Chauvin Federal Civil Rights Indictment, Farmer Sues Over Racist Relief Plan, Maxwell Plea Deal?​

Derek Chauvin and the other officers involved in the killing of George Floyd are indicted on new charges in Federal Court. A disabled farmer sues the Biden Administration over what he alleges is a discriminatory and racist COVID relief plan. Is Ghislaine Maxwell going to take a plea deal? And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Special guest defense lawyer Larry “The DUI Guy” Forman from Kentucky joins the show! Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheDUIGuy/​

• A three-count federal indictment unsealed names Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, J. Kueng and Tou Thao.​

• U.S. Justice Department issues press release detailing the indictment process.​

• The four ex-Minneapolis police officers are accused of willfully violating Floyd’s civil rights.​

• We review two federal indictments: one naming all four officer and one with additional charges for Chauvin.​

• Disabled farmer sues the Biden Administration alleging discrimination in the COVID relief plan.​

• U.S. Department of Agriculture announces on its website that the government will repay 120% of loans for certain “socially disadvantaged farmers”.​

• Disabled farmer, Adam Faust, appears on Tucker Carlson’s show with his lawyer to discuss.​

• Victim’s attorney in the Ghislaine Maxwell case suspects that she may be considering taking a plea deal – similar to Epstein’s?​

• Maxwell’s brother sets up a support website for Ghislaine.​

• Latest updates in Ghislaine’s case from the federal court docket.​

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

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

• Saturday, May 22, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)​

• Saturday, June 12 @ 12-2 pm / Noon ET – Law Enforcement Interaction Training Live Virtual Seminar with Robert (via Zoom)​

• Saturday, June 26, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)​

Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at 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 #ChauvinTrial #Biden #Maxwell #Relief #Discrimination #DerekChauvin #GhislaineMaxwell #CovidRevief #BidenAdministration #Indictment #GrandJury #CivilRights #GeorgeFloyd

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 RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they beg you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our very system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here in with us today because we've got a lot to get into it's Friday. People think that maybe we can pump the brakes a little bit, but that is not the case. We have a packed schedule, but we're going to be starting off by talking to a DUI lawyer. He calls himself the DUI guy, and he is a he's standing by on a hot ready to, uh, to come in and talk to us a little bit about something that's going on in his world. And really we want to dive into the meat and potatoes about why he does what he does, right? I'm a criminal defense attorney, myself, anytime our paths cross. And we see each other out there sort of speaking truth to power, wanting to reform the system and hold officers accountable. I want to make sure that we are able to support one another in that endeavor. And so he's queued up. We're going to be talking to him here in a few minutes after we do some housekeeping, then we're going to change gears. We're going to talk about Derek Shovan because not only did Derek Shovan get indicted federally now for some civil rights charges, but also the other three officers who were there as well. And so we've got new indictments from a federal grand jury that we're going to be going through. I have clippings of that, and we're going to look at the 2020 case, of course, involving George Floyd. But we're also going to take a look at the, there was a 2017 case that they're sort of wrapping into this whole thing. Many of us have heard for some time that Derek Shovan had some prior incidents that were also coming under scrutiny from the department of justice. We're going to take a look at that one as well. So some interesting things there, then we're going to change gears. We're going to talk about a farmer who is suing the byte administration, really the department of agriculture. And this is an interesting lawsuit because the U S department of agriculture is currently in the process of sort of dispensing some loan repayments, reimbursing farmers for their loans that they took out in order for, for, for them to continue their operations as the whole country shut down, the federal government was providing aid to them. Well, now there's some indication here that the department of agriculture is modifying some of their loan provisions to, to make it very clear that it's only going to certain demographics. And if you want to venture a guess as to what demographics are included in those loan, disbursements and repayments and what are not, you can venture a guess as to how that will shake out. But a very interesting lawsuit. We started asking ourselves, well, what about equal protection of the law? What if some demographics are getting favored by the federal government and others are not? So we have a farmer who is out there filing a lawsuit against the Biden administration. His name is Adam Foster. He was on the Tucker Carlson show last night. So we've got a clip of that. We're going to break down what that lawsuit looks like. Then we got to talk about Golin Maxwell. Glen Maxwell now is, uh, is there's some rumors going around that she might be interested in a plea deal. And I'm talking about a story that comes over from the sun. Apparently one of the victim's attorneys is now sort of under the impression that they may be negotiating a plea deal based on some conversations that the victim's attorney has had with the prosecution. So remember when you have, you know, a criminal case, you've got multiple parties, of course you have the judge, which is supposed to be the new neutral arbiter of both sides, but then you have the defense, the defendant and the defense attorney and the prosecution, and they're representing the government, but they also have what's called the victim's advocate. And so typically what you'll have is attorneys who are sort of either hired by the courts or provided by the government provided by the state. And you also have potentially private attorneys that are hired by the victims themselves. So we're talking about one of these victims lawyers who is now saying that there is, uh, maybe some, some conversations about a plea deal that are being kicked around back and forth. We also have a new letter from Bobby stern Heim. Of course it is going Maxwell's attorney talking more and more about this, this, uh, flashlights in the eyes while you're trying to sleep problem that Glen Maxwell apparently keeps having. And they were talking about, you know, an iMac. The last time we pick this up, the court was saying, Hey, why are you shining the light in her eyes every 15 minutes? Why can't she wear an eye mask? This doesn't sound reasonable. If she has to use a sock or a pillow case or something to cover her face, that doesn't sound appropriate. And so now it looks like the government is saying, well, no, it's against protocol. We actually can't give them eye masks. And so we're battling over all of this stuff. Of course what's going to end up happening is Golin Maxwell. And her attorneys are just going to say, well, all of this is indicative of due process violations because she is not getting the appropriate sleep. If you can't sleep, how can you possibly prepare an adequate defense moving forward? That's what her defense team are good. They're going to claim all of that. So we've got a lot to get into, and I don't want to keep our, our, our guests waiting. We're going to go, we're going to get over to him in about, in about two minutes. I got a couple of housekeeping items that we're going to get to really quickly. And then we're going to jump in. So two minutes stand by over here, uh, for the DUI guy coming up soon. So first and foremost, as I always mentioned at the start of the show, if you want to be a part of the show and ask questions or get a copy of the slides, the place to do that, is it watching the watchers.locals.com? That is our support community. And we do a lot of cool stuff there. And I've been sort of teasing this out, but now I want to make just a quick announcement. So we've got two events that are coming up for all members of our locals community, and you have to go and support the show. Very inexpensive. It's a$5 a month contribution. You get to be a part of everything that we do. It's sort of all inclusive. It's a nice, big, delicious buffet. And I want to show you what one of the items is. So first and foremost, coming up, we have on May 22nd, you can see here. This is a little screenshot from the calendar. We have the watching the Watchers Saturday night, virtual meetups. So we're going to be meeting together same time, uh, at, at, at the 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 7:00 PM, Eastern Saturday, May 22nd. And we're going to try to, we're going to dip our toes in this water and see how this goes. Because since this will be the first one, and if we like it, we have fun. We'll continue to do it on the fourth Saturday of every month. So why should you join the monthly meetup? Well, to connect with other supporters of the show to discuss leftover news items, offer new topics, suggestions, get book recommendations, documentary suggestions, and so on and so forth. We are going to have some rules. Now the rules are, I want to make them very, very accommodating. So number one, cameras on the zoom are allowed to be off. Nope, no problem at all. Pseudonyms are also allowed for privacy purposes, or if you don't want to get involved in politics, you don't want to be labeled a, uh, you know, white supremacist, Neo, Nazi, whatever. That's fine. Keep your cameras off and you can remain pseudo anonymous. This is a meetup, but it will not be recorded. It's not going to be reposted by me or anywhere. And we're asking that no third party recordings take place. So it's just a little meetup, right? It's like, we're all gathering around, uh, you know, uh, at a bar or something and having a conversation. So the rules, our dinner table manners, unruly guests will be asked to leave and we're going to just hang out for an hour, just check it out. So further information is going to be coming down the pike at locals at our platform, they're watching the watchers.locals.com. We have one more event that I want to share with you. This is coming up in June, June 12th. We're going to have the law enforcement interaction training, super excited about this one. This is a project that I've been working on for some time now. And we're going to do a two hour workshop seminar type of training on dealing with law enforcement. Specifically. I've got a couple of bullet points that we are going to touch on. So residential searches and seizures at your home. So what happens if the police come, they're responding to an emergency or they're responding to a domestic violence call, how do you deal with the police? How do you interact with them at your home? How do you interact with them during a traffic stop or doing a roadside investigation? It'd be very complicated stuff, right? You don't know what to do. You know that you have the right to remain silent, but how do you use that practically? What do you do? How do, how does that function? So we're going to show you how to do that. We're also going to talk about cell phone confiscation, public recording of police officers. And then of course exercising your right to remain silent. And why this idea that being honest with the police is such a bad one. It's just, it's a terrible idea, but it's something that they tell you all the time. It's the worst. And we can, uh, we can maybe ask the DUI guy about some of this stuff, but basically this course is for everybody it's for anybody. If you're on a, you know, if you're dating, if you're out there, it's a scary world. You want to know how to respond in, in the event that you're under pressure from enforcement. So that's coming up on June 12th, once again, all inclusive. So if you're a member over@locals.com, you get access to that and there will be registration forms forthcoming on that platform. So enough of that without further ado, I want to welcome and introduce our guests who is going to be the DUI guide. And I'm going to let him introduce himself and tell us a little bit more about him, want to bring him on right now. And let's click this button. The DUI guy is in the house. How are you?

Speaker 2: 9:23

Welcome to the show, Hey, Hey, Rob, I'm doing well. How are you?

Speaker 1: 9:27

And I'm excited to talk to you today. So I, so you're, you're known as the DUI guy, but your name of course is Larry Foreman. And my understanding is you're based out of Kentucky. Is that right?

Speaker 2: 9:36

You got it, man. Thanks for having me. Yeah, we are based out of Louisville, Kentucky

Speaker 1: 9:41

Louisville, Kentucky. And tell me a little bit about your practice and sort of, you know, where you come from. I'd like to know maybe the origin story of, you know, kind of how you got to where you are and why you're here, because you know, you're, you're doing some of the same work that we're doing here in terms of holding officers, holding prosecutors accountable. And I kind of want to just understand how you matured into this role that you're in right now.

Speaker 2: 10:01

Sure. Yeah. So, um, I come from Cleveland, I moved to Kentucky right around when I was 17 years old in 2005, my parents bought a ranch and, uh, I did my, my college education, my law school education here in Louisville. Uh, we eventually relocated into the city, but, uh, I always had a passion, um, to, to help people. It was interesting how I kinda came as I came of age. People would come to me. I wasn't very much a very social of a guy, become a lot more of an extrovert as I grew older, but people came to me with their problems and I would help solve like their little, little things that they had going on. So it kind of always almost natural for me to go into law school. People say, well, I like to argue I'm going to be a good lawyer. Well, you and I both know that being able to argue is not always, you know, the, the pinnacle of being a good attorney, it's the, the desire and the ability, the natural ability to be able to help people. So, uh, that's what I've been doing pretty much my entire life. So when I, when I got that law degree passed the bar first try, uh, I don't know. I think it's the, the Russian blood in me that does not allow me to submit to a higher authority that, you know, you know, it kind of bleeds well into being a practicing attorney, practicing criminal law. But I also wanted to be my own boss. I didn't want to work for anybody and, and, uh, you know, make them money. I wanted to make money myself. So, uh, in October, 2013, I passed the bar in September. I got sworn in, in October and literally the next day, October 4th, 2013, I filed with the secretary of state for Larry Foreman law PLLC. And we have since become foreman and associates and some no longer alone

Speaker 1: 11:43

For you. That's an awesome story. We, so we, we started right about the same time. I was also to 2013. I got admitted in Arizona and then 15 in California. And my story was a little bit, I started at working

Speaker 3: 11:54

For other other defense attorneys for about a year and a half before my partner and I broke off and started our firm. But I I'm curious, you know, what, what sort of prompted the defense in particular? Was it sort of the, the, the pushback against the authority? You know, I think defense attorneys kind of have that special bone in their body where if somebody says you can't do something or like, you're going to lose the case. My, my instinct is, we'll see, we'll see about that. Right. I don't care what the facts are. I don't care how hard, you know, the case might be. It's just sort of, there's, there's just a, an excitement or an energy that comes about with trying to, you know, it's the David versus Goliath type of battle, you know, what, what sort of drew you to criminal law specifically in your, in your endeavor to help people?

Speaker 2: 12:34

And that, that's an interesting question. Um, because I kind of always gravitated towards criminal law in law school. I took, um, it's always that one professor, I think you even, I don't know if it was you or somebody else recently, I was talking to who, uh, w w we always have that one professor that kind of draws you in, and mine is professor Milligan. He, uh, he taught criminal law. I even took his jurisprudence course, which is basically philosophy on drugs when, when, you know, you're dealing with law stuff and all that. Um, so I took that course and I think he taught something else. I forgot what it was. And then I also took, um, Oh, uh, constitutional law, of course, uh, not constitutional, I'm sorry, the fourth amendment stuff, basically fourth amendment stuff. So it is con law, but it wasn't called con law. I just can't remember what it is. And they had two cards. There you go. Crim pro thank you. So crim pro was, I forgot. It's been years. So crim pro was divided into two parts and I took both parts. It was basically the theory, the fourth amendment, fifth amendment stuff. That's basically the entire course, and then the practical, you know, grand juries, uh, and so on. So I took basically every criminal course that the law school had to offer, and I fell in love with it. I absolutely fell in love with it. And the professor was really, really good. So for me, why DUIs to answer that question? When I, after I graduated, after I passed the bar, after I opened up my firm, obviously the next step is what you need clients. It's kind of hard to practice law when you don't have anybody who's paying you any money and you don't have any clients that are asking for help. So while I was building that, you know, I had, uh, I had all the time in the world. So I picked up this book by Larry Taylor and Steven Oberman. The, um, you may have heard those names. I'm sure. Uh, the, probably the two biggest names in DUI. They are the only two DUI attorneys in the world that I know of that have a Wiki page. And, uh, one's in Tennessee, the other's in California. Uh, now Larry Taylor started the book and Steven Oberman kinda came on, uh, maybe a decade later in the eighties, uh, to, to supplement. And basically I read the thing cover to cover. Uh, but the reason I did that, by the way, uh, I forgot is the why that I dive into that. I started doing research like originally, originally I thought I was going to be doing white collar crime, pretty much my entire law school career. I thought white collar crime is, you know, after bouncing between 10 different other topics that interested me from point from time to time and point to point. Uh, and I decided, you know what, I'm a white collar crime was very difficult to get into. I'm sure your viewers, you know, uh, if he ever talked about it, white collar crime, you need to be in it. You got to rub shoulders with the right people. You've got to know the right people. You gotta be high up in the, and I didn't know anybody, I didn't know anybody. So to me, I was low on the, on the totem pole. There was absolutely no way for me to break into that market. So I started researching what, what, uh, I took a course in law school that, uh, was a law practice management was the title of it. And law practice management was exactly what you think it is. And one of the things we learned there is to learn your competition. So I started learning like what specialty fields fields are there in criminal law that I can delve into, that I can get a taste of. And for some reason, and this is 2013, we're talking about, uh, DUIs was just something that really, really stuck out to me because, you know, it was one of the only fields that, uh, you can specialize in. And the American bar association, as of, I think 2008 actually recognizes a DUI as a specialty field, just because of all the nuances that go into it. So I, um, I, I got the book, I read it. I actually, I bought it. I borrowed it from the library because I didn't have the money to buy a, a$450 book at the time. I now own the copy. It's sitting right there on the shelf,

Speaker 3: 16:05

But people don't realize this book real quickly. Sorry to interrupt you, but people don't realize this book. I mean, it's like the Bible of DUI law. I mean, it is so extensive and really quickly on your point, you know, it's, it's, you know, DUI law is extremely complicated and many people don't understand this. How, how scientifically heavy it is. We're talking about gas, chromatography and mass spectrometry and all this stuff that, you know, you don't get in a traditional legal case, right? Most let's take a contract case. What are you fighting over about language on a piece of paper and, you know, some accounting, you know, spreadsheets and stuff like that. They can get very complicated. Don't get me wrong. You're talking about some sort of, you know, uh, out there concepts, but with DUI, it's some hard science and many people just, I think don't think about it that way. They think it's just somebody driving behind the car and they're drunk. But no, I mean, there's, there's a lot that goes into it. So the fact that you read that entire book cover to cover is just like, Whoa, that's a lot, that's a doozy. Good for you.

Speaker 2: 16:56

I always say it's easier to try murder murder case than it is a DUI case, because all w what are you going to have? You're going to have forensics. You're going to have fingerprints. You're going to have an expert, you know, testify about what the condition the body was in. You might have a blood splatter expert, a knife expert, a gun expert. And that's it. I mean, it's, the rest is just going to be lay testimony. Whereas just as you alluded to Rob, this is, this is exactly right. You, you have, um, scientific evidence, you have to understand human physiology. You have to understand how these machines operate. You have to be like the best DUI lawyers by the way, our chemical engineers believe it or not. Yeah. Um, there's one actually in Arizona, I think, uh, in your hometown, I don't, well, I shouldn't say hometown, but home state, uh, Jim Nessie, uh,

Speaker 3: 17:38

I've got his book. Yep. He's in Tucson down here. Uh, Jim, Jim, and, uh, Joe St. Louis down there. Yep. Amazing dudes. And I've learned a ton from them. So I have their book, which is very much the one Taylor row for, you know, that you went through because it's all Arizona base. I mean, he's wrote, he wrote specifically for Arizona. So that's the same book that I refer to. And it, it's, it's amazing how, how much is in there. I mean, and you know, not to, not to get into the, into the weeds on this stuff, because people's eyes will glaze over if we start talking about, about deviations. But, but my point is, um, you know, they're very impressive that you sort of sunk your time into that. And, um,

Speaker 2: 18:15

I've since actually, uh, he has written Jim Nessie, coauthored, the Kentucky version of that same book that you have in Arizona, and they're doing it for all 50 States. I think they have more than half covered now. And I have that book as well. So I know exactly what you're talking about it. And Jim, Jim is a great guy. If you ever been to a national college of DUI defense seminar, you would know. I mean, they're there, he's funny and it's impossible to not laugh when he's around you.

Speaker 3: 18:39

Yeah. He's awesome. He's an awesome guy. Joe's also amazing. And I'm going to the, uh, there's a, there's an NCC NCDD event in, um, how we're it's in Texas somewhere. Our Arlington, I think that is it's called the series science, the serious science blood course. I've never done that. So I'm going to meet my business partner and I are going out there. Uh, I think in September, I think is when that is. So I'm super excited about that going to do, you know, going to go through the entire crime lab and do all of the mechanics as a, as a, you know, as one of their, their own people would do it. So that's gonna be a lot of fun.

Speaker 2: 19:10

Yeah. Yeah. I was signed up for it, I think last year. And unfortunately, a jury trial came between me and, and the ability to do that. So over client who wants to go to trial,

Speaker 3: 19:20

Well, you'll get there, man. You know, it, it's, it's something that I think is, is absolutely going to be worthwhile, but it's really, for me, it's sort of a learning exercise and then I want to pass it along to our team here, uh, and, and see what they can do with it. But I'm excited to just sort of, you know, get into the weeds on it. So, so let me, let me, let me ask you a little bit more about, you know, sort of some of the work that you're doing on YouTube, right? So on your channel, you've got a, well, why don't you tell us about it? So you've got, you know, other body camera videos, and you're sort of analyzing certain situations with law enforcement, which is a lot of the same stuff that we do here. What prompted you to, to sort of, you know, go that direction because a lot of defense attorneys don't do that. A lot of defense attorneys just kind of, you know, want to squeak out a nice living. Don't want to rock the boat too much. You know, they just kind of want to plea plea a bunch of cases out, you know, grind through them and, you know, retire young, I guess I don't, what, what, what the end game there is, but, you know, there are those of us who say, well, we kind of, don't like what we are seeing in our justice system. And we want to emphasize accountability, transparency. We want to see some change. That's kind of the reason we went to law school and got into this field. So you're doing some of that same work, uh, you know, tell us about it. You know, what, what sort of prompted that direction with your practice?

Speaker 4: 20:29

Well, uh, I, I made

Speaker 2: 20:31

The antiquated in this, the way you describe it, w we seem to be the minority, which is, you know, it is absolutely scary to think about that every time I think about it, I realized, you know, this is what I believe lawyer works should be about. It's not, it's not about going after, uh, the system, you know, categorically or all it is is you have a case, you know, client comes to you with a problem and says, look, I have an issue. I have been arrested for blah, blah, blah, can you help me? And the lawyer really has two routes that they can take realistically. And I think you will agree. They can either just sit down with their buddy at the prosecutor's office and try and maintain that relationship and that friendship and make it grow stronger. And basically screw the client, take their money, get them maybe something good, maybe something bad. I mean, I'm sure you've heard of that whole, you know, quid pro quo. I gave you, uh, I gave you the last five clients. I actually need this one. So how about you dismiss it? It there's a lot of shady stuff going on all across the country. Nobody's a stranger to it. Everybody knows what it's happening. And then of course there, you have the polar opposite, the individuals who come in and they say, look, I'm going to provide my client with the defense and what we like to say in our office, we will present, uh, we will provide rather the best possible defense and, uh, we'll get you the best possible result. And we'll get there in the most efficient manner that we can. I like to save clients money. I am not just in the business of collecting money. If I can, if I can get a case resolved, amended down or dismissed, or what have you, without going to trial, even though this may be a very lucrative trial and I may win it and earn a large fee that client knowing that is going to go tell all their friends, and then you earn a whole lot more money with, um, what, what was that book, um, how to win friends and influence people by Dale Carnegie, you earn a lot more business with a drop of honey than a gallon of golf. And I think a lot of lawyers miss that, I, you know, I'm a salesman by trade, by trade, by by birth. It seems like, and it kind of has gone well into, into the trade. I, I am in the business of making people happy. And when you make people happy, more people flock to you. That's basically a principle that I think everybody should live by. And unfortunately it just, like you said, a lot of attorneys who are just, okay, I can make$500 off of this person. And then they Le leave this pleased. They're not going to. And WDS said it, right. It's a word of mouth referrals. There is nothing, no ads, no, no matter how much money you spend on television, we'll never beat word of mouth because that is somebody, you know, personally who comes to you and say, look, I hired that guy. He did a good job for me. You should too. And there's, there's nothing above that.

Speaker 3: 23:22

Yeah. Yeah. And I, you know, we, we joke about it in criminal law where, you know, there are certain attorneys out there, we call them, see them and play them type of attorneys. Right. You just see them, show them a plea plea I'm out. And that never sounded exciting to me as a lawyer. And, you know, at my first law firm that I didn't stay there long, you know, that's, that's sort of the philosophy that they were asking us to model that you just sort of, you know, it's, it's a, it's a mill type of firm where you just grind people through the system. And, you know, unfortunately we see that a lot in, in this country and, you know, sort of what irritates me about our justice system is that fact, it is this idea that, uh, you know, it, you know, people are, are, are names and case numbers. They're like Manila file folders. All we do is just put them through the system and whatever happens to them, you know, happens to them. Um, let me ask you sort of, you know, your, your take on the current state of affairs in our justice system, right. As we are witnessing right now, we're going through a really weird transformation in criminal law where we're seeing, you know, maybe the pendulum Swift pretty heavily one direction, and you know, you and I have not been practicing for 30 years, like maybe some of the other people that we've spoken about. And so we haven't seen, you know, as much as maybe they have, but, but I've certainly seen what I feel like a major shift that has developed over this last year, or even since the George Floyd act that happened in may of last year. It feels like, you know, the country is real sort of realigning in the fund, the police direction. And a lot of what we're hearing from our politicians, you know, people are kind of afraid to speak out about it. We've got Ron DeSantis out in Florida, who's now saying, well, we're going to give people, you know, we're going to give officers and law enforcement officials, you know, bonuses. Then you have the opposite side of that spectrum where people are saying, no, we're just going to define the police. Like we have elected congresspeople here that say, we want the police de funded. We don't want, you know, we don't want them anymore. And so, you know, you're a practicing criminal defense attorney, you're on a different part of the country than, than, than I'm at. Uh, you know, what's your take on this where, you know, how, how are you sort of assessing the entire state of affairs? I know it's a really broad question, but

Speaker 2: 25:23

No, no, I feel you and I actually, I have a very good answer, but before, before I do that, I just want to, the quick plug, actually, you gave me the opportunity for a plugin. I'm such an idiot talking about my passion for law, that I forgot to do the thing that I would like to do the channel, the channel that I started, the DUI guy originally, by the way, it had absolutely. I had no motivation in, in drawing in clients. I had no idea that this is going to draw such popularity, by the way, just real quick. Um, when I started, I just wanted to share my work. I w I love what I do, and I love sharing what I do. So for about five years, my, my channel was very dormant. I think I was at 700 subscribers, October, 2018, uh, last check there. And then, uh, and in January, something happened and it exploded and I started pumping more and more videos into it and turns out there's, there's an audience, there's an audience for this. I do courtroom work, um, uh, specifically. So I show, I showcase my work. We have, uh, cameras in the courthouse and I can order after the trial, I can order the tape. And then I post the most popular ones we have is the cross-examination of police officers of police officers. And that, I mean, we have millions, millions of views on just a few videos because they're, and they're amazing to watch. I mean, even me, myself, not trying to toot my own, but, you know, I'm like, I can't believe I asked that question. And the people say like, Oh, he paused right there. And it seems so intentional. Like I did, I had no idea that was intentional. You know, that was just because to be a good trial lawyer, you have to be a good actor. And I think, uh, Lawrence Taylor and, and Steven Oberman talk about it. But anyway, that's, that's my plug for my channel. Go, go check it out, guys. It is a lot of fun. A lot of, if you like Rob, um, you may like me as well. Who knows? Check it out.

Speaker 3: 27:09

Yeah. Yeah, definitely. And I, and I poked around you. You've got, you've got great stuff and I, I, I love what you're doing. I love that, you know, you're sort of showing behind the scenes a little bit. I don't do much litigating anymore. I'm sort of at that stage in my, with my firm that I've got more value. I provide more value to the team doing other things, but, but, you know, yeah. I was spoken around your videos and I was like, this is, this is great. You know, I think that the more people are able to see behind the curtain a little bit, the more it will help demystify some of maybe the, the, the misconceptions about how the justice system works. And, and, you know, I don't know if you followed any of the work that we did on the Derek Shovan trial, but that's what we were trying to accomplish. You know, we were just trying to show people, Hey, sometimes the system can, you know, work in, in a way that is not totally bananas. You know, not everything is a racist allegation, not everything is the opposite of that. And so, you know, it's, it's, I think what you're doing is, is a valuable service. And so I, you know, I appreciate the work that you're doing and I'm happy that you're doing what you're doing. And of course I encourage people to go check out your channel. And so, so I'm sorry.

Speaker 2: 28:08

Yeah, no. And I was gonna answer your earlier question. So, uh, here's, here's how I like to look at it in one sentence, the problem with the United States of America and the criminal justice system in the United States of America is that it is a purely for profit entity. It has, it is no longer it has lost its, its facets of, uh, making sure that people are safe and making sure that people are protected, you know, to protect, to serve. And a lot of people on YouTube I've even said it's to w what is it something to collect and to, uh,

Speaker 3: 28:40

Yeah. So, yeah, so the police are not there to serve and protect they're out there to tax collect.

Speaker 2: 28:46

Yeah. The tax and collect. There you go. And that's exactly what it is. This is the problem. And if you, I read this book when I, when I first started practicing and I had all the time in the world on my hands, um, I, um, it, it is just one little book. I even emailed the guy and he responded within like a day saying I've had this book out for 10 years. You're the first person to ever email me, you know, I'm that kind of guy, I reach out, I'm, I'm interested in. I like to network. Um, Michael is something I have that book somewhere. Anyway. It's about TIF tickets, how to, how to litigate a traffic ticket. And he starts to book with something very, very invaluable. Uh, he says that, you know, back in the 1960s, and this is how I, this is my take on it back in the 1960s. Um, this was back then, uh, they were the police officers, the police force were protecting and serving no question about it. There were, you know, the, the late generation of the, some of them were still alive, you know, from the, the Bobby's from England. They, they of got a lot of the pointers from there. Uh, this was way before the age of the internet. So newspapers are the only way of communicating really, you know, Telegraph and so on. So it was a very, very slow growth out of the whole, the, the beat, the beat cops were all over the place. You know, if you've seen the movie I was at[inaudible], I think with Al Pachino, you kind of get a feel for it, of what it was like in the late seventies. Uh, but the, the interesting thing is, is that, uh, they, the government realized very quickly if we, uh, if we charged like a hundred bucks for these, uh, traffic citations, and we put these beat cops on the highways and roads of America, cause everybody speeds. I mean, let's be honest here. Uh, you're you're going to be able to collect some decent money and that's where the problem really started. And maybe it was a natural evolution in Serpico. Thank you, rivers. I got the name wrong. Um, the, the problem was it became a revenue collecting, uh, entity enterprise. And that was the beginning of the end for it. And for about 20, 25 years, they capitalized on it until they realized, because I'm sure you're aware any type of business, any type of entity. Once it begins generating a certain type of revenue at first, it's basically extra, you know, off whatever else you're making, but then it becomes a necessity and you can't go without it, especially with inflation and so on. And all those factors coming in and in 1980, whatever, uh, mothers against drunk driving, uh, comes onto the scene. It's very hard to argue with an organization that's trying to eliminate drunk drivers off the street and say, no, no, no, no, no, no drunk driving is good. Let's keep driving, driving more than others on the streets.

Speaker 3: 31:22

Th th their mothers too, and their mothers. I mean, how exactly, how can you argue?

Speaker 2: 31:27

So it was, um, that was the continuation. So then they realized instead of a hundred dollars speeding, and I say a hundred dollars cause that's fines and Kentucky are fairly low. I know I have friends who have gotten pulled over in California, in New York tickets. There can be three, four, five,$600 a pop, um, you know, uh, but DUIs are triple that. So if for us, uh, tickets could be like a hundred and some odd dollars a w with a fine and court costs. DUIs can be upwards of seven,$800 with fines and court costs for a first offense. I mean, that's, that's an, you know, four to eight time profit margin. That's geez.

Speaker 3: 32:03

She, my friend it's, it's, it's 2,500 starting baseline, um, you know, here in Arizona, and then it goes up, you know, by the time you get Sr 22 insurance and interlock and all this other stuff, you're talking tens of thousands of yeah.

Speaker 2: 32:16

Dollars over the course of three to four years. It's crazy. Right, right. No, I'm saying that, that the initial, I mean, I'm not counting the lawyer fee. I'm not counting the insurance increase. I'm just saying the fines and court costs alone because those are the ones going directly to the state. The expenditure coming out of the client's pocket is going into many, many different directions, but specifically the police departments and the court entities and that, and I don't know what the next thing is going to be, but I'm sure looking, uh, at least they're capitalizing on DUIs are certain counties that will go to, uh, back when I used to go to court all the time. Now I have associates helping me out. Um, I would sit in a foreign County, you know, very small town and it is just, I'm sitting there. And they're calling DUI after DUI, after DUI, after DUI assault, case DUI, D Y D Y it's it's absolutely it's madness with what they're doing it. And a lot of these, what they're counting on is these people can't afford lawyers. They can't afford an attorney. They can't afford anyone looking into this case. So they're issuing DUIs, like candy to people, and then it's just revenue collection for the system.

Speaker 3: 33:15

Yeah. And what ends up happening, you know, I don't know if this is your experience as well, but we see this a lot. You know, oftentimes it's poor people, it's people who can't afford anything their car gets. So our, our laws are very draconian. I mean, it, it, Arizona has some of the toughest laws, my understanding, uh, in the entire country. And, you know, they, they, they impound your car automatically that they, you know, they charge revenue for that. When I was saying$2,500 for like a base fee, that is the base fee that goes to the government, then all of it's mandatory impound, mandatory interlock device, mandatory jail, all fees, all of that. Right. So, so for us, it's, you know, it's not that seven,$800 a pop it's, it's five grand go into the government easy. And, and it's the same process that you have just boom, you know, they just knock them out and they set up task forces and patrols, and what ends up happening. It's, it's, you know, they go out to certain areas where, you know, I'm not in an endorsing drinking and driving. I'm not encouraging people to do that. That's not anything that I think that is a good thing for society. But at the same time, you know, are we really talking about dissuading people from drinking and driving? Are we talking about, you know, stopping alcoholism and making sure that people are safe on the roads, or are we optimizing our law enforcement system to generate revenue? Because it feels like the latter two.

Speaker 2: 34:25

And by the way, fun fact, I, every new year's and I'm probably going to, once I generate enough revenue, I may do it a little bit more often. Every new year's I actually offer free Uber rides to people here in, in town who are here in Louisville. So December 31st, uh, you know, around 11:00 PM, I'll go on. Cause I usually don't go out. I don't drink. So I will sit on my phone and I'll wait for people to text me and say, Hey, if you, if you can't get an Uber, I will buy you an Uber. So you don't get a DUI. And that's 400 people. If you were like, aren't you, you know, you're, you're killing your own business, but that's not the point. If we, I always say, if we can eliminate DUIs are a problem. If we can eliminate DUIs altogether, am I going to be out of a job nonsense, I'm going to be going on doing the next thing. I mean, there's thousands of different areas of law. We can go into. I've went into law to teach police officers how to be better police officers. That's what we accomplished through cross examination. And I'm here to help people who have had a bad day because the majority of people that I'm sure you know, this Rob are not second, third, fourth, fifth, subsequent offenders. They're first offense, wrong place, wrong time, stupid decision divorce. You know, uh, you got an F your, your son is, is doing this and that, or your daughter and, and, and that's, uh, and they get caught. That's, that's pretty much it. I I've, I can't tell you maybe 50% of our clientele. This is the first time I've ever done anything like this. I have a clean record.

Speaker 3: 35:48

Oh yeah, totally. Yeah. And I say this all the time, even on the show, you know, Mo the vast majority of our clients are very good people. People like you and I, people, you know, who are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, all of the above teachers, you know, we, we represented every, you know, people from all walks of life and we've all, you know, we've all done something that maybe we should have been charged with a crime for it. Right. And we just didn't, we, that didn't happen to us for whatever reason, uh, but that doesn't happen to everybody else. And so, you know, my perspective has always been, let's help people get things back on track. Let's nudge them in the right direction without wrecking their lives through this overly punitive justice system. So, uh, we got a few more minutes left. I know, I know there's something that I want to ask you about and really dive in, but I know that we can't because it's currently pending, but I know that you did release this, this, uh, this video over on your channel. There's a new segment. Um, now, you know, there's, there's a defamation lawsuit that a police officer has filed against you. I know you can't talk much about it because it is pending, but, uh, is there anything you can tell us about kind of what's going on and, you know, really what I'm more concerned about is, you know, you, you're, you're, you're a lawyer and, you know, you've got legal resources and you've got malpractice insurance, you know, this officer's defamation cases and gonna, uh, you know, take you out of the game or anything like that, but it is stressful. And you do have to come out of pocket for a deductible, and you've got an additional lawsuit from a police officer that's coming your direction. That's going to take some of your time, which means you can't dedicate that time to your, I'm sorry, you, you can't, I'm not saying that you're not capable of dealing with this, but my point is, it's another thing. It's another rock in your backpack that a law enforcement officer is throwing your direction, that you have to deal with your insurance provider, does your firm does. And you've got more important obligations here to your clients and justice reform. And so you're caught in the middle of this thing and it irritates me and I'm not happy about it, but I just wanted it to, uh, to, you know, to get your take on it. And then I really want to ask where people can go and support you and help, you know, help sort of help you in this endeavor, because you're going to be dealing with this for the foreseeable future.

Speaker 2: 37:47

Sure. Well, I'm sure you, you know, the, the old adage, everybody has beaten that horse to death. He who he or she, who represents themselves has a fool for a client, uh, Abraham Lincoln being one of them. I think that's almost his direct quote just with the more political correctness modification, if you will. Uh, and of course, I don't represent myself in this lawsuit. I hired a farm. He, uh, the police officer hired a firm themselves, uh, himself. And, um, basically it was a video of a case that I litigated myself with my team. Uh, it, uh, the individual got pulled over for a DUI and, uh, he had several charges. Uh, one of them being, uh, like I said, DUI open container and I think expired license or something. There was a license issue and the DUI was dismissed. The license was dismissed. The only thing that was not dismissed was the open container, but there were beer cans inside the vehicle. So he played to the beer cans. Now the, the bottle is, this is, this is the main, this is the crux of the case. Uh, you can see officer number one, this is the officer suing me, officer number one, opens the center console, you know, reaches into it. You can, you can see that on, on his, it's a little skewed. So you can't see into the center console, but you can see things being moved around shuffled around the center console is then closed. And he moves away from the vehicle and fast forward a few minutes. And I, you know, people say, uh, this is edited footage, the ones who are against me, if you will, this is not edited footage. I edited that footage to make it consumable for YouTube. Uh, the original I have the originals and the originals are the exact same only with all the, the, the extra meat cut off. Uh, and, and the officer knows all of that. He knows he's guilty of what he did, but he's, he's not willing to accept it. And that's why he, he filed against me because here's what happened. So soon as he, uh, moves, moves away, his buddy, a few moments later, a couple of minutes later, he comes around the vehicle from the other side, and this is all on video. And I say, the video speaks for itself. And I said that even in the new segment, um, the, the, uh, he comes from the other side and here here's, here's the biggest, biggest thing about this whole thing. He asks his partner after his partner has already clearly searched and clearly gone through. I mean, he didn't just go from the center console. He, he searches the visor. He goes kind of underneath the seat. I mean, it's all, again, it's all on video. And, uh, he asks, are we good to search? First of all, why would you ask that? He's, he's already, you know, again, this is all on video. And, uh, and he beelines directly to the center console, boom, magic. I just, I didn't have a liquor bottle in my hand. I mean, the, the, the lawyer on the other side says, show me the money. There's your money.

Speaker 3: 40:51

Yeah. It was a pretty magical video. I did see it. I watched it over on your channel. I would encourage everybody to go check that out as well. And, you know, it's, you're, you're, you're doing the right work, right. You're doing you're out there. You're, you're speaking truth to power to these guys. And of course, there's going to be some arrows that come your direction. I'm glad that you've got, you know, some, some infrastructure and some resources to help you through it. But I also wanted to plug your, uh, over here, we've got your, um, uh, a PayPal donation page. So if you go over to the channel, uh, if you go over to your channel, I know, I know you probably don't want me to plug it, but I'm going to plug it for you anyways. So, you know, if you go over to the channel and you see there, there's a recent video there that that is the news clip. You just premiered it like eight hours ago. And your, your pin comment is of course, a link to PayPal. You've gotta, you've gotta, uh, you've gotta come out of pocket for your, uh, what do they call deductible, the deductible and the whole thing, you know, look, man, there, there are a lot of

Speaker 2: 41:48

Two firms. I had to hire a firm initially because we had to file a response, uh, an answer rather, excuse me, what to file an answer very quickly. So I had to hire somebody, you know, I couldn't sit on it. You got 20 days in Kentucky. I think it's everywhere. But anyway, um, and then, yeah, and then I hired the, the main firm that's doing the work for it. Now, the only reason I did that by the way is because somebody asked, okay, I was not, I was not even on my radar, just for the record. You know, I, if somebody asks, do you have a donation page? And I was like, here you go. You asked for it. Now you have it.

Speaker 3: 42:19

Listen, man. I would feel the same way. Right? I've never done anything like this. I've never put up a donation page or anything like that. So it would make me feel a little awkward as well. But you know, I can tell you this, there are a lot of people out there, a lot of people in this audience, a lot of people who don't like the idea that there are, there are law enforcement officers doing wrong things and then suing when they get called out on it. You know, that, that doesn't feel appropriate to me at all. So, you know, if anybody does want to support, you I'd encourage them to do that. Uh, and of course there's, there are some directions, you know, that way you're doing good work and you know, people want to support you on that. And so, um, so we're, we're happy to send them your direction.

Speaker 2: 42:55

I appreciate it, Robin. And thanks for having me. This has been a lot of fun.

Speaker 3: 42:59

Yeah. It's been my pleasure. So Larry Foreman, the DUI guy, we're going to plug your channel one more time. They can find you if you go over to the DUI guy, right. That's how they find you.

Speaker 2: 43:07

Yes. If they, so if, if you go, I mean, if you just search the DUI guy on, um, I'll just tell you a cute little story. I was in Acapulco, Mexico, uh, in, in August that as the pandemic was still in full swing, I, I was a traveler. I just decided to go and explore and take the risk. And again, knock on wood. We came back, nobody got sick with the pandemic. We, some of us got sick from the water, but that's a whole different story, uh, that we met some people there. And I said, look up the DUI guy on your phone right now and tell me what you have. And I was occupying like the top seven spots in Acapulco, Mexico. And geo-fencing there apparently. So I think if you just go on the internet, uh, type into DUI guy or go into YouTube type in the DUI guy, you can't miss me.

Speaker 3: 43:49

Awesome. Well, very cool. So you folks, you know how to do that? Go find the DUI guy, check out his latest video, detailing this whole saga with this officer, support him. If you can. Larry, thank you so much for being on the program. My friend we'll stay in touch. I know you're doing great work and I, and I want to continue to support your efforts. So thanks for being here. We'll catch you on the next one. My friend.

Speaker 2: 44:08

Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for having me and, uh, have a great weekend, everybody. All right.

Speaker 3: 44:12

So that was Larry Foreman, the DUI guy, and, uh, we're grateful that he was able to join us today. So if you want to go support him, of course, you know what the channel, uh, the DUI guy. And like I said, this is stuff that, you know, it really, really irritates me so, so much because of the fact that, you know, he's, he's, he's, he's doing good work out there. He's calling out officers.

Speaker 5: 44:32

He worked the case, knows what happened here. And when he speaks the truth about that on, on the poll, on a public forum, well, they flip out about it and they file a lawsuit. So he'll be all right. But if you want to send some love his direction, you know how to do that. So, all right. So very cool segment. Once again, thank you to Larry Foreman, the DUI guy for joining us, we are going to change gears a little bit, and we're going to talk about this Derek Shovan stuff. So let's get into it. Four X cops have been indicted on U S civil rights charges related to the George Floyd death. Of course, who are we talking about? It's Derek Shovan and company. We have towel foul. We have Jay Kung. We have Thomas Lane and of course, Derek Shovan. And this is something that I think is not a surprise. Everybody was basically bracing themselves for this because we knew that the DOJ was already investigating them. And to catch you up to speed, if you're not familiar with the story, Derek Shovan was convicted on all three counts in the killing of George Floyd, that was in a Minneapolis state court. So he is going to be sentenced and he's going to be serving time unless he gets a new trial. So that is already done and set. Now that is at the state level. We also have a federal level. The federal government now has been investigating these officers for different types of charges, and now a grand jury has indicted them. So let's go into the story. Then we're going to take a look at the actual indictments themselves from federal court. So, first and foremost, we're going to go over to AP news, tells us here that a federal grand jury has indicted four former Minneapolis police officers. They're saying that they willfully violated the black man, George Floyd's constitutional rights as he was restrained face down on the pavement and gasping for air. We all know that Shovan was convicted last month. They were saying that they're also charging these people with violating Floyd's right, to be free from unreasonable seizure and unreasonable force by a police officer Tao and Kang. They're also charged with violating Floyd's right, to be free from an unreasonable seizure and accused of not intervening to stop Shovan as he felt as he knelt on Floyd's neck. So they're all charged with failure to provide Floyd with medical care. And so we're going to look at all these different charges as they're broken down in the indictment, they say here that Shovan was also charged in a 2017 case. So if you remember, there was some, you know, some stories going around that as the Floyd trial was unfolding, that there were a lot of incidents where Derek Shovan had prior problems, right? Prior negligence or prior misconduct on his record. And there was a back and forth about whether or not the government was going to be able to talk about those things. And when the government tried to talk about those things, the defense said, well, if you talk about Derek Chauvin's priors, and we're going to talk about George Floyd's priors. And the judge said, yeah, that's, that's pretty fair. So the judge decided, instead, we're going to keep both sides out. Nobody gets to talk about those things, but because the feds can still continue to look into these. And because the statute of limitations apparently is not expired. They are also charging Derek Shovan with civil rights violations from a 2017 case from one of those prior incidents of misconduct. This involves a 14 year old boy. And in this indictment, let's see here that the indictment in Floyd's death was handed down about a week after prosecutors brought hate crimes charges in the death of a mod Arbery the justice department is shifting its priorities to focus more on civil rights issues, criminal justice, overhauls, and policing policies, laying Dow and Kong made their initial appearances Friday today via video conference in the U S district court in Minneapolis Shovan has not yet made his initial appearance. He's still in custody. He awaits sentencing coming up soon. Other officers face trial in August, Eric Nelson, the attorney who it was arguing and representing Derek Shovan left. No comment about these new charges. He may not even be representing him. You know, Eric Nelson may only be focused on the state law case and not the federal court case. So maybe, you know, uh, Shogun is going to get a new attorney or the police union, or whoever is funding. This defense. They're going to go hire a different attorney to deal with the federal charges. Cause it's a whole different system. It's a whole different case. We have Ben Crump, the team of attorneys for Floyd's family say that the civil rights charges reinforce the strength and the wisdom of the constitution. Yeah, it's a lot. It's a lot of strength and wisdom there.$27 million worth Al Sharpton said the federal charges show, the justice department does not excuse it, nor allow police to act as though what they do is acceptable behavior in the line of duty, what we couldn't get them to do in the case of Eric Garner, Michael Brown Ferguson and countless others. We're finally seeing them do today. And I'm very curious about this. You know, we already know that juror number 52, Brandon Mitchell, who was a part of the underlying state level trial, I'm gone talking back about the state law case. They, we know that this juror basically lied on the form. I mean, I think it's kind of unequivocal at this point. The forum question, have you been to any protests that had anything to do with police brutality or police use of force? He said no on that. Well, he did in fact, and he wore a shirt to prove it. And there's multiple pictures of that. We've already covered that ad nauseum, but now we have this new federal case on top of that. So the point is if that juror was problematic, if that undermines the legitimacy of the final verdict, if we're going to get a potential new trial, now we have another federal case on top of it. So remember what the big complaint has been with. Shovan already, thus far, it said he didn't get a fair and impartial trial,$27 million settlement, Maxine waters. The list goes on and on and on no change of venue. The Dante writes shooting no revolt deer of any of the jurors, uh, except by for the settlement. And the list goes on and on. Now we have the potential for Derek Shovan to be remanded for a new trial. And we have the federal justice department coming out and charging him with new crime. So now everybody's going to know about that. So if Derek Shovan does in fact get a second trial, now we're going to have to ask about that and Dante right, and Maxine waters and the 27 million and on and on and on. So what's happening is we're seeing a dog pile from other areas of the country. Everybody's just dumping everything on right now. And it's going to impact the, the, the ability to get a fair trial down the line. If that does come to fruition, we go back to the article, Minnesota attorney general, Keith Ellison, whose office is prosecuting the state charges. So the federal government is responsible for protecting the civil rights of every American and federal prosecution is entirely inappropriate. It's entirely appropriate to bring federal charges in deaths involving the police. Prosecutors must believe an officer acted under the color of law or government authority and willfully deprive someone of their constitutional rights. That's a high legal standard and accident, bad judgment, simple negligence on the officer's part. Isn't enough to support federal charges. Prosecutors have to prove the officer knew what he was doing was wrong in that moment, but did it anyways, right? That's a, how do you prove that? How do you prove that without Derek Chauvin's testimony, they got to get into his mind

Speaker 6: 51:28

That he knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway,

Speaker 5: 51:31

Is how do you prove that difficult if convicted on the federal counts, a sentence for each officer would be based on complicated formulas and sentencing guidelines. Yeah, that's true. In Chauvin's case, if the federal court uses secondary murder as his underlying offense to face anywhere from 14 years to more than 24, depending on whether he takes responsibility, former federal prosecutor, Mark Osler us a university of St. Thomas law school said that, uh, guidelines clearly state that any sentence would be served at the same time as the state sentence. So, uh, he's he's saying that they would be running concurrently. So let's say for example, Derek, Shovan his sentence for 10 years in state court. Then he goes over to federal court and he sentenced to 14 years. Oh my goodness. He's got two sentences. What happens? They start at the same time, right? Or he would get credit for both of them. So in other words, he would not have to do 10 years and then stack 14 on top of that, he would be able to get credit for the time served. So basically he be serving 14 years, 14 would include the 10 because they're running concurrently. The indictment in Floyd's death says that thal income we're aware Shovan had his neon Floyd's neck willfully failed to intervene. They say the other indictment against Shovan only alleges. He deprived a 14 year old of his right to be free of unreasonable force. When he held the teen by the throat, hit him in the head with a flashlight, held his knee on the boy's neck and upper back while he was prone handcuffed. And unresisting according to a police report from the 2017 case, Shovan wrote that the team resisted arrest. And after the teen whom he had described as being six foot two and 240 pounds was handcuffed. Shovan used his body weight to pin him to the floor. The boy was bleeding from the ear and needed two stitches. So that's great. So we have more confirmation that Derek Shovan is actually human garbage. So that's a lot of fun. Now it's not indicative that he killed George Floyd, right? He can be a overly aggressive, terrible human being, but it doesn't mean that he caused Floyd's death. Alright. FBI says four former Minneapolis police officers have been indicted on federal civil rights charges for the death of George Floyd. He's also been charged with a several, a separate indictment for violating the rights of the juvenile. This is the statement that comes over from the justice department. We're not going to read the entire thing, but you see a lot of this mirrors. What we've already talked about. The three count indictment ledges, all four defendants acting under the color of law, violated title 18 us code count one alleges that he on May 25th, we have a Floyd charge is writing on the back of the arm. Count two says that Talon Kong willfully failed to intervene. That's for count two, we have a separate two count indictment. Also charges Shovan with willfully willfully depriving the Minneapolis resident, 14 years old of his constitutional right to be free from the use of unreasonable force held the teenager, struck the throat, hit him in the head with a flashlight, teen, uh, and continued to have his knee on his neck and upper back after the teenager was lying, prone, handcuffed, and unresisting. So he had a very similar case. It sounds like in 2017 and the police department didn't do anything about it. Just let him keep going. So that's good. Both indictments charge violations of title 18. If government employees like police officers use or misuse power, they're acting under the color of law. An indictment this press release says is merely a formal accusation of criminal conduct. The defendants are presumed innocent. Yeah. Right. Does anybody believe that anybody believed the George Floyd cops are presumed innocent? Yeah. Right. Until they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law charges announced today are separate from the justice department's of civil pattern or practice investigation into the city charges. Announcer also separate from the charges brought against the officers related to the state's charges. Federal charges are different from criminal offenses, alleged different criminal offenses, principal, deputy. Okay. And everybody else is very happy congratulating themselves and listing their names. So we, we know what the FBI is doing. Not a surprise. Everybody was expecting this. We knew this was coming down the pike. We knew they've been investigating this for some period of time. There was some conversation, even back during the Trump administration, involving bill BARR, where apparently they were discussing a potential plea deal. And according to some news sources out there, attorney general, bill BARR under the Trump administration eliminated the possibility of a plea deal, which means that maybe they were also considering federal charges as well. Who knows? I don't know if this is a Biden thing or, uh, or, or this is just a DOJ thing, but yeah, it was it, here it is. We have the general allegations. Oh. And by the way, let us not forget that this was coming either way, right? The feds had a plan in place that if Shovan were acquitted during the trial, if the jury came back and said not guilty on all counts, they were gonna arrest him anyways. They were not going to go through this process though. So what I'm going to show you is a grand jury indictment. I've talked about this a few times on the show, different ways you can start formal criminal charges. One would be through sort of a direct complaint. The other is through a grand jury indictment, two different processes that will get you to the same spot, but they had not done the grand jury indictment for Derek Shovan yet. So if Shovan would have been acquitted back during the state court trial, they would have tried, it sounds like a direct complaint style approach for introducing the charges and then conducting the arrest immediately. There, obviously that didn't happen. He was convicted on all three counts. And so he went into custody that gave them time to submit this to a grand jury. And then now here we are. So we see that this was filed scanned yesterday on may six at a us district court for Minneapolis. See that down here, we have the indictment. It says U S district court for the district of Minnesota. So this is federal court general allegations. There Shovan was employed by Minneapolis police more than 18 years. Thigh was also there for eight years. We have Alexander Kong started December, 2019. Thomas Lane also started 2019. Floyd was 46 years old, count one deprivation of rights under civil law. So they're saying that Shovan did everything that we've already talked about, right? Floyd was basically willfully deprived of his right to be free from an unreasonable seizure, includes the right to be free from unreasonable force by a police officer. And you'll sorta notice here, right? That they're all saying that these are all in violation of 18 us code section two 42 and two. Let's see where these other ones. Yeah. So 18 us code section two 42. And it goes on. So here we have count two. This goes over to Tao and J Alexander King. They say that they are same, same charges right there. They're willfully deprived Floyd from being free from unreasonable seizure. And we have another one down here. This is for all four officers. They saying the officer's deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. So those so three different counts in this one charge. We have a true bill signed off on by the foreperson, very likely filed in court yesterday, four pages long, three different counts. That is the first indictment. Then we have a second set of indictment or a second indictment with two counts that are going back over to Derek Shovan. So let's take a look at that. This is again, the indictment coming over from the same court. You're going to notice here that we have a juvenile. So we have the general allegations. There are Shovan at this time back in 2017, it looks like was employed for more than 16 years. Juvenile was a 14 year old student resident of Minneapolis paragraphs one and two are incorporated. We have Derek Shovan willfully deprived. This juvenile have the ability to be free from unreasonable seizure, which includes the right to be free from police force. They say here, the juvenile one was struck in the throat, was held by the throat and struck multiple times in the head with a flashlight. This offense includes the use of a dangerous weapon. A flashlight resulted in bodily injury to juvenile. Number one, Shovan again, actively deprived juvenile. One of the right to be protected by the constitution. And unreasonable force says that he held his knee on the neck and the upper back of juvenile one, even after juvenile one was lying prone, handcuffed, and unresisting resulted in bodily injury as well. So those are those two indictments. Now, you know, we'll see if they're able to prove those moving forward, but they're going to have to deal with them. So my understanding is that the three officers have already posted bond. So everybody other than Derek Shovan posted$25,000 bonds. So they're all out of custody again. And Derek Shovan has not yet made his court appearance, but he wouldn't be allowed out anyways, because he's already been convicted. He has yet to be sentenced, but he's going to remain in custody, uh, absent the sentencing or absence or remand for a new trial. So let's take a quick look@somequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, which if you want to support the show, that's the place to do that. First up on the program today is Liberty or death says, DOJ knows that Shovan has a good cause for appeal and they don't want the other three to get off. However, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that knowing the other three officers have been indicted federally would sway the state jury under the separate sovereign doctrine. They can still be charged by the state, but will the state give it to the feds? Yeah. So sort of the interplay between the two, between the two charges, right? So Liberty is saying, well, what about those three other officers? So now they have not had their trial yet. Derek Shovan had his trial. So, all right, he's already been convicted if the fed stack on charges on top of Shovan. So what, how is he going to be prejudiced? Because he's already been convicted, right? How are they going to convict him again? So what, what is really the prejudice, even if he was convicted again, or is in federal court, those are going to run concurrent. So it's only going to sort of aggravate a current penalty that he's already serving time for because the jury has already found that he did that. So in this situation with the other three officers that has not happened yet, they have not been convicted of anything Shovan has, but they haven't been convicted of contributing to Floyd's cause of death or aiding and abetting or whatever the formal charges are there, that they still enjoy the presumption of innocence. So now we're sort of rewinding the clock, going back to the same concept. Now, what if different governmental bodies are dog piling on one particular defendant because they don't want to lose the case. You've got the feds now stacking charges on top of these other three officers, because maybe they're concerned that maybe they walk or maybe Derek Shovan walks because juror 52 blew the entire trial. And maybe this thing is coming back down for a remit. We don't know. It's a good question there. Liberty or death. I think it is definitely worth toying around with, you know, are the feds improperly prejudice, prejudicing, these three still presumed innocent defendants, the middle sisters in the house as why didn't the prosecution or the defense find the photo of the juror prior to, or during the jury selection. So it's a great question. You know, maybe they just didn't find it. Maybe they looked, but maybe he deactivated his Facebook account. Maybe they were hiding some of this evidence. Right? You can go on Facebook, deactivate, it reactivate it. Maybe they just didn't know to look. And it was posted by an uncle. Maybe they didn't know the name of the uncle. So there's a lot of reasons why it didn't come out. But you know, the internet is a very powerful thing. I mean, I think the internet found that stuff, not opposition research from the defense or the prosecution, the internet is way more powerful than any of those other consultants or agencies or tech, whatever, as soon as his name came out, Brandon Mitchell, because he sought that publicity. Boom. Right? You got tons of people with, uh, a lot of serious skills going in there and unearthing the truth about him. So I think that it was probably just a practical thing that[inaudible] says they don't need to prove anything. Most juries have no clue. They either like, or don't like the defendant I've served on enough juries to know. Yeah. Well, isn't that nice? Isn't that correct? So are you saying that all my hard work is for not Bessie Manto I know in many cases that you're right, right. I've seen this firsthand and I'm being sort of facetious because it is frustrating, but I have done trials where I've walked into the room and I've looked at every juror's face and just gone. Well, that's, it don't even say a word. I remember one clearly going, Ugh, because every single person just didn't like how I looked and like how my client looked for some reason, or they had a bad day, bad morning, didn't get whatever they wanted in their coffee, but you could just tell, they just, they just don't like you. Right. And they, and they may prejudge, which is why I'm on here all the time, screaming about the presumption of innocence, because it has been watered down to the point where really, I don't even know that it exists. I think you can tell jurors, Hey, presumption of innocence and they still go, Oh yeah, I know what that means, but I still think he's guilty though. Right? That's fair. That's not how it works. Underscore shades says wasn't that teen literally trying to kill his mom, that there was a sister involved in it. Also, what was that one? Oh, are you talking about the 2017 case? So I don't know the backstory on that. Yeah. I don't, I don't know. I just know, uh, what we saw in the indictment. I don't know. Maybe there was some other context of that, but you know, hitting a 14 year old kid cracking his head open with a flashlight, it sounds a little on the face of it. It doesn't sound good. Want to know, says who is going to prosecute all the murderers destruction during the protest. Aren't those illegal to where laws changed and no one died dead. People are still dead. It's now illegal to burn down. Government buildings must be under new sensible murder and burn, destroy other properties, laws that were passed. So want to know who was going to prosecute all the murderers? If the police or what? Defunded? I don't know. AOC probably. Right. Isn't she? One of the people who wants to defund the police, maybe she can take control of it along with Cory Bush and, uh, Jamal Boden, I think is his name and the, you know, all of the other ones, they can, they can prosecute everybody. All right. Good questions. Once again, those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. So if you want to support the show, that's the place to do it. And we really much appreciate it. And so next segment, we're going to talk about farmers are now getting into it with the Biden administration. We're talking about the department of agriculture and some relief bills that the Biden administration are proposing. Largely there. These are to address some of the problems, many farmers throughout America face during the COVID era. When the country was sort of in panic mode, people were locking down. People were losing their jobs and other markets across the country in the world were, have, were, and are still severely disrupted. So the federal government of course, is trying to come out there and fix it because that's what they claim they want to do is fix a bunch of things. So they are trying to do that right now. And one of the mechanisms by which they want to accomplish that goal is by passing the American rescue plan act of 2021, which is, I think in effect right now. And this is something that is interesting. Lee being applied. It's sort of promising certain revenue to certain farmers, but not other ones. What's that's sounds discriminatory. Is it? Well, that's what this gentleman is saying. He is suing the federal government on that basis saying that these discriminatory policies are unconstitutional. So we're going to go over to the epoch times for this article. They did some of the heavy lifting written by CATA. Bella Roberts says that a farmer is suing the byte administration over the racist COVID relief plan. Disabled white farmer has sued president Joe Biden over his loan forgiveness program alleging he can't participate because why he is white. Adam FoST is the name of the guy. He's a white resident of child tin Cal moat County in Wisconsin. One of five Midwestern farmers who filed a lawsuit on April six that accuses the federal government of violating their constitutional rights. Other plaintiffs are farmers from Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, Ohio. They have direct loans with the farm service agency or the USDA back loans that are otherwise eligible for loan forgiveness program and an ARPA except for the color of their skin, according to the lawsuit. So this is happening right now, like in 2021, right now we're talking about federal government, uh, helping people repay loans and doling out money based on the color of their skin today. Attorneys for the Wisconsin Institute for law and Liberty filed the suit on behalf of white farmers in federal court in green Bay, Wisconsin, as per the lawsuit, the American rescue plan act of 2021 provides 4 billion to forgive loans for quotes, socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers to the phrase. Socially disadvantaged includes explicit racial classifications, according to the lawsuit, which States that in order to be eligible for arepas debt relief, farmers and ranchers must be black, native American, Hispanic, Asian American, or Pacific Islander contends that other farmers, white farmers for example, are ineligible. We're going to look at this, right? I'm going to show you the screenshot from the department of agriculture's website here in a minute, but let's take a quick look at the rest of this article. We're plaintiffs eligible for loan, forgiveness benefits. The lawsuit says they would have the opportunity to make additional investments in their property, expand their farms, purchase equipment and supplies and otherwise support families and local communities. But plaintiffs are ineligible to even apply for the program solely due to their race. They have been denied equal protection of the law and therefore suffered harm lawsuit request the court, enter a temporary and preliminary injunction preventing defendants from applying racial classifications when determining eligibility for loan, mods, and payments to declare the racial classifications are unconstitutional. Foster was the owner of foster farms branded the program as racist. He says it was just out and out racist. I really don't think that there should be racism allowed in the federal government at any level, if somebody's green, I think they should be allowed to participate based on their actual qualifications for the program, not just picking an arbitrary thing like race. I don't see where they're going to be impacted by any different than anybody else. You said I've never seen any government program based solely on that. I mean, if it would have been against any other race, everybody would have been on board and been complaining immediately. So if he said that this program was reversed and it was only going out to let's say Caucasian farmers, would that be okay? No. Is his argument. He says, no. As per a press release, which we're going to look at in the next slide, by the U S department of agriculture published on April 29th, the American rescue plan included provisions for the USDA to pay up to 120% of loan balances as of June, um, January one, 2021 for the farm service agency direct and guaranteed farm loans and farm storage facility loans, debt relief to any socially disadvantaged producer. All right. So that's a lot of mouth. That's a mouth full of stuff. What is the saying? If you're an eligible former farmer, you're somebody who's in a socially disadvantaged category. You can get up to 120% of your loan balance forgiven. So that sounds like more than the underlying loan, right? I mean, if you take out a hundred dollars and a, you want to, for USDA to pay up to have loan balances, okay, so you borrow a hundred dollars and you have a loan out, you owe a hundred dollars on USDA. They're going to pay you 120% of that loan balance. So you get$120 to pay back your$100 loan. It's what it sounds like to me, us department of agriculture told Fox 10 that it was reviewing the lawsuit with the department of justice, but the USDA plans to continue to offer loan forgiveness to socially disadvantaged farmers. So now we've got to take a look. We know there's a press release from the U S department of agriculture. What are they talking about? Here is this article, right? Let's dive in. This is from the USDA creating equitable opportunities. And you can go to their website. This is a.gov website. Take a look at this. This is, this is, this is on the U S department of agriculture website. We're talking about the government entity that helps our farmers grow food, corn, wheat, vegetables, whatever else, farmers grow everything, right? They grow a lot of stuff and animals, all of it. I love farmers. Cause I like to eat. This is on their website. That's their primary function, growing food for humans to eat. So what, okay, so let's see what the government wants to do about this first and foremost, they want to create equitable opportunities. So equitable is the new buzzword, uh, of this administration says here on the U S department of agriculture website for decades, systemic racism, Oh God, he really is systemic. It's everywhere. Everywhere you turn everything you say, everything you do now, everything you eat, it's racism. it. Cycles of debt. And lack of access to programming have left the marginalized communities in the agricultural space at a deficit. The COVID-19 pandemic only exacerbated these longstanding challenges in the communities where black, Hispanic, native American, Asian, Pacific Islander, and other socially disadvantaged producers live and farm you'll notice in here missing a demographic of Caucasian people. The U S so they were not injured by this because they're not socially disadvantaged. You see USDA has committed to creating a department that provides access to opportunity for all Americans and do address cumulative systemic barriers for socially disadvantaged farmers. So accordingly, they're going to give up to 120% of loan balances back to any socially disadvantaged producer who has a qualifying loan. We're going to take important steps towards enacting these debt relief provisions, including contacting letter lenders, distributing resources on loan, forgiveness, and collecting data on eligible borrowers. All right. So they also a portion over a billion dollars for other purposes, including the creation of an equity commission. Oh, that's nice equity commission. That's good. Which will identify and offer solutions for addressing and removing longstanding discrimination in the USDA. But we also have to take a look at this under the rescue plan. What is this? What if we click here

Speaker 7: 1:13:08

Learn more? What if we're, what if we're in one

Speaker 5: 1:13:10

Of these groups we say, Hey, you know, we're a farmer. Hey, I'm a white farmer. Maybe I want to it's I didn't see white people are available for this equitable opportunity. So I want to click this, learn more button right here. And let's see what that says. So who is in fact, an eligible borrower. If we click that, it takes us here eligible borrowers include those who identify as one or more of the following black African-American American, Indian, Alaska, native, Hispanic, Latino. We have Asian-American we have Pacific Islander, the American rescue plan act. But wait, there's, there's a whole, there's a whole section missing here. There's a whole, there's a whole group of people missing form 80, 20, 47 says, well, listen, if you're confused, like I was about a missing group, uh, you know, Hey, what if you're a white guy? And you're also socially disadvantaged because of other disadvantages, let's say you have an intelligence disadvantage, or you grew up poor, or you have a medical problem or a health problem, or let's say you're. I mean, what if you have certain sexual orientations or certain pronoun use? I mean, aren't, aren't they also socially disadvantaged. I don't know. So I it's, it's confusing for me. So if you are in that position, you're also confused. Good news. You can go take a look at form 82, zero four seven. If you're uncertain of your demographic designation on file with the government at the FSA. Well, you can just contact your local service center to verify your classification. So if you, uh, if you don't know your race, if you don't know, if you qualify, you can update, you can correct your form. You can work with your local service center to update your record, including your race and ethnicity. Just go make sure it's on file with the federal government so that you too can get your loans forgiven at 120%. Thank you, federal government for helping to solve racial equality in America. That's nice. Good job. We have the disabled farmer now is suing the byte administration. He says here at FOSS has racism against anybody is wrong. This is the farmer. He was on Tucker Carlson. We've got a clip of that. I want to just give you a quick transcript here. He says racism against anybody is wrong. We can't have a government picking and choosing who they are going to give any program to based solely on the color of their skin. His attorney, his name is Rick Eisenberg pointed out that this law is discriminating against certain races can not be legal and press the universal move towards equity is damaging to the American principle. So we have the clip here, here. He was on Tucker. I think this was last night. Uh, wait, I forgot. I forgot. We are doing the, uh, we're doing the interview set up. So I have to share my screen. I forgot about that much. Apologies. Here we are here shortly and we're going to share the audio. So I don't botch this. All right. There it is.

Speaker 8: 1:16:09

Thanks both for coming on today. Um, Adam, to just summarize for us why you're filing the suit, if you would. Okay.

Speaker 9: 1:16:20

Oh, well basically just because Ray says, I mean, racism against anybody is wrong and we can't have a government that's been picking and choosing who they're going to give any, uh, program to based solely on the color of their skin.

Speaker 8: 1:16:40

So you grew up in this country. I can tell by your accent weren't you taught all along the way that that was contrary to the constitution to federal law, to Martin Luther King's vision of America. Are you surprised by this

Speaker 9: 1:16:53

Extremely? I mean, like you said, everything that we've all learned growing up is racism was wrong. And now all of a sudden the federal government seems to think that racism is acceptable in certain ways and yeah. Should never be accessible acceptable. No it shouldn't. And if you complain about it, you're a white supremacy.

Speaker 5: 1:17:18

Yep. Yep. We know how that goes. Don't we? All right. So let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com here on this segment, we've got norovirus in the house as Robert, you should read the book metabolically interview with Dr. Robert Lustig here comes his interview with the controversial Dr. Mercola. All right. So that's over on YouTube. I will take a look at that norovirus. I love your suggestions. She said, this is widely known in our society that in reality, white, Caucasian people have been discriminated against since 1990. There is no such thing as white privilege. There is white privilege. There's white unprivileged, and there has been for some time, starting from universities funds for education, loan taxes, anything you name it. There is systemic racism against white people. Whoa, noro. That's that's a spicy meatball right there. Thank you for serving that up. So delicious. We have Sharon quit and he says good for the farmer and he's disabled as well. How do you like his chances? The federal aid based on race? How on earth could they expect to get away with this? It's Jim Crow aimed at white people. Worst of all. It indicates an open embrace of CRT racism as the basis for economic redress, Marxism, pure and simple, but with race as the basis for justice and equity, it is surprising to me. It's like our federal government is actually reallocating funds based on race. And I am of the same mindset. I thought that that was inappropriate, but I, I think that it's changing now. I think racism is okay. As long as it's against white people. I think that's the new reality here because white people are systemically racist. So anything that hurts them is okay, even though it's sort of the same definition of race, I don't know it's confusing, which is why I have to go check out that form that the department of agriculture put up. Cause I don't know what the heck is going on. Liberty or deaths as welfare was being sold as reparations. How about this? Are we good now? Yeah. You know, I be curious about the reparations. I just want to know what the number is, you know, just, just, just for an idea, you know, it's like you drive around, you look at that house. That's a nice house. I wonder what that costs could I ever afford to live there? Probably not. Maybe, you know, I hope so. One day I'm working hard for that, but, but maybe not, but I still want to know what it costs, right? Oh,$60 billion or$60 million. Yeah. Probably not going to get that house anytime soon. Right. But you still want to know same thing with reparations. What's the number really? What is it like? What, what are we talking about? What does this framework look like? I would just like to know what the, what the concept is. What's the proposal I'd like to know. I'd like to go through it and see if it makes any sense. If it makes sense, maybe we solve the whole thing. Let's see what the numbers are. What are the numbers on the reparations? Somebody draft that up and let's take a look. All right. Great questions from watching the Watchers dot locals dot last segment of the day Golin Maxwell. Is she going to take a plea deal? Are you kidding me after all this? Is she really going to take a plea deal and close this case out? I don't know, but one of the attorneys who's involved in the case is hinting at that. We're going to go to this story from the sun.com. And we're going to take a look at some activity that's going on in Glenn's case, we're going to do a little bit of backstory because the sun gives us some details here about another attorney who is involved in the case, speculating that maybe there are some plea negotiations taking place. And so remember if you're not familiar with criminal law, to the extent that that maybe I am, of course, when you're charged with a crime, a couple of things can happen that are going to dispose of the case. So one is the government could just dismiss it. Oh, we charged you with a crime. We don't think we can prove this anymore. We're going to file a motion to dismiss. And the whole case goes away. Is that going to happen with Glen Maxwell? Definitely not. So the, the other way more common ways that these cases are resolved is one, somebody takes a plea deal. They say, listen, I know I've been charged with these serious offenses since you're going to give me a lesser deal. Since if I'm convicted of, let's say in the, in the Derek Shovan case, if you're convicted of all three, maybe you serve, you know, I don't know, 10 years in jail, but as part of a plea deal, we're going to say, well, we're going to give you a one of these charges and we're going to reduce the 10 year plea down to a five years. So you get a benefit by taking the plea deal. The government gets a conviction. They don't have to impanel a jury. They don't have to risk the possibility of losing a case. So it kind of makes everything happy, everybody happy. We saved some judicial resources and the whole thing moves on. That's one way to do it by taking a plea deal. The other way to do it is just to go to a trial, right? And I'm just like what happened with Shovan. There was no plea deal. So he went forward, he had a trial and he got convicted, not disposes of the case. So many people have been speculating that with Glenn's case that a lot of this was about preparing for trial and sort of overwhelming overburdening the government with paperwork and sort of this chaos theory where every single thing that the government does to prosecute the case, opens the door for a whole slew of, of defenses. And we saw this happening, right? The government was accusing Maxwell's attorney, Bobby star stern, Heim of giving Ms. Maxwell, some documents that she was not allowed to give her. And of course that opened up a whole can of worms. Ms. Maxwell's attorney now is responding back over to the government and saying, are you accusing me of doing something improper? Oh, how about this? How about I want, I want records of every single thing that you've ever done ever. And I'm entitled to that because you're accusing me of misconduct, right? And it's really getting aggressive. So now as this story pops out, that she is likely to cut a plea deal is raising some eyebrows. As I mentioned, this comes over from the sun. It says, will she survive? This story was written yesterday by Emma Perry. This is an exclusive to the sun Golin Maxwell quote, likely to cut a plea deal, but may face the same fate as Epstein. If his powerful pals find out that better not have it, folks, I will be so mad earlier this week, a judge agreed to Maxwell's request that the trial, which was scheduled to start in July is put back until the end of the year after the prosecution added more charges. Right? And I had been saying this, I knew this was going to happen. This case is not going to happen. Remember the prosecution disclosed 2.7 million pages of documents like a skyscraper worth of documents. Literally my Fox did the analysis on it. I think it was like 983 feet of documents. It was insane. So are they going to really have a trial scheduled in June? No, of course not. Maxwell denies all wrongdoing. She's pleaded not guilty to sex trafficking and other charges over her alleged role in procuring for teenage girls for former lover Epstein to abuse between 94 and 2004 coven speculates that there is a high likelihood that there is a, that the delay is because Maxwell is negotiating a plea deal in which she would hand over incriminating evidence on Epstein's powerful pals to avoid a public trial and get a shorter sentence. So what they're talking about here would be something we talk about in criminal law called a free talk. It's a, Hey, you're a defendant. Who's being charged with crimes, but you've got some powerful information that the government really wants. So if you're going to freely give up that information in a free talk format, meaning you're going to have government investigators come in, you're going to sign some sort of immunity deal. You're going to tell them everything, spill your guts about everything. Maybe they'll give you a better deal. Remember when I said, you're going to, they're going to give you a benefit for not going to trial. Maybe you'll get a really good benefit if you're going to give them some information that is useful to them in their prosecution of other people. So we have the, the story continues. It says here, let me, uh, go back to this. It says here that initially I'm not surprised by the delay in criminal proceedings, by a case as complex as this, especially one where people were added to the claims later on that would get you a continuance of a trial date. And remember they did charge her with new charges, which is why I was always saying that this doesn't make any sense that this was going to happen. 2.7 million doc pages of documents, new charges, the list goes on and on no way, they're going to get this scheduled for this summer. Having said that, I think there's a high likelihood. Given the delay that what is going on behind the scenes is that they are probably discussing the negotiation of a deal. And ultimately she will never end up in front of a jury and she will cut a deal. The question then becomes if the powerful people that don't want her to cut a deal, learn about the deal before it's decided. And before she is convicted, will she ultimately survive the deal? Okay. Maybe the same thing was happening with Epstein. Nobody, nobody knows nobody has any idea what happened there. Uh, everybody sort of just, Oh, shucks, lost another one and moved on with the story. So anyways, it says here, because any deal she cuts would have to include jail time. Although she is currently in jail time, I don't think there's any way that the us attorney's office could save face in this matter, unless there was jail time attached. If she's in jail. Part of her deal is to turn evidence over against powerful people. She's aware of that might also be prosecuted. And I think there ultimately would be a high likelihood that something on toward what happened. I believe that it's likely that if she ends up with jail time, that she could meet the same fate as Jeffrey Epstein, Oh, Kuvan believes that Maxwell may have damaging information, that it could implicate powerful men all over the world. She said, Golin has information dating back over 20 years, plus with respect to not just Epstein, but others in the circle that Epstein brought into the organization. So it's going to involve powerful men in the States and the UK and other countries too. We know from reading Epstein's little black book, that he had strong connections with powerful people all over the world. At the end of the day Golin is in the photograph that has been widely circulate with one known accuser, Virginia Ghafari and Prince Andrew is in it. So she's a direct witness to that photo. She could at least verify the validity of it. Prince Andrew has vehemently denied any misconduct. Kuvan is previously questioned the official version of the events, including the suicide problem I have is that in order to believe the official story, you would have to believe two things either that the federal government and the DOJ had massive failures of its systems. And coincidentally, this is regarding Epstein. At the same time, there was a failure of surveillance, cameras and human oversight, and two guards falling asleep and a failure of other checks and balances. So all of these things, morale, Oh, camera went down, guards are asleep, all of the other protocols, like the, the, the checks, all of the things that were supposed to happen to make sure that nothing happened to Epstein. Coincidentally, they all just kind of failed at the same time resulting in his death. Okay. So they're saying that there's a massive, massive series of failure. Kuvan says that he still hopes that Maxwell faces a trial and he gets some justice for victims. My clients, I represent, they want a full accounting in open court of the evidence against this woman so that she can stop claiming innocence and stop claiming she's being victimized by all of this. And that's really what they're doing. So over here, her brother set up a website. I want to show you that here in a minute, multiple women can account for what occurred. She says, I don't wish death on anyone, but she should pay for what you did. Maxwell was last seen with a black eye. She's being held in restrictive conditions in her jail cell. And her brother is saying that all of this is highly inappropriate. So he set up a website and on it, he says that the drinking water is full of contaminants. The food is an edible food. Food has been fed to her on plastic trays that have melted when exposed to microwave heating, making the food inedible and unsafe. She, uh, Kuvan also hit back at the claim saying that maybe he has no sympathy for Maxwell. She deserves everything. She gets. He says the website's set up by the brothers is just disgusting. He said, there are so many women who have stepped forward. The fact that she's uncomfortable in JIRA jail. That gets a big, who cares from me? Well, I disagree with that. I, I care, you know, you may not like a defendant, but Gullah Maxwell is still innocent until proven guilty, right? She's a flight risk. So she can't be let out of custody, but she gets the same treatment that anybody else gets. I know that's not popular, but it's the law jail is supposed to be miserable and uncomfortable. No, not really. I'm glad they are making it miserable, uncomfortable for her. So this attorney is just Matt. He's just very, very mad. Uh, you know, jail is not supposed to be, you know, inhumane. Let's just leave it at that. We have, uh, the website. So this is what the brother put together says about Glenn. We got, uh, FAQ's news and commentary resources. So he's got a video over here. It says here, a new or well into the max posted on May 5th. As there, this is a scary and completely contrary to the representations that were made, that Galanes treatment was routine. Now they admit she is being singled out and treated like this. For what they say is her wellbeing. They would be laughable. If not. So frighteningly like something you'd hear from Orwell's ministry of truth, the torture for her own wellbeing. Wow. Everyone knows that this torture is a direct result of the Epstein effect. It's not right. Appeal attorney. Uh, so the reaction reviewing the bop. Okay. So, uh, you can see here, right? Same, same type of stuff. This is another page of the brothers website and they're, you know, giving a nice little backstory on here. Here's Golin with her siblings, June, 2019, here's Glenn at a UN event. Look what a nice person she is born on Christmas day. It's like, Jesus, Oh, isn't that sweet? Golin was the ninth child of Robert Maxwell, a self-made businessman, blah, blah, blah, blah. Right. So write a nice big sort of, Hey, ya'll graphy about Glenn to do some PR damage control. So that's great. Then we can take a look over at the docket. And this is what has been going on in the Gulen case. Then we're going to take a quick look at a letter from Bobby stern Haim. So a lot of activity this week. So we see here on May 4th, there was an order defense counsel requested the court issue, an order directing the MDC to accept two hard drives from council that contain the non-highly confidential discovery. So passing some documents back and forth on hard drives. Then also on May 4th, we have a letter by the USA. So the prosecutors to Glenn and her defense attorneys talking about subpoena requests. Then on fifth, we have a letter from the prosecutors to Glenn about the use of flash of fly lights. So probably flashlights at the prison facility. Then on the sixth, they deleted some document. Don't know what that was about. Then now may six. We have another one says it's a letter from the prosecutors to Glenn about another subpoena for an another document. Then we get down here to today, May 7th, a letter by Glenn Maxwell address to the judge from Bobby stern, Hein dated five seven. It is once again regarding these flashlight and security checks. So let's get into it. This is the letter it's about two, a two, two and a half pages. I believe it is. So we're going to go through it quickly. You can see law offices of Bobby stern Haim filed this again today. Once again, she writes the government reports second and third hand information from the MDC. The MDC is the, uh, I think it's the Metro detention center or whatever that is the reliability has, which of which has become increasingly increasingly questionable. And it's May 5th letter regarding the flashlight security checks. The government contradicts previous reports that Maxwell has an IMS is allegation immediately refuted by her counsel was a focus of the second circuit's questioning during oral argument. Now the government reports at the MDC cannot provide an IMS to Ms. Maxwell. And then an iMac is considered contraband. This alone is a basis for the court to question the veracity of the representations made by the MDC. What are we talking about here? Right. For a long time, Maxwell's attorneys have been screaming that these conditions have been bad. And the reason they're doing this is in my opinion, to plant some stakes in the ground that will justify an appeal later down the road. So if Golin Maxwell and her attorneys, if she goes to trial and loses, well, what are they going to do? They're going to turn around and say, well, of course we lost. We couldn't prepare for trial. She didn't even have clean drinking water. She couldn't get a decent night's sleep. How could she possibly prepare to represent her interests in a very long gruesome trial that involves multiple charges, multiple Vic victims, 2.7 million pages of documents. You guys have been making it physically physiologically impossible for any human being, to be mentally capable of participating in their defense. Therefore the conviction should be thrown out, right? That's sort of what there, the argument, I think that they are maturing. So they've been saying that what has been causing these sleep problems has been the flashlight. The guards are going around every 15 minutes. They don't want her to Epstein herself or to get Epstein. And so they're shining a flashlight in there every 15 minutes while she's gone. I can't sleep. I need something. So they put, so, so now, now she's saying I was putting a sock over my eyes so that I could sleep during oral arguments in the second circuit, I believe it was, there was the, the, the judge specifically said, Hey, are you shining flashlights in her eyes every 15 minutes? And if you are, why, and can you justify that? And if you are, can we get her an IMS? And it sounds like here, what Bobby stern Haim is saying is that the government said she already does have an IMS. We're allowed to give her that. Then they turn around and say, Oh, just kidding. Eye masks are contraband so we can not give her an IMS. So now Bobby stern, I'm saying, Hey, judge, listen to these morons. I didn't even know what the hell they're doing. You're getting second and third hand information from them. They are totally incompetent. And everything that they're telling you about what they're doing correctly. This is evidence that it's total incompetence. If they're saying that the conditions are good, you shouldn't believe them because there is no credibility to their statements based on the fact that they can't even give you proper information about an iMac. They said that she had one and that, that was sufficient. Then they said it was contraband. So they can't get their story straight. She goes on. She says to justify the 15 flashlight surveillance that is causing this Maxwell's disruptive, disruptive sleep. The MDC claims that Ms. Maxwell is on an enhanced security schedule. The reasons given to support the need for this are spurious. They single out Ms. Maxwell to the detriment of everyone else there, even though they have more serious charges and potential stress, the MDC attempts to ship the focus of its conduct by saying it's basically Maxwell's fault Maxwell express concern for her safety. If she were housed in general population. So she wanted to be isolated and segregated. And so it's her fault that we have these conditions. Well, Bobby says the MDC should check its facts. Should fact check its records before making bold assertions, the intake screening form completed by Maxwell. When she entered the facility posed the following question. Do you know of any reason why you should not be placed in general population? Ms. Maxwell responded? No. It is the MDC, not the inmate who makes the determination regarding general population or segregation. The intake screening listed cyclers, which are baseless and broad publicity, which is accurate and concerns, risk of harm to Maxwell via violence, MDC staff, who leaked to the press that she had been vaccinated so that the staff leak that, wow, I didn't know that further. And her desire to interact with other inmates. She completed two programs to assist other inmates, to qualify as a teacher aid and to offer, to help update the learning curriculum and two to qualify as a companion for suicide. Watch her defacto solitary confinement prevents her from utilizing that training to assist others is Maxwell. She doesn't want to die by suicide. She wants to be on suicide watch to help other people. And she wants to be a teacher's aid. Isn't that neat, her segregation and her surveillance. According to body say, they go way beyond the concerns already posited. Every day of her detention, she is guarded by at least three officers who watch and record by writing and via a handheld camera. When she eats showers, cleans or clothes, brushes her teeth, et cetera. As the guards feverously write while observing Maxwell, during video conferencing with counsel, it appears they go beyond their routine. Continual 15 minute reporting. Her non-legal phone calls are monitored. It was the staff who was confronted. She does not discuss personal matters. We invite the court and the government to review the calls, which contradict the unsupported allegation that she is a flight risk and support her family. Strong ties. Her monitored communication shows that she's got strong ties and that she intended and intends to establish her innocence at trial. She wants to come back to court. She's not going anywhere. Listen to the phone calls she's on with her brother talking about the website. How's the website going sweetie. In the face of the Epstein death on bop, watch the Bureau of prisons. Watch the MDC would not risk a repeat of the debacle that occurred in the MCC. There can be no doubt. The MDC was D was following directives from bill BARR and the director of bop in determining that Maxwell should not be placed in general pop. Regardless, the MDC would never risk security to Maxwell or the institution by placing her in general population, knowing the difficulties it would face in protecting her. But the decision does not justify the degree to which MDC over manages Ms. Maxwell's detention and its detrimental effect on her health, her wellbeing, and get it the ability to prepare for trial. See that that's what this is all about. She has no ability to prepare for trial. All of this is a due process violation. We have repeatedly expressed our concern for Ms Maxwell's health and the impact. Her conditions of confinement are having on our health and wellbeing, her ability to prepare for trial and the overall impact. This severe conditions will have on her stamina to withstand trial, which we moved to fall with each passing day becomes increasingly more obvious to her extreme conditions will not be improved. Her health will deteriorate, and it will be commensurate with unprecedented conditions of confinement unparalleled very, truly yours. Bobby stern, Haim making a record every time there's a little bit of a blip, right? Oh the, Oh, the food wasn't properly heated. Okay. She could die from that. You know, it's all of these little things, but it's death by a thousand cuts and her attorneys are doing a nice job here. We have Liberty or death is in the house as if Maxwell is the key that unlocks the door to Clinton, Andrew Roberts. I am okay with a plea deal where she does time, same fate as Epstein. So they will sneak her out of the country. I know. So I'm okay with the plea deal on that too. Yeah. I mean, if we come out and she's got like 50 world leaders in the list, sure. You, whatever

Speaker 10: 1:39:39

You want, you know, well, well, you know, you can't

Speaker 5: 1:39:41

Be around well, w w w we'll we'll carve out some reasonable accommodations. How about that? Same fate as Epstein. Uh, I know he's probably on an Island somewhere. Jeremy[inaudible] says they should have kept any talks about Maxine plea deals under wrap. She won't survive for long if she has dirt on powerful people. Oh, I know. Right. That's a good point there. Jeremy. Very interesting. We have, uh, in a Darby in the house says, I have an idea for a future project. You should think about it. I think it would be amazing if you, and maybe even the DUI guy created a network group non-profit that helps people find lawyers in their country state that are good human beings and have the same philosophy outlook on the law and helping people as y'all do. I think it would be incredibly helpful to average folks, just something upon her on thanks for what you do. Thank you in the dark. You know, I liked that idea and I like, I'm not sure what that would look like in practice. Like, do we start a website or something and say, Hey, we're, we're good lawyers, you know, we're good guys out there and you shouldn't hire us because we care about you and stuff like that. I mean, I think every lawyer says that every lawyer does wake up and make a TV commercial, or make an ad or whatever. And then they, they probably believe it too, you know, Hey, we care about people. We're out there doing good work and blah, blah, blah. Uh, I just think that it requires, you know, at least today, just a little bit more about sort of, you know, standing for something. It's not just in my opinion, it's not just about practicing law anymore. You know, like in the, in the seventies, maybe that was a thing. You just practice law, just like you sell sandwiches. I just practice law and sell sandwiches. Same thing. Okay. If somebody gets a bad sandwich, whatever, you're not out there to change the sandwich industry, you're not out there to, you know, invent a new sandwich and make sure that nobody gets sick from sandwiches and, and, you know, modify the whole culture of how you eat it and all that stuff. It was just practicing law. Well, that was not like that anymore. At least not for me. That's not why I went to law school. I'm not interested in just shoveling papers around and sort of doing the same thing that's been happening for forever. There was a period in my career as a lawyer where I was just processing. Okay. I was processing and, and now I'm at that stage in my career where I want to be a part of a solution. Okay. I'm, I'm tired of seeing the same problems. I've been seeing the same problems over and over and are justices and I'm sick of it. So now I get to come out here and spend time with you. And fortunately, some people will tolerate me for some period of time and we can have a fun conversation on occasion, but I'm going to continue to do that. And I really encourage other lawyers to do that because I think if you're authentic and you just put yourself out there and you actually stand for something, I think people can see that and they can tell. And then I think that if you are, if you're putting your full self out there, somebody is going to resonate with that. And you'll be successful almost just by osmosis because you're being your authentic self. Somebody else is going to receive that. It's going to, it's going to match what they need in the world, in the universe. And you're going to be able to do business, maybe even be friends, maybe even, you know, who knows what happens down the line from there. Last question comes in from Jeremy says she most certainly has Deming, damning evidence against many people. Epstein's business model was based on extorting, wealthy people. I'm sure she does. I am sure she does. Which is why everybody is on ultra high alert when it comes to Glen Maxwell. All right. And so great questions. All of those ones, again, came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Want to welcome two new suburbs over there to a new supporters. Welcome to Phu. Bai and Liebert are both in the house. Welcome to you both. Thank you so much for supporting the show. And I want to welcome, and thank you. All of those of you who ask questions today, you're all up there on the board. You know who you are. We also want to say thank you to everybody else who supports the show over on locals. And I want to just give you a quick reminder that at the start of this program, we have two dates of upcoming. We have a core event, a virtual event in may, and then we have another one in June. The dates on those are posted over on locals. So we're going to have a monthly meetup and we're going to try it, right? All of this stuff is kind of experimental, but if you're on this list, if you're anybody, who's a supporter at locals, you're going to get access to all of this stuff at no additional charge, no additional costs, nothing like that. Uh, you just, you just kind of come in and hang out. So we're going to do a monthly for the locals community exclusively. And then we're also going to do what I sort of envisioned to be a quarterly seminar, a quarterly workshop, where we can have some fun with this stuff. So previously at the start of this show, I was talking about the law enforcement interaction training that I, that I, that I want to do. And I'm very excited about this. This is, these are fun topics because you can break into breakout groups, groups, and you can do hypothetical exercises about how certain things work. You know, if you sort of envision yourself in your home and a cop comes to your door and a cop says something and something happened in the home and the cop says something, and you say something, how does the whole interaction work? And at what point does it go bad? So we've got some hypotheticals that we'll play around with a lot of the stuff that we sort of talk about in the law. And the goal here is to make it so that it's useful to you so that when you are out there living your life, if something happens, you know, if your son calls you and says, Hey, the cops are at my dorm room. You know what to do, you know, Hey son, do this, say this, make sure that you're respectful and say these magic words, then there you go. And you, same thing side of the road. Cop comes to your house. Cop calls you on the phone. What if a cop calls you on the phone? You know what? I had to deal with that a lot of scammers out there, how do you respond? How do you verify that? That's an officer, a lot of interesting things that we can talk about and it's fun. It's useful, it's practical. And so we're going to be doing that in June, June 12th. I think it is. Saturday's going to be a 9:00 AM, start time for me in Arizona, 12 on the East coast. And all of this information is going to be over@locals.com. So if you want to be a part of any of that, that's the place to do that. Watching the watchers.locals.com, you can also grab a copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning. You can see it right here. Download a copy of the slides that we went through today. We can share our impeachment party documents. If you want that. And you can download a copy of my existence systems, share links over at locals and meet great people. And, um, that's it for me, my friends we are before we get outta here. One final reminder that I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group. We love to help good people who have been charged with crimes, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and their lives. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who has been charged with a crime, whether it's a DUI, domestic violence, drugs, traffic offense, major felony, if they want to clear up an old record quash, an old warrant, get a driver's license back, apply for the right to vote again, to possess a firearm, again, to apply for federal benefits. There's a lot that we can do to help clean up old criminal cases. And so if you happen to know anybody in our state that needs some help, we would be honored and humbled if you sent them our direction so that we could have the opportunity to see what we can do to get them past the difficult situation. So we would, we would really much appreciate it. Everybody. I want to thank you so much for being a part of the program today. It has been a lot of fun and we're going to be back here at the same time, same place next week. It's going to be 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the East coast for that one, Florida man, everybody have a very nice weekend sleep well, have a lot of good food, get a little bit of sunshine and be ready to rock and roll next week. Cause we're going to be here also. Ready to go. I'll see you then have a great weekend. Bye-bye.