right. So then we have July 1st, former APD officer charged with racial, uh, racial card Brooks, his murder, he bonds out of jail. Okay. So, so first and foremost, the prosecutor here says that yet we're going to charge him. We

Speaker 2: 1:10:35

Want no bond. Court says, well, we're

Speaker 1: 1:10:37

Going to give them bond. John judge said$500,000 bond. Okay. Which is, which is just crazy. So this guy shoots and kills somebody$500,000 bond,

Speaker 2: 1:10:46

Capitol Hill rioters didn't shoot and kill anybody, no bond, zero bond. Like you cannot get a bond

Speaker 1: 1:10:53

On a$10 million bond, not a hundred million dollar bond,

Speaker 2: 1:10:56

No bond, because you were inside the Capitol building that day or, or not even right?

Speaker 1: 1:11:02

Lots of people were not even in the Capitol building. They also got charged with it.

Speaker 2: 1:11:06

The ones we've talked about them, go check the archives. There, there zero bond, no bond. You can not get it. This guy$500,000, even

Speaker 1: 1:11:14

Though the government said, well, this was a, this was a murder.

Speaker 2: 1:11:16

He still gets out. The other people don't ask yourself.

Speaker 1: 1:11:19

The bond does come with conditions. Ankle monitor curfew, 6:00 AM, 12

Speaker 2: 1:11:22

Hours a day, must surrender his passport.

Speaker 1: 1:11:25

Not allowed to possess or carry any firearms, not have any contact with family members of Brooks or any witnesses, no contact with other police officers, defense attorney, bill Thomas and Noah Pines argued that Rolf was not a flight risk. I mean, at 28 character letters on Rolf's behalf, Brooks's family released the statement after he was granted

Speaker 2: 1:11:42

Bond saying, they're unhappy with it. They want to change in our system as they should. And then here we have, now

Speaker 1: 1:11:50

That an Atlanta detective also sided with this officer. So remember we just sort of finished the Shovan stuff.

Speaker 2: 1:11:58

And with Shovan it was an expert witness battle. The government

Speaker 1: 1:12:02

Had the better expert witnesses. I think you can say that without even argument, they're clearly better. And they may have won the entire case for him, particularly Dr. Tobin, one, one expert witness. So we're going to see that same thing happen again with these other officer involved shootings. It's just already, the framework is already being fleshed out for us. And it's already starting in this case because there is an Atlanta detective who wrote this letter, supporting Garrett Rolf, basically saying, no, this, this was self-defense. This was lethal threat. And he was totally justified in doing what he did. Let's take a look at that letter in a defense filing for former Atlanta police officer, who has been charged with felony further murder Atlanta police department homicide, detective assigned to the case Al Hogan sided with Rolfe, noting that he would have had, he would have brought 10 charges against Brooks. Had he survived

Speaker 2: 1:12:48

The incident. Atlanta PD detective said that

Speaker 1: 1:12:53

He would have charged Brooks, not Rolf with 10 counts, including multiple felonies captioning, a screenshot Holloway noted. Usually law enforcement are witnesses for the state, but this is from a defense filing. It says I am a homicide investigator that was assigned to the case.

Speaker 2: 1:13:09

Let's take a look at this letter.

Speaker 1: 1:13:10

My name is Al Hogan. Been a Georgia certified law enforcement officers since 1987, currently assigned as a detective in the homicide unit. In addition, I'm a member of the major incident team, which is a small team of homicide detectives as an nit investigator. These are my responsibilities, help everybody do all this work. I am the homicide MIT investigator that was assigned to the case involving Brooks and Rolf. I was called in from my home shortly after the incident, I gathered all the audio and video and interviewed people there. After leaving the scene, I was informed that Brooks was alive and critical. I returned to the homicide office to review all the evidence that I had gather and to determine if Ray shard Brooke's behavior warranted, any criminal charges. My investigation showed that Ray shard Brooke's behavior did in fact warrant several criminal charges, but I was unable to pursue

Speaker 2: 1:13:56

Because he died. So we have DUI. Uh, okay. Fine.

Speaker 1: 1:14:02

Any obstruction? Okay. Aggravated assault. Yes. Battery against an officer. Yes. Theft by taking probably which would be the taser removal of a weapon. Sure. A robbery, uh, arguably right. I don't know what the, what the Georgia statutes look like, but okay. So you can charge them with those seven, seven different offenses. You could charge them with a hundred different offenses to any of those involve the death penalty. Not, not to my knowledge. I don't care if you charge them with a hundred different violations. Garrett. Rolf is not the judge and the sentencing authority. Okay. He doesn't get to just shoot him. He gets due process just like everybody else does in this country. He was running away. So you don't get to shoot him in the back. Even though he used to

Speaker 2: 1:14:39

You not allowed the officer now, who did in fact fatally shoot him is re-instated

Speaker 1: 1:14:46

On the forest. Not even a problem. Here we go to the Washington post. Leticia beach says the police officer who fatally shot Ray shard, Brooks has been reinstated. The Atlanta civil service board reinstated him because quote, he was not afforded his right to due process. What, what w was Ray shard? Brooks? Did he get any due process? Okay. Detective homicide, detective Mr. Or whatever wants to charge him with seven different violations.

Speaker 2: 1:15:13

Great. Charge him, arrest

Speaker 1: 1:15:15

Him, pick them up, charge them in a court of law. You don't shoot the guy. You know how much due process he got? Zero think Ray shard Brooks got a little bit more than I'm sorry. Did, did Garrett Rolf get a little bit more than that? Yeah. Role's reinstatement comes nearly two weeks after a hearing by the board in which his attorney argued that he was not given a fair amount of time to defend himself against the firing, not authorized a union official to represent him at the employee. Response hearing did not violate any rules in the shooting. Rolf shot. Brooks got all that. Lance lo Russo Rolf's attorney told the Washington post, his client is eligible to receive back pay and full reinstatement. We were very pleased at this action. Consider it the first step in the total vindication of officer Garrett Ralf. We'll see. All right. So let's take a look at the opinion. This comes over from the city of Atlanta civil service board, effective dates. So you'll notice the hearing date was on April 22nd. Then they're going to backdate this, right? So the effective date, this takes, this takes effect starting June 14th. They're going to roll it all

Speaker 2: 1:16:16

All the way back. Who's on this board so we can, uh, we can, uh, make sure that they are, uh, memorialized in there.

Speaker 1: 1:16:23

Internet history. We have council representative, city of Atlanta, Allegra, Lawrence Hardy. We have rod grand ski. We have Lisa Hall there. We have the city of Atlanta witnesses, Devin Brosnan, assistant chief Todd Kuwait, Sergeant William Dean appellant, Garrett Rolph counsel for the appellant, Garrett Rolf. We also have Lance LaRusso. We have Ken Davis witnesses, assistant chief Todd[inaudible], Sergeant William Dean appellant, Garrett role. So a bunch of cops and a bunch of cop lawyers are all sitting around determining whether to reinstate a cop and give another cop a bunch of backpack. All right, good. We have statement of authority. We have their authority here. We have the Atlanta civil civil service board mission statement. And we got findings of fact at the time of the dismissal, the appellant. So Rolf had worked for Atlanta PD for over seven years. He graduated was sent the city zone three effective termination was on June 14th in the late night. He responded to a complaint during the encounter occupant

Speaker 2: 1:17:18

Vehicle officers attempted to make an arrest incident occurred. Taser was used. First response

Speaker 1: 1:17:25

Officer had originally been dispatched to the scene as, uh, as the appellant gave chase. So as Ralph chased him, he deployed his city issued taser, deploy the taser. Now in his possession toward the

Speaker 2: 1:17:35

See I'm sorry. Rolf fired it back towards I'm sorry. Brooks,

Speaker 1: 1:17:41

Which fired it back towards Rolf. Alright. The appellant then responded by firing three rounds from a city issued handgun striking the citizen, June 13th, acting under delegated authority. NPAA recommended dismissal because of the actions on that night, MPA stated that it had the right to respond the appellant's union representative. Oh, there it is. The union representative from the police department. You know how many times I get on here and scream about the unions?

Speaker 2: 1:18:04

Guess what we

Speaker 1: 1:18:06

Knew it was coming. You knew that was coming right. They eronium only acknowledged receiving the incident. The notice of final adverse action. Okay. All this is being transmitted

Speaker 2: 1:18:15

Back and forth, the additional errors. So they marked the wrong boxes, essentially, right? As well

Speaker 1: 1:18:22

Previously stated the panel's sole mission is to determine if the city's imposition complied with the code. Here's what we've got. We have NPAA they're contrasting the hearing employee's response during his testimony, the appellant role expressed a desire to respond to the city's proposed. No

Speaker 2: 1:18:37

Notice of action. Sergeant William Dean veteran

Speaker 1: 1:18:41

Twenty-five years testified that the dismissal seemed rushed and sufficient time was not provided for the appellant to submit a response due to heightened community concerns surrounding the event. He was not to be inside city limits for his own safety. Sergeant Dean testified the different arrangements could have been made, but basically he was not there.

Speaker 2: 1:18:59

So in conclusion,

Speaker 1: 1:19:01

Due to the city's failure to comply with several provisions of the code and the information received during witness testimony, the board concludes he was not afforded his right to due process. Therefore they grant the appeal and they were Voke the dismissal. So the whole, Oh, who signed off on this let's let's let's let's talk about these people who signed off on this order. We have Sterling P E a V E S. Who's the chairperson of this board. We have

Speaker 2: 1:19:27

El Amin plumbing, LLC.

Speaker 1: 1:19:30

I mean, maybe we have Robert D. Hawkins. Uh, so those are the people who say, come on back on board here, Mr. Ralph, what you did was AOK with us. So let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com said, Mukhabarat says eight, five, one nine says I'm sorry, but considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, this was a clear, justified shoot. The charge was another politically

Speaker 2: 1:19:54

Motivated by the then incumbent aging. Alright, there you go.

Speaker 1: 1:19:59

Right? So you have an alternative perspective there. I disagree, but I appreciate you sharing that. And I'm sure that many people in our audience do, we have LT says it did deploy. And I heard he can shoot to protect the public because he has now armed. And the taser still works on skin contact. That's another argument, right? If you're going to be defending officer Rolfe, what do you say? You gotta, you gotta change the taser from a less than lethal weapon into a lethal weapon. So, uh, so now you can say, yep, the taser still works on skin contact,

Speaker 2: 1:20:28

But it's, is it still less than lethal or is it lethal? Well, I guess arguably

Speaker 1: 1:20:33

A very small percentage of cases, then it could be lethal, right? So, you know, the police want to have it both ways. They want it to be less than lethal force, but then they also

Speaker 2: 1:20:40

Want it to be lethal force

Speaker 1: 1:20:43

When it's being used against them. You can't, it's a standard one way or the other, but I think it is a good, it is a good defense. If you're going to be

Speaker 2: 1:20:49

Bending roles, then the idea here is that, that, that

Speaker 1: 1:20:52

This was a legitimate threat that justified self-defense and an escalated use of force. We have underscore shades says Brooks ran most likely because he was on the first batch of COVID prisoners, let out what it went right back for violating probation. He was also had a very bad child abuse with his own and possibly another if I recall correctly,

Speaker 2: 1:21:12

Uh

Speaker 1: 1:21:12

That's right. I think you're absolutely right about all of that.

Speaker 2: 1:21:15

Yes. COVID prisoner led out

Speaker 1: 1:21:18

Eileen probation, child abuse. Yeah. Right. Yeah.

Speaker 2: 1:21:20

I mean a lot of other circumstances, I think that can contribute to that, but a yacht rock guy,

Speaker 1: 1:21:28

I says, not to sound naive, but what's so difficult about complying with an officer's request. Well, the cops just shrugged their shoulders and give up because of this

Speaker 2: 1:21:34

Suspect won't comply. Uh, no, I mean, so, so I think that you're right, that, that ordinarily speak

Speaker 1: 1:21:41

That there is nothing difficult about complying with an office

Speaker 2: 1:21:44

Directions. And I would encourage everybody to do that. Okay. You know, what, what, uh, w

Speaker 1: 1:21:50

A ratio that Brooks did was not appropriate. I'm not excusing that at all. What he did was illegal. It was criminal. It was assault on the officers. It was reprehensible conduct. I'm not excusing it. Uh, I think that there are probably some good justifications for it. You know, why is, why is a person that way? I think you could unravel the layers of the onions of a person and dial down into that. That's not really relevant here. What is relevant

Speaker 2: 1:22:13

Is that police are allowed

Speaker 1: 1:22:15

To use deadly use of force when they're facing a

Speaker 2: 1:22:19

Deadly threats. And once that deadly threat subsides. So does the

Speaker 1: 1:22:25

Proportionate response from law enforcement. And we went through this during the Shovan trial, right? We saw the graph, we saw the different proportions. And so it's, in my opinion, yacht rock guy. It's not difficult to comply with law enforcement. And you should, because it only goes downhill from there, right? The cops are going to win. If you're under arrest, they're going to get you one way or the other. It doesn't serve you to run. You're only going to make things worse on yourself. So once you're in that position, yeah, you have to comply. Cause there is no alternative. And even in the George Ford case, we saw that that witness who was walking down the street was even yelling at Floyd. You can't win, man. You can't win. Just give up and let it go. So I agree that what Ray shard Brooks did not, not okay. Not the ideal response, same with Floyd, same with Dante, right? And the list goes on and on now that doesn't the fact that they are not able to comply or that they're having a difficult time, for whatever reason, maybe they are mentally challenged. Maybe they're having a mental emergency. It doesn't matter really what it is. It doesn't justify a shooting and killing, unless there is a deadly threat because we have other mechanisms in place to deal with these things. It's called the court of law and due process. So while I understand that, you know, officers are in difficult situations and they make snap decisions and all of that stuff, they are trained. I've made this point, their duty, their obligation, the responsibility that they accept when they swear that oath is that they are going to make those tough decisions. And they have to err, on the side of life, they don't get to shoot somebody in the back. Who's fleeing from them with a taser that has already been discharged in my humble opinion. But I also respect and really, really, really respect the opposite perspective on this. Because I think that you can make an argument that, right. He, he, he was, uh, at least at the first part of the altercation, an active threat and a shooting would have been justified at that moment. But I think that as soon as he started running a way, literally away from them, that's when the use of force has to tape back, taper back down. And law enforcement knows that, that some people, some demographics in this community, in our society, some people are just going to be off and law enforcement knows that. And they're prepared for that. This is a foreseeable consequence of being a law enforcement officer and they have policies and procedures, and they have things that they have to follow in order to, to do their job. And in this case, in my opinion, they, they didn't follow those. There was a different way to approach this and it didn't happen. We have McCobb eight, five, one nine says also it was never confirmed that the stolen taser had discharged both cartridges or that role knew this to be the case other than the former prosecutors stating this publicly. Yeah. Okay. So, so maybe that's accurate. Yeah. I mean, I was reading from that article, which in fact may have been old. So, uh, there, there may have been new evidence that they didn't know that they were both discharged, but the, the former prosecutor who's out there of course is saying the opposite of that. We have a Sharon Whitney says, it's this kind of crap that gives so much traction to BLM and defund the police narratives. Yeah, I think so too. I mean, I think so too, you know, it's like, listen, you know, there are certain, there are certain shootings like, listen, you don't have to defend every single person. You know, every single police officer who does something who's involved in an incident, okay, you don't have to defend every single one of them. There are bad cops. They do bad things. Same thing, same, same, same perspective for me. Right. I am. I'm, I'm naturally inclined to, to defer or default to the position that the police have all the power. They have all of the responsibility. They have all the training, they have all of the resources. So the burden to act appropriately in difficult situations, it defaults to them, they're the ones most equipped to deal with these split decisions. They have more skillset, more tools than Dante, right. Does, or then Ray shard Brooks does. So they have to take control of the situation. It's just like if you've ever played sports or if you've ever, you know, played around with a, with a young child, okay. You know that you have the upper hand in that game, you know, that you can control the outcome because you have the training, the education, the intelligence, whatever. Okay. W the, the analogy that I can use is when I, when I was doing mixed martial arts before COVID, if I'm wrestling with somebody who is

Speaker 2: 1:26:36

A new a newcomer,

Speaker 1: 1:26:38

I'm not going to go 100%. I'm going to tape taper down my level of activity so that I don't crush that other person, it's a proportional response. So it's the same type of concept with law enforcement. It's supposed to be proportional. They're supposed to be able to make those hard decisions. And when, when, when they say

Speaker 2: 1:26:56

I grew up, they gotta be held accountable for that.

Speaker 1: 1:27:01

Don't have to just say, well, look, everything that they did is without any repercussions or anything that they did is without fault,

Speaker 2: 1:27:10

Same goes

Speaker 1: 1:27:10

The other direction. When it's a defendant who does something insanely wrong. And I'm thinking specifically here about the Mikaila Bryan Case and that police officer right now, BLM on the other side of this equation, they come out, LeBron James says, go get that cup, because they're going to say that every time a cop does some, anything that involves the death of somebody from their community, that that cop is automatically at fault. That's not okay. That's insane. And I made a, you know, w we made heyday about that. Cause that's insane that cops shooting was justified. She had a knife, she was swinging it at somebody. So we can easily draw a line there and say, listen, not every single cop that shoots somebody or is involved in a use of force. Incident is a bad racist, you know, white patriarchal cop. That's not the reality. And every single cop who shoots somebody is not captain America who deserves the country's defense at

Speaker 2: 1:27:59

All corners. We

Speaker 1: 1:28:01

Want, we want to try to be as fair and objective as we can. And we want to start to identify, identify criteria and different elements that will justify or, or lead us to believe that a shooting was not justified. In my opinion, if somebody is running a way from you, that is a pretty good indicator. That's good in Disha that they're no longer an active threat, especially when they don't have an active firearm. It's not a firearm, it's a taser. Do they know? Cause they just pulled it twice. Apparently we have at CSEC in the house says, Oh gosh, I hope Rob addresses this conversation about resisting unlawful arrest. Rob, what do you think about unlawful arrest and resisting in that case? So I think that that is a crime that will be prosecuted. And when resisting arrests happen, what does law enforcement do? They go and conduct the arrest. They make that arrest. And I know that the, the argument here is that resisting arrest might lead to a potential danger to a third party, right? If, if, if the cops don't shoot that person, then that person go away and kill somebody or get into a car accident or something like that. I understand that argument, but I didn't see that in this case. Right.

Speaker 2: 1:29:07

I saw that, that this guy was running away,

Speaker 1: 1:29:09

No indication that he had a dangerous weapon or that he was gonna, you know, go into the neighbor's house and, you know, hold hostages or something like that. I think very clearly that the, the, the, the police could have rounded him up. Okay. We that's, what we have police for is why we have helicopters and all dispatch, Hey, we got, we got somebody on foot. Okay. They have codes. These guys fleeing on foot call in the backup. You don't just, anytime somebody runs from law enforcement, just say, Oh, well, we got a runner. Boom, you're dead. Okay. That's not appropriate. So resisting arrest is a thing happens all the time. It's actually a very common thing on unlawful flights, a very common thing. So this happens regularly and the, the solution is not that you just pull out, you're going to just shoot somebody. Well, I don't want to chase that guy. I'm not going to call the helicopters in guy. Shouldn't have run away. What kind of moron resist arrest. All right. Well, do you feel like running tonight mean either? All right. We'll just going to shoot the guy. That's not how this works. There is due process cops. Don't get to decide the end somebody's life unless their life is being threatened. It's a balance. This was not that case. Econ test says, are you contending? That Brooks was no longer a deadly threat because he had expended the taser. If so you are assuming that in the melee of the situation the officers saw when and how many times the taser

Speaker 2: 1:30:18

Had been fired. That is a

Speaker 1: 1:30:20

Lot to ask of someone who believes they are fighting for their life. So I, I agree with that, right. I, I agree. But if we change one of these facts, okay, if we say, let's say the taser

Speaker 2: 1:30:31

Was full, is that lethal force? Is that a lethal weapon? I buy

Speaker 1: 1:30:38

By, by police and their own admissions. It's less than lethal.

Speaker 2: 1:30:41

Of course. That's why they use it. So why

Speaker 1: 1:30:46

Are they responding to less than lethal force with lethal, with lethal force? There wasn't a gun. It was a taser. So even if the taser had its two cartridges in there, are you thinking that he shoots

Speaker 2: 1:30:58

Rolfe, incapacitates him then takes the,

Speaker 1: 1:31:01

The second shot in the taser, shoots the other officer, incapacitates him, and then flees off and becomes a public danger to somebody,

Speaker 2: 1:31:09

The ELs. That's why they had to shoot him. I don't think so, but I, yeah,

Speaker 1: 1:31:14

But listen, I respect your opinion and you don't test. I know, I know that this segment is probably going to make a lot of people mad. I understand that, but I'm trying to be trying to be, uh, you know, as objective as I can be on some of these things, I call them both ways. So we also have T spec says, the detective statement said that Brooks fired the taser at the officer, making it a clean shoot. Had the officer had been hit by the taser. It would have opened his firearm to

Speaker 2: 1:31:37

The subject. So it

Speaker 1: 1:31:39

Sounds like we have some competing or, or some conflicting information here. So I don't know if the taser was clean or not. Last question on this segment says, if you law enforcement, your force continuum extent, if you're law enforcement, your force continuum extends to others in your sphere to protect. He had a live taser and he could have turned again. I don't think these officers thought they would a free kill shot. That's fair point. That's a very fair point, eat on tests. And I really appreciate that. You know, I appreciate on these, on these, um, close calls that we get pushback on these things, right? Cause I'm going to have my opinion. And obviously there are other interpretations of that and I really welcome this. And so sometimes people might think that I'm getting agitated. I don't mean that. I, I really do like the alternative perspective because I know that I have a little bit of a blind spot, right? I'm a criminal defense lawyer. Okay. We have an entire firm of people here every day, boots on the ground, fighting in court against what I considered to be an overly oppressive prosecution. Uh, in every corner of this, this country, we have government officials, prosecutors, police, officers bend the rules and manipulate things that[inaudible]

Speaker 2: 1:32:45

Ultimately hurt good people

Speaker 1: 1:32:47

In this country. And I have a problem with that. So I know that I'm a little bit spring loaded to say, Nope, not clean. I get it. But I also understand that there's a different perspective. And so this is, what's so great about this show. I mean, honestly, uh, you know, I, I get so much out of it in this context. It's like, Hey, that's a great point. Good point. How do you know, how do you, how do you respond to that? If you are law enforcement and you almost just did just get your kicked and you may have had somebody who did have a, uh, you know, an ankle holster or a knife in the back or something like that. It's a, it's a contentious situation. I would not want to be in their shoes. Let me, let me say that. Okay. I recognize that I did not want to be in the officer's shoes, very difficult situation. I think that, uh, you know, as much as I've got a lot of grief with law enforcement and the justice system, I do think that the pendulum has really swung way too far, the other direction that this defund, the police movement, that this, this concept that every time that there's an incident, that the police are automatically to blame is insane. Just like the opposite is insane. That every time that there's a shooting, that the police are heroes, it's insane. It's not reality. So we have to stay sort of rooted in reality. And I know that sometimes I'll get a little bit nudged this way because of that cognitive bias, that confirmation bias that I have, but you here, you're here, you here and you keep me on track. And so we've got one other question. It looks like this is coming in from Eden tests says, you are still my guy. He's not test. That's why I like good conversation. So we can all think these things through. I'm more than happy to see your angles as well. Love the conversation. And I love you back eat on it. That's what I mean. That, I mean, it really is. It's a good conversation. It's good stuff to think about. And I, I leave the show and I go,

Speaker 2: 1:34:24

Yeah, it was pretty good point. I may have to check in on that taster thing. Okay. And I say this

Speaker 1: 1:34:29

A lot too, you know, we, we kind of have fun on this show and we sort of are exploring the ideas together. There are times when I get up or I go home and I'm laying in bed like this

Speaker 2: 1:34:38

I'm I go like this? Oh.

Speaker 1: 1:34:42

Because I think of something that I, that's not a good point or there's a logical flaw with that, or I'll just think I shouldn't have said that or what I, Whoa, I really stepped in that one. But like, you know, like a good, like a, like a nice shirt, you change it, you put it, you clean it, you put a new one on the next, we come back out here and we talk about the new issues, the next ones, you know, th th that unfortunately keep coming down the pike and we can explore them and have a little bit of fun, learn some things while we're doing it and meet good people. So eat on tests. Literally. Thank you so much for that last message

Speaker 2: 1:35:12

Really is sort of the, the, the nice way to cap a company

Speaker 1: 1:35:16

Like this. That can be a little bit contentious, you know, cause people just get so agitated, myself included. So I appreciate you helping us wrap the show up on a high note. Very much appreciated. He Don test. And that happened over on locals. What a beautiful thing. Can you feel the love in the air? You should go over there and join up as well. Go on over to watching the watchers.locals.com. I want to welcome the new people who signed up. We have Liz zero five, two, four. Big welcome to at the DUI guy. We're going to be talking to him tomorrow for 10. We're going to do a little bit of an intro, and then we're going to be interviewing him. We got some stuff to talk about. We've got Kareem one 65 who joined up. Welcome to you. We got fond Zico in the house. And big, welcome to Jay wit two seven zero four three. And I want to thank all of you who ask great questions today. Shout out to the leafy bug and Liberty or death, and of course, eat on tests with that. Nice last message. You all are very much appreciated. Thank you for keeping the show moving. And I want to thank all of the other supporters

Speaker 2: 1:36:12

At our locals

Speaker 1: 1:36:13

Community. I got some good stuff cooking right now. I told you that I am working on a second, uh, recording area so that I can sort of be a little bit more, uh, prolific in some of the content that we create. Cause I've got a lot of stuff that I wanna, I wanna, I wanna want to talk about. And that I think would be a lot of fun and maybe useful for other people. And it's all going to be happening on locals. I'm going to sort of workshop some of that over the weekend, got the finishing touches on this. And so, and my point here is we're going to be doing some surveys. We're going to be asking for your input on locals. And so if you want to be a part of that, join these people to be a part of this community that we are building. I'm super excited about where it's going. All of you who are on that list, thank you so much for supporting the show. It really means the world to us. You know, YouTube says it we're in the penalty box still. They're not happy with some of the things that we're talking about, but the show must go on and we want to be robust. We want to build this anti-fragile environment so that if anything happens elsewhere on the internet, at least we have our locals community where all of us are brick by brick building. The next evolution

Speaker 2: 1:37:15

Of conversation. I think for, for a certain segment of this country, there's a certain deck demographic of political, um,

Speaker 1: 1:37:24

Ideology that is just not welcome elsewhere. And so we're helping to build the next evolution of that. You're a part of that. And I want to thank you so much for that support. And if you're not already over there and you want to be, you can get some very good stuff, including a free copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning how to fight your case and succeed in the criminal justice system. You can download this for free. It's also available as a PDF.

Speaker 2: 1:37:44

Uh, I'm sorry. Also available for purchase

Speaker 1: 1:37:46

On Amazon. You can download the slides that we just went through today. You can take a look at my impeachment party document. You can download a copy of my existence systems. You can share links throughout the day on the community. Other great people are over there. You just heard from all of them and great questions today. A lot of fun conversation. Thank you so much for participating in that way. And that's it for me, my friends, before we get out of here, quick reminder that I am a criminal defense attorney. That's really what we do here on a daily basis is help good people. Who've been charged with crimes, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. We're extremely passionate about what we do. We have a whole team of people here waking up everyday, just dedicated to that mission. And so if you happen to know anybody who's been charged with a crime in the state of Arizona, whether it's a misdemeanor, DUI, drug offense, domestic violence, any low-level offense, high level offenses, anything in between any time that you're in trouble with the law, we are primed and ready to go. We can also help clearing up old cases, old warrants, old license suspensions. If you want to restore your rights so you can go vote again, possess a firearm, again, apply for federal benefits, anything like that, just kind of, you know, get some of that legal stuff cleared up. We can help with all of it. We're very good at it because we love what we do. We're here energized, ready to rock and roll. We offer a free case evaluation. So if you or anybody you happen to know or love has been in a situation like this, we can help. We would be honored and humbled. If you trusted us enough to send them our direction, we'd be very much appreciative and we'll make sure that they leave better than they found us. And that's it. My friends, we went through a lot of, a lot of meaty stuff today, but I had a lot of fun doing it. I hope you did as well. We're going to be back here doing the same thing again at the same place. Same time, same location, 4:00 PM Arizona time, which is Pacific 5:00 PM. Mountain 6:00 PM central in Texas and 7:00 PM for that Florida man out there. Who's, you know, being a Florida man, we're going to be all back together at that time. I hope you join us. Everybody have a very wonderful night's rest. A nice hearty dinner. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.