Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Chauvin Trial Leak, Letitia James vs. Trump Criminal Investigation, Karen Garner Officers Charged

May 20, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Leak, Letitia James vs. Trump Criminal Investigation, Karen Garner Officers Charged
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Leak, Letitia James vs. Trump Criminal Investigation, Karen Garner Officers Charged
May 20, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

Eric Nelson, Derek Chauvin’s criminal defense lawyer throughout the #ChauvinTrial, filed an interesting affidavit today along with his co-counsel – what did he say? Letitia James opens “criminal investigation” into the Trump organization after over 2 years of investigating - Donald Trump responds. Two Colorado officers are criminally charged for the abuse of 73-year-old Karen Garner. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:

• Interesting development in the Derek Chauvin case as criminal defense lawyer Eric Nelson files an affidavit declaring that he was not the source of a leak to the New York Times.
• Along with his co-counsel, Amy E. Voss, Nelson confirms via writing that he was in contact with New York Times columnist Timothy Arango, but was not willing to make a statement.
• In an email exchange, we learn details about leak from Mr. Arango, who apparently also had a copy of the government’s pending appeal.
• Who could have been behind the leak? We look at a motion from co-defendant Thou’s court filing in February.
• New York State Attorney General Letitia James add “criminal capacity” to the ongoing probe of the Trump Organization.
• Review of Tish James’ statements when running for office – that she would be going after Trump and his family directly!
• Donald Trump responds via his new social media page, calling the prosecution corrupt and political.
• Comparing the length of Tish James’ investigation versus the Mueller investigation. 
• Remember When: Tish James punted the Daniel Prude charging decision to the grand jury who “chose” not to indict the officers?
• Remember When: Tish James’ office was “looking into” the 9-year-old girl being pepper sprayed by the same Rochester police for 3-months?
• Two Colorado police officers now face criminal charges for their violent arrest of a 73-year old grandmother with dementia named Karen Carner.
• Officers Austin Hopp and Daria Jalali mocked Karen Garner and left her inside a booking cell after dislocating her shoulder.
• Officer Hopp was charged with assault and attempting to influence a public servant, both felonies.
• Officer Jalali was charged with two misdemeanors for official misconduct and not reporting a use of force incident.
• District Attorney McLaughlin and Loveland Police Chief Robert Ticer agree on the charging decision.
• Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: 
• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/

Please don’t forget to subscribe to Rob’s second YouTube channel for non-live content!
• https://www.youtube.com/c/RobertGruler

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/ 

Connect with us:
• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com
• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprou...
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq
• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrule...
• 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

NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394
Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!

Otherwise, don't forget to join us on Locals! https://watchingthewa

Show Notes Transcript

Eric Nelson, Derek Chauvin’s criminal defense lawyer throughout the #ChauvinTrial, filed an interesting affidavit today along with his co-counsel – what did he say? Letitia James opens “criminal investigation” into the Trump organization after over 2 years of investigating - Donald Trump responds. Two Colorado officers are criminally charged for the abuse of 73-year-old Karen Garner. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:

• Interesting development in the Derek Chauvin case as criminal defense lawyer Eric Nelson files an affidavit declaring that he was not the source of a leak to the New York Times.
• Along with his co-counsel, Amy E. Voss, Nelson confirms via writing that he was in contact with New York Times columnist Timothy Arango, but was not willing to make a statement.
• In an email exchange, we learn details about leak from Mr. Arango, who apparently also had a copy of the government’s pending appeal.
• Who could have been behind the leak? We look at a motion from co-defendant Thou’s court filing in February.
• New York State Attorney General Letitia James add “criminal capacity” to the ongoing probe of the Trump Organization.
• Review of Tish James’ statements when running for office – that she would be going after Trump and his family directly!
• Donald Trump responds via his new social media page, calling the prosecution corrupt and political.
• Comparing the length of Tish James’ investigation versus the Mueller investigation. 
• Remember When: Tish James punted the Daniel Prude charging decision to the grand jury who “chose” not to indict the officers?
• Remember When: Tish James’ office was “looking into” the 9-year-old girl being pepper sprayed by the same Rochester police for 3-months?
• Two Colorado police officers now face criminal charges for their violent arrest of a 73-year old grandmother with dementia named Karen Carner.
• Officers Austin Hopp and Daria Jalali mocked Karen Garner and left her inside a booking cell after dislocating her shoulder.
• Officer Hopp was charged with assault and attempting to influence a public servant, both felonies.
• Officer Jalali was charged with two misdemeanors for official misconduct and not reporting a use of force incident.
• District Attorney McLaughlin and Loveland Police Chief Robert Ticer agree on the charging decision.
• Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: 
• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/

Please don’t forget to subscribe to Rob’s second YouTube channel for non-live content!
• https://www.youtube.com/c/RobertGruler

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/ 

Connect with us:
• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com
• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprou...
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq
• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrule...
• 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

NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394
Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!

Otherwise, don't forget to join us on Locals! https://watchingthewa

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Mueller . I am a criminal defense attorney right here at the RNR law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. Throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine

Speaker 2:

That beautiful spotlight

Speaker 1:

Of accountability and transparency back down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get to. We're going to start by going back to the Derrick Shovan case, Derek Shovan, if you recall , uh, was convicted of three different charges for the murder of George Floyd. And there were a lot of interesting things going on with the Derek Shovan case. And so today there were new affidavits that were filed by Eric Nelson , who is Derek Chauvin's defense attorney. He's still working on the case basically saying that you remember that leak that we heard about that back in February, there was this idea that Derek Shovan was going to be pleading guilty to some charge that came out. And many of us were sort of scratching our heads going. That doesn't make any sense. Why would Derek Shovan be doing that? We've gone this far in his case, he's just going to sort of take a plea deal that didn't sort of felt odd. And it turns out there was a leak. Somebody sort of disclosed some information to the New York times that shouldn't have, and we all were scratching our heads about this back in February, but that was not the end of it. Today. There were new affidavits that were filed. Eric Nelson came out and said, Hey, it wasn't me. I didn't leak it. And so the court is still trying to sort of dig into this and figure out what happened. And the , the big question here is, was it one of the prosecutors did somebody who was a part of the government's team disclose, leak this information to the New York times or to anybody in the media in a way that might jeopardize Derek Chauvin's trial. So very interesting questions. We've got some documents that were submitted today from Eric Nelson and from his co-counsel Amy Voss . Remember that woman who was sort of a behind the scenes throughout the entirety of the trial, she also submitted an affidavit. And so we're going to take a look at both of those. Then we're going to get into this , uh , Latisha James versus Donald Trump spat that's going on right now. So Latisha James, we've talked a lot about her on this channel because she sort of is somebody who claims to be pro justice reform, but then really drops the ball. Anytime that something meaningful can be done. She is the attorney general out of New York, and she has been investigating Donald Trump since 2019. And very recently earlier in this week, she said that she's going to add a criminal component to the investigation of the Trump organization. And so we're going to break into this. She said, we're going to sort of investigate this even harder now. Uh , they haven't found anything in over 800 days, but they're going to keep looking. So we want to analyze what she's doing here and really ask ourselves, is this the appropriate use of the prosecutorial power in our government? Is this what we want prosecutors to do? We want them to sort of run on a promise that they're going to prosecute their political enemies and then deliver on that because that's exactly what Latisha James is doing. We're going to talk about that day. Then we're going to revisit the character garner case. Remember Kara garner, the 73 year old grandmother who was a menace to society out there just murdering people , uh, you know, dealing drugs and trafficking in sex crimes. So she was assaulted by two officers from Colorado and officer's hop and Jalali were now charged with crimes . Remember this one, we covered this on this channel. She was sort of the 73 year old woman, very brittle, frail, allegedly has dementia cops. When it came upon her on the side of the road, ended up popping her shoulder out of her socket. Uh , her shoulder out of her shoulder blade kind of pulled it right out of her body and then kind of tucked it up back at the police station. And she was riding in pain, handcuffed to a bench in a jail cell. Well, good news. They got charged. So we've got an update on that as well. We've got a lot to get into, I guess, is the point here. And if you want to be a part of the show, the best place to do that is by going over to watching the watchers.locals.com as we were going through the different segments as we break between them, we're going to be an opportunity to take questions, leave comments, throw criticisms out my way. No problem at all, but all that's taking [email protected] You can support the show. We really appreciate it. We also have some subs , special events coming up this Saturday. Oh my goodness. We're going to be getting together on Saturday. It's going to be a virtual zoom meetup. That's going to be taking place exclusively for local subscribers. And so if you want to register for that event on our locals community in there, there's a pin to page where you can go and just register for that just so I can get a head count kind of plan for it. I've got some fun ideas for taking polls and sort of seeing where the community falls, you know, maybe throw out some questions. Who do you like for president in 2024? See what everybody says. We able to do it in real time. Again, super low key. Don't have to out yourself. If you want to keep your camera off. No problem at all. We just want to sort of have fun and build a little bit more of an intimate , uh , camaraderie circle of people. And we're going to be doing that on May 22nd. So that is this Saturday at 7:00 PM Eastern time, 4:00 PM, Arizona time. And then we've got on June 12th, another law enforcement interaction training, also exclusively for locals subscribers as well. And then I'd ask you if you don't, if you don't mind heading on over to my second channel, the link is in the description. That's going to be the channel that is for the non non live content. So we're still going to be going live here. We're still gonna be posting the live clips that we go through of the different segments here, but the non non live stuff is going to be at my other channel, which is now the non live channel . So the link is down there. If you want to follow along, just so you can kind of keep tabs on , on where I'm working at . That's where , uh, where were the , the more thoughtful long form content is going to be all right. So enough of that enough, Rob , get into it already. We've we've had enough stop with the introduction. Jeez , it's time to get down to business and we're going to do that right now, Derek Shovan back in the news because there are some interesting things happening in his case. And we have been following this along for some time. If you've been part of the channel, you know, we spent basically every day here going through the ups and the downs of the trial, and back during the pretrial phase before trial ever started, there was a question about whether the prosecutor's here or somebody in the government leaked some information about a plea deal that was being negotiated in Derek Chauvin's case, sent that out to the New York times or to some other people in the media. Now, this is a pretty big problem. If you're a defense attorney and you're representing somebody charged with a crime, well , you're going to be standing by their innocence, right? We have the presumption of innocence in this country, very important concept . And if it comes out that your client is potentially wanting to take a plea deal while that sort of indicates that maybe they are in fact guilty, and we are supposed to presume that they are innocent. So it's sort of , uh , not, not appropriate for the prosecution to be sending out to everybody, Hey, Derek , Chauvin's here. He said, he's going to take a plea deal. We told you he did it. And he said, he's gonna agree that he did it through this plea deal. It sort of shatters the facade of the presumption of innocence in a very significant and substantial way. And the indication back in February was that there was a deal that was being negotiated and recalled that the allegation was that this was sort of floated up to bill BARR, who back at the time was the attorney general under Trump and call all of this happen under the Trump administration and the trial didn't didn't take place until the transition into the Biden administration. So there was this allegation that will be William Barr. The attorney general of the United States was brought into facilitate some negotiations about a plea deal so that they could deal with any of the federal charges that were going to be stacked on top of the state charges in the Shovan case. And nobody really knew what happened, but apparently bill BARR put the kibosh on that deal. So we're not going to allow that to happen. So then that goes back to the prosecutors. It gets leaked out and it turns into a big problem because the other co-defendants not only Derek Shovan says, well, Hey, this might be an issue because , uh, now in the news, in the media, in Minneapolis, around here locally, there's a story that's running in the star Tribune that says that I was going to take a plea deal. Well , if other jurors see that, then they're noting knowing that maybe I do in fact think that I'm guilty. And it just matters shatters that presumption of innocence, facade, that is so important. So you understand that now here, what we're going to see is that the other co-defendants, we have foul King and lane . They're also concerned about this. They're seeing , well, if they're talking about Derek Shovan and him taking a plea deal, well, that jeopardizes our cases as well, because they're saying that we aided and abetted him in his crime. So if he's going to plead guilty to a crime, then that sort of implicates us because we can't aid in a bet. Somebody who didn't commit a crime, if he agrees, he did commit a crime. Well, now it's open that we did eight in a pet him. So they filed a bunch of motions saying this is totally inappropriate. I don't know. We don't know who leaked this, but highly inappropriate. We want to get to the bottom of it. In fact, thous attorney was saying that they want sanctions and they want a dismissal of the charges as the sanction. They want to say, we want to punish the prosecutors because this conduct is so reprehensible. The only remedy here is to dismiss the charges and in sanction the prosecutor . So there it's a big ask. And so the question has been what happened here? You know, where did this information come from? Who leaked this? How did the New York times get it? And some people might be saying, well, it's just a little bit of information. No, we're going to go through. You're going to see the New York times. It sounds like they had the entire appeal from the prosecution before it was filed. If I'm reading this right, we're going to read this again. And , uh, we'll , we'll take a look at it, but let's go over to and get some background from law and crime.com. I want to show you this article. It says that Minnesota is outdated. Ethics rules might allow now insiders to smear Derek Shovan shot at a fair trial without facing consequences. Okay? So they , this article is really focused on the ethical rules. They do a whole analysis on , on the bar rules and confidentiality and disclosure and candidness and all this stuff. Got it. That's kind of irrelevant. The, the, the point here is that the back, this is the background of what happened. The plea deal was sort of being let's. Let's go into the article here, cause I , this will explain it better than I can a major leak in the case against Eric Shovan. And recall, this happened back on February 17th. This article was written back in this day. So rewind the clock in your mind a little bit before the trial even started says this, there was a major leak in the Derek Shovan case, four former Minneapolis police officers accused of acting in concert to murder George Floyd. This highlights several important gaps in two of Minnesota ethics rules, which would otherwise govern the behavior of the leakers . So if the prosecution leaked this, then there are some ethical rules that should govern this. But this article is saying, well, there, there are rules there, but they can kind of violate the rules , but they actually don't apply. So they're not , they don't have to follow the rules because the rules aren't on point the league , according to a recent New York times report was that lead defendant. Derek Chauvin's did poise to plead guilty to third degree murder. Former us attorney general bill BARR, the report said stepped in and killed the deal. Three anonymous quote, law enforcement officials reportedly provided the information. Their identities are unknown. So who are those people? And how did they get information about a plea deal that was being negotiated by the prosecutors? And why did they disclose it to the New York times attorneys representing the 3m officer's thou King and lane have asked a judge to punish the prosecutors for overseeing their risks , effective cases on account of the leak. And, and during that time, I think we talked about this back here on that chant on this channel may, may, may or may not have, but a lot of motions were flying back and forth from all the different co-defendants. And I think we talked about this, but from the motion, it says here from thousand motion, it is impossible to overstate the magnitude of this misconduct or its prejudicial effect on defendant's constitutional due process rights of a fair trial. If this leak would have happened during trial, the court would be required to declare a mistrial and dismiss the charges with prejudice, meaning they can't come back leaking a soured plea agreement has no benefit for Mr. Chow, nor does it benefit any other defendant. The leaked information guarantees that any potential juror who read the article were headlines now knows Mr. Shovan was allegedly ready to plead guilty to murder and accept responsibility in the death of George Floyd. Logically the only actor that would benefit from this

Speaker 3:

Leak is the state . Right.

Speaker 1:

Makes sense. Because if you're Derek , Shovan the last thing that you want to do is say, yeah, I mean, I, you know, go into a trial say, well, I know that they have to prove that I'm guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but you're on the third degree murder charge . You already got me. I agree with you ,

Speaker 3:

You on that one, what's the point, right? That's what you would take

Speaker 1:

Ideal . If you're going to plead guilty, you're going to take a plea deal. And when you're negotiating with prosecutors, right, they can't talk about this stuff. So the government could not have come in and told the jury, you know, let's say that Eric Nelson puts up a defendant or puts up an expert witness Dr. Whatever puts him up. And he says, you know, based on my medical expertise, in my analysis, I have concluded with a degree of medical certainty beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever that Derek Shovan, didn't put us in the, on his neck to kill George Floyd. And if the prosecutor came back in and said, well , uh, during our negotiations, Derek Shovan said that he was going to agree that he would plead guilty to third degree murder. And so that means that he did do it. Isn't that true, sir? Right? Or something like that, right. That would never be allowed to happen because they're now they're talking about the negotiations to sort of prove that somebody did something. And what you want to do is keep the negotiations open and confidential and , and basically free of being used against you so that you can in fact negotiate. If you can't, if anything you say during the negotiation process is going to be used against you, you're not going to negotiate. You're just going to be silent like you would so that nothing is used against you. So we want open and free, you know , dialogues and conversations for, for all of this stuff, but it doesn't

Speaker 3:

Serve Derek Shovan to acknowledge that he did it

Speaker 1:

Something wrong. He would never make that acknowledgement . Now here's the motion from thal says that the note he filed this mode , this note , excuse me, this notice of motion and a motion for dismissal and to sanction Keith Ellison, Matthew Frank, and Neil caught yell. So Keith Ellison, of course, the attorney general Matthew Frank was one of the lead prosecutors. And then Neil cat yell was one of the prosecutors that we heard about in the early portion of the trial. But I think it was mostly for the motions practice, the motions and lemonade didn't see him much during the testimony that came out. But , uh , you can see here. Yeah. They filed this whole motion for judicial district notice of the motion. And then what was kind of most important. This was the backdrop here. So this is the framework, right? They said, Hey, somebody from the prosecution leap , this, this was all happening back in February, take a look this right around the same time, February 15th at about

Speaker 3:

Noon, they said, government

Speaker 1:

Leaked something. They should not have leaked. It violated our defendant's constitutional rights. It was so grossly improper that we're asking for a dismissal of the charges. We're asking for sanctions for Keith Ellison, Matt Frank, and Neil cat yell and additional . We want repercussions. I mean, we want, we want vengeance for this because it was so bad. Now it was very quiet for a long period of time. We had the trial, we now had a continuance in town , thous case and the other two co-defendants and it all got excited

Speaker 3:

Ended . And so many people have been wondering,

Speaker 1:

Well, what's going, what about that issue? And what about the note change of venue? And what's going on with the appeals and what's going on all this stuff? Well, today we saw there was some new activity in court. So you'll notice that I took a screenshot of this earlier. So a couple of days ago we have

Speaker 3:

Of May 20th or may 17 .

Speaker 1:

We had two affidavits that were filed. We have the affidavit of Voss and we have the affidavit of Nelson and the affidavit of Eric Nelson again, was modified up here. So we're going to be looking at this document here ,

Speaker 3:

Um, from May 20th,

Speaker 1:

Right? So we have three affidavits filed over the last three or four days, which is curious. And I'm thinking, that's interesting. Why is the defense attorney filing an affidavit in this case? Is the court asking him to sort of swear under oath that he did something or didn't do something because I've been looking through the case history, don't see any affidavits that have been filed from the prosecutors. So , uh , what's going on here? Well, if we open it up, we're going to see here. The first affidavit is from Amy E Voss. Here's a picture from the trial. This is Amy Voss. Remember her, and it's kind of one of the only pictures where we can see her face. They were messed up. Most of the rest of the trial. This was I think, early in the trial. So this is her affidavit. So affidavit of Amy Voss in the state of Minnesota, Minnesota vs. Derrick Shovan, let's go and take a look at it. She says being duly sworn. Here's what I state. I'm an attorney licensed in Minnesota, I'm assistant

Speaker 3:

Eric Nelson, Derek Chauvin's attorney. In the above case, she says

Speaker 1:

February 10th, there was a New York times article published. Why William Barr rejected a plea deal in the jury ,

Speaker 3:

Floyd killing. Then on February 11th, the star Tribune in Minneapolis

Speaker 1:

Publish the same article or a , a version of that official .

Speaker 3:

A semi-colon Shovan was ready to plead third degree murder. So it sounds like

Speaker 1:

Star Tribune maybe picked up the New York times article,

Speaker 3:

Revised it a little bit

Speaker 1:

And then publishes that in the local community. Right? But this is before the jury is seated. So

Speaker 3:

They're publishing this Derek , Chauvin's

Speaker 1:

Going to agree to plead guilty. And the star Tribune, one of the biggest newspapers in the whole vicinity. In fact, they covered the trial very well. We were relying on a lot of their reporting. They were one of the only, I think , uh , uh, news agencies that had direct access into the courtroom or something, right. They were one of the reasons

Speaker 3:

Mirror reporting agencies. So they disclose

Speaker 4:

They communicate to everybody in Minneapolis that Derek Shovan . Yeah ,

Speaker 1:

He's just , he's on the verge of think he was, he was going to do it. He was going to plead guilty to this thing. We could have done

Speaker 4:

What did the trial, but fortunately, bill BARR said no, spread that all over the place. In the two articles, according to Ms. Voss, it was reported that someone with direct knowledge of the plea deals told the press that Shovan was ready to accept the deal for his role in the death of George Floyd. She says here's subsection six. I was not the source of the information to either people a paper. And I do not have knowledge about the identity of the source of such information further your appliance say, if not, sign here on March 2nd by Amy Voss . Right? And so this was filed today here. Uh , this was filed on the 17th. The affidavit of Amy boss signed off on several months ago. Interesting. Then we have Eric Nelson's . So here is Eric Nelson affidavit of Eric J. Nelson . And he also submitted one today. Of course, we all know who he is. He says, I am also an attorney licensed to practice law. I represent Derek Shovan on or about Wednesday, January 27th. I received an email from Timothy Orango, or he identifies himself as a reporter for the New York times. Mr. Aramco indicates that he would be in town for a few days, asked me to meet for an off the record chat, see exhibit one, which is the email we're going to read it. I responded to Mr. Arranger . I said, I'm not commenting on or off the record about this matter. That was on January 27th. He fires right back, not commenting January 28th. Then at 12:00 PM, I received a call from Mr. Earl gray , the attorney for Thomas Lane. We have two defense attorneys now who were sort of comparing notes, right? They're working on co-defendant they're defending co-defendants. So they're communicating Gary , uh , Earl gray calls. He says, Hey, I just met with the New York times reporter that ,

Speaker 1:

Or had a copy of the state's pretrial

Speaker 4:

Peel . Mr. Gray, who is Lane's attorney told me, he read the document,

Speaker 1:

Learned that the state was appealing. The district court's denial of its continuous motion and it , and lo and behold, look at this. It was filed at some point that afternoon. So it sounds like, it sounds like

Speaker 4:

The defense. So here's what happens. The New York times guy calls Eric Nell sends an email to Eric Nelson. Hey, you want to meet up? He says, no, I'm not commenting on it. He goes, all right, fine. Let me, let me go talk to Lane's. Attorney goes to Lane's attorney Lane's attorney says, yeah, I'll meet you. So they go out to coffee, they meet at a Starbucks. They both get a croissant, whatever. And they're having a conversation about this. [inaudible] the New York times reporter says,

Speaker 1:

Oh , what's your response to the States ?

Speaker 4:

Uh , appealing the denial of the continuance. Mr. Gray goes to hell ,

Speaker 1:

Are you talking about what are you appealing? What's a rainbow goes, Oh, well, I just left the

Speaker 4:

Prosecutor's office. I got it. I got the appeal right here.

Speaker 1:

So he hands it over to Mr. Lane. All right, Mr. Gray, Mr. Gray then reads it. He goes, yeah, you're right. This is the appeal goes back to his office, looks at the court docket lo and behold. The appeal filed that afternoon. So it's gonna be public record anyways. So this reporter is just like rolling in and out of the prosecution's office, just getting access to they want. And

Speaker 4:

The, before it's filed from, from this, this is a signed document. Okay. It says he informed me that he had read the document, learned that the state was appealing, the denial of its continuous motion. And then it was to be filed at some point that afternoon. And then at approximately 3:00 PM, guess what they did in fact file the first appeal to the Minnesota court of appeals. So the New York times reporter had the , uh, had the inside scoop on what happened on or about February 10th then. So a couple of weeks later, I received another email from Mr. [inaudible] , Mr. Arango stated in his email that he learned that Mr. Shovan had agreed to plead the third degree murder, which would have resulted in more than 10 years in prison. But at the last one

Speaker 1:

And attorney general BARR backed away. So he gets that email. Eric Nelson shows up in his inbox. The email went on to provide additional information about the plea negotiations between Chauvin's prior attorney and the federal government exhibit one. We're going to read it on or about February 10th, then immediately after receiving Mr. Ringo's email, I responded quote , thanks for checking. I'm not commenting on any aspect of this matter. Later, that same day, New York times then published an article. Why William Barr rejected a plea deal in the George Floyd killing the following day star Tribune published an article title officials Shovan was ready to plead to third degree murder in these two articles. The court is aware Mr. Orango cites sources with direct knowledge of the plea negotiations and outlines various aspects of the plea negotiations

Speaker 4:

Where, Oh, where did Mr. Orion go get it?

Speaker 1:

Well, let's see, he's got an email here. We're going to wrap up here's Nelson's final line. He also signed this back on March 2nd. Okay. Months ago they knew this was coming. He said, I am not the source of the information in the above reference articles. I do not know the identity of the information of the source of the information further. You're refining say, if not again, March 2nd, many months ago, right after the February stuff, February 10th comes signed notarized months ago, then filed today. Now let's take a look at the emails that Mr. Nelson included. And , uh, I think I have this in the right order. Yes, I do. So let's go as we know how emails work, let's start down here. We've got November 5th, 2020. You remember George Floyd died May, 2020. So November comes around and this New York times reporter sends an email to Mr. Nelson says , uh , Eric, by way of introduction, my name is Tim. I'm a reporter in New York times. I'm going to be part of the team covering the Shovan trial today. I was reaching out to see if you had any comment on the judge's rulings today. Here's my number. Thanks much, right? We're going to get rid of those numbers. I hope that this note finds you healthy and well, I am reaching out. So Eric, so I'm sorry. Let's I miss this one? Eric responds says I am not commenting on the case at this time. Thanks for checking. So then we fast forward about three months, November, December Jan , two months, January 27th. And we have another email from the New York times reporter over to Eric. He said ,

Speaker 4:

Eric hope is know finds you healthy and well I'm reaching out because as I said,

Speaker 1:

Email , I'm going to be covering the Shovan trial for the times I am in Minneapolis for a few days. Want to see if you'd be willing to meet for an the record chat basically. So I can introduce myself, just let me know. I can be reached anytime here,

Speaker 4:

My number then what do we get? We get another,

Speaker 1:

A response. So he re so Eric Nelson responds back and then we get another email

Speaker 4:

Coming on, February 10th from Eric R to Eric, from Tim. So there were the New York times reporter sending an email to Eric Nelson. And this is where we get some information about the plea deal.

Speaker 1:

Question that we're asking ourselves really here is how does this guy get this information, right?

Speaker 4:

Plea deal negotiations. It's, it's very intimate. It's , it's private. That stuff is extremely confidential

Speaker 1:

For these reasons. And so somebody, somewhere who had some very clear specifics about this was communicating this directly to a New York times reporter. And the question is, where did this come from? And how do we find out where it came from? We're going to analyze the information who knows, what, how do they know what , you know, what details do they know? Where did those details come from and sort of back trace the information. And that's what we're trying to do here. This is why Eric Nelson is submitting this with his documents over to the, to the court saying, listen, I had nothing to do with this guy . You can go find somebody else ,

Speaker 4:

Um , to , to pin this on

Speaker 1:

It. Wasn't us. We have no interest in doing that. And you can even confirm that by the information that I got in an email from a New York times, reporter go ask him where he got the information from here is the email itself says, Hey, Eric, hope you're well, I'm reaching out because we are doing a story today about the upcoming trial. Where is there is something I need to run by you to see if either you or Shovan wish to comment pieces abroad , look at the trial and the apprehension in Minneapolis about the proceedings, because the possibility of unrest.

Speaker 4:

Yeah. One part of the piece

Speaker 1:

Is my reporting on the details of the failed plea deal

Speaker 4:

Last may. Right? And so if , if you're, you know , if you're, if you're Eric Nelson, like, you know, you know about this, but if you're us, you're going, what plea deal

Speaker 1:

Nobody ever knew about anything about this, right? And so Eric Nelson, if he's reading this, he's going, how would you, you know about that? Okay. You shouldn't know about this at all. So

Speaker 4:

His spidey senses are

Speaker 1:

Ringing off the charts here. There's a problem in my reporting. He says, this is what I learned. Mr. Shovan had agreed to plead to third degree murder,

Speaker 4:

Which would have resulted more than 10

Speaker 1:

Years in prison. But at the last minute at AGB

Speaker 4:

Bar backed away. According to my reporting, Mr. Shovan and his lawyer at the time Mr. Kelly had insisted ,

Speaker 1:

Did the federal government sign on. So it was one big package. So Mr. Shovan wouldn't in the future also face federal charges. My understanding of why BARR walked away was that he felt it was too early in the process and a full investigation hadn't been conducted. He worried that it would be seen as too lenient by the protests.

Speaker 4:

It was in the streets that at the same time, the state and Ellison were about to take over.

Speaker 1:

And while the Freeman wanted to do this deal, bar wanted to let the state make its own decisions

Speaker 4:

About how to proceed. Please let me know if you wish to comment, if there's any context you think I'm missing, even if

Speaker 1:

On the background, if you prefer here's the number

Speaker 4:

Again, right? That was a lot of information. Okay. That wasn't like

Speaker 1:

Somebody was just walking by the water cooler and heard that Derek Shovan might be taken a plea deal because they saw a document that said, Shovan plea deal. Oh, this is very specific. Third degree murder, 10 years prison. Last minute, there was a back away by bill BARR . He does a bunch of reporting. They said that Mr. Kelly, one of the other things Bernie's , who's involved in the case wanted one big package deal. And it wasn't just that bar walked away. We know the specifics about it. We know exactly why full investigation hasn't been conducted too early in the process, right. It might be seen as, too lenient by the protestors in the street. So it's like somebody who was , uh , who was very privy to this conversations , like somebody who is at the table when they're having their round table having a conversation about a plan . So who the hell is that person on the other side of the table there? Well, we're going to see if we can get down to the bottom of it. We have some stuff speculation. This comes back from that law and crime article. Kang's motion, more broadly accuses government actors of a wall of prosecutorial misconduct involving both the leek and other members matters. It ascribes nefarious, motives to Ellison for failing to personally participate in a court hearing after stating in an email that he would be personally present at the meeting immediately following a hearing from a motion that was filed by Ken King . He says here, Mr. Ellison's late decision to absence himself from the hearing suggests he knew about, and may have been personally involved, then developing the strategy to cheap the defendants out of their rights to due process Mr. Ellison, distanced himself and did nothing to intervene or correct the course of the States. Well intentioned ship ultimately, right? The buck has to stop with the AIG . We're going to see where this leads. Now the important thing here is that the court is asking for these affidavits now, or , uh , presumably there's a motion that something's coming down the pike, right. Everybody's sort of saying, all right, let's see your cards. Let's show them because things are, you know, there's a lot yeah . Of layers in this trial and we're slowly starting to unravel them piece by piece. And the judges now getting back to this issue. Oh yeah. Hey, you know, I know it's May 20th. I know Don trials over, but forgot about that New York times thing. We're going to address that. I'll see you on Monday and I want your motions in by Friday at five. Right? Everybody's going, Oh, forgot about that. Shoot. All right. Let's take some questions over from , uh , watching the watchers.locals.com where you can support the show. And we love when you do here is , uh , first up in the house from no doubt says, it seems like Eric Nelson should have filed a similar complaint about leaking the potential deal. Did he? Or did he mess up there? So he filed something. Uh, let's see, let's see if I can figure out what he filed a real quickly here. We have a lot of stuff. So let's take a quick look at the , uh, this is the docket from the court. And we have of affidavit's affidavit of Voss Nelson verdict and funding regarding the aggravated sentence. Notice of motions and post verdict motions. Yeah. So this is, this is the, basically the closest thing that I think we got here, which was the notice of motions. Yeah. We went through this one and I'm not sure if this included anything about proceedings order, the defense additional time to brief the issue . So this is just a notice. So see how long this is. This is four pages. And this is just a notice. So it's saying, Hey, listen, we have

Speaker 4:

A ton of stuff that we have in the queue. We're going to be filing phone books, worth of motions. We're putting you on notice of this. And so this is something that happens a lot with appeals and post-conviction relief motions is you have like a deadline, say you have 14 days to file your notice of appeal. Oh, I just lost my trial. I got to let you know, I'm going to be filing a , an appeal. This is just my notice. But then you got to get the transcripts. You got to get somebody to write the appeal. You got to review everything. You got to , you know, the official recordings and listen to it again. And that takes a lot of time. So you just filed a notice to get that buffer. And they'll say, okay, we'll file your actual appeal. 90 days later down the road. And you say, great. Then you do all of your work. If you need an extension at that time, ask for one, otherwise you get it filed later. So I actually don't think it's, I don't know . I don't think we know the full universe of what Nelson is is doing right now because it's just too early. But we do know that he filed notice. And I think that , uh , there will be a lot more to come. Good question. No doubt. We've got sheriff Whitney's next up says, how can anybody get a fair trial in a high profile case with this kind of stuff going on? Misconduct, media interference, et cetera. Well, Sharon, it's not, it's not just a high profile case. This is kind of in every case, right? This is something that defense attorneys are constantly complaining about. That, that the prosecution is overly biased, not as ethical as they claim and that they do a lot of things that are, you know , marginal borderline or in that gray area. And that article that I was just going through from law and crime, if you want to read the full article, it's a good article. It is linked down in the , uh, no, the slides are [email protected], which has the link in the slide , but you can just find it , go to law and crime and search, you know, search for what you saw. And it'll pop up by by point is it is in that article. They were saying that maybe technically that what the prosecution did was not in violation of Minnesota ethical guidelines. So in other words, what they did is not illegal conduct. It's not unethical conduct, it's wrong, it's sort of questionable, but the rules in Minneapolis or in Minnesota allow for them to utilize them that way. And so if you utilize the rules to your advantage, are you really, are you cheating? No, because you're just following the rules better than the other guy. This has been, I think what the Democrats did , uh , largely throughout the entire campaign is they just followed the rules of the election better than the Republicans did, which is why they won. So, you know, this is something that is, I think, pernicious. I think that a lot of prosecutors, a lot of courts, a lot of judges bend the rules here and there in order to move justice along, hurry up, hurry up, get out of here, write cases, case numbers and Manila folders, rather than people. They just want to turn it into a processing plant, which is a, which is a big problem. And as we can see sometimes, you know , in the middle of a trial, you can't really see what is happening. You can't, you know, you're sort of in the thick of it at the moment, but now we're starting to peel back the layers of that onion and see what really happened. Maybe including some malfeasance from the prosecution's office, we have shared , Courtney also says, this just bolsters the idea that the whole thing is a political show trial intended to promote

Speaker 1:

The political agenda of BLM and CRT. That's it's not a bad take. We have a last one on this segment from patio says, I just don't see why Eric Nelson would leak this information to the media that would only make, Shovan look even more guilty and potentially put himself in hot water. If I had to guess, I would say the leak came from someone within the DOJ to give them good PR. Yeah. I mean, there already was a massive Dogpile , you know, listen, if you're extremely cynical, if you are somebody who , who maybe, you know, sort of imputes the worst motive to people, which many people would do for Eric Nelson, then you could say, well, maybe this is, I'm not saying that he did this

Speaker 4:

Brace yourselves, but if, if you were

Speaker 1:

Or overly cynical, let's say you could say that Eric Nelson maybe leaked this information

Speaker 4:

And to the New York times, in order to sort of create an escape hatch for himself,

Speaker 1:

Somehow leak the information. Then when it gets leaked, slam your fist at the table and say, this is problematic, right? This is something that they did. So you're sort of framing the prosecution for doing something that was wrong. And then,

Speaker 4:

Well, when they get caught, right, that would be a

Speaker 1:

Cynical way to look at it. I'm not saying that happened, but

Speaker 4:

You know, attorneys, attorneys do some

Speaker 1:

Shady stuff all over the place. Go. If you're, if you're a practicing attorney, you probably get one of those magazines that comes every month that says, Hey, it's the Arizona attorney magazine, whatever. Nobody reads anything in it. It's filled with ads and everything. But in our magazine in Arizona, we have

Speaker 4:

The discipline section. Everybody reads that section because we all just open it up and go, Oh, why would you do that? That's so unethical. And we all just, you know, go, Oh my gosh. And you know, it's kind of

Speaker 1:

How we police ourselves, right? Law , you know , law enforcement. They don't really do that. You know, you can go on the state bar website and look up any attorney , uh , discipline, discipline, discipline, or a perfectly clean record.

Speaker 4:

Can you do that for police? No, you can't

Speaker 1:

In trouble. Nobody even bats an eye. All right. So we're going to change gears. Thank you for all of those questions coming over from watching the watchers.locals.com. I appreciate all of your love and support over there. And we're going to change gears and we're going to talk about Leticia James. Oh boy. Donald Trump is still fighting a woman named Latisha. James, who is the attorney general for the state of New York. Latisha . James has been very aggressive. In fact, she ran basically campaign for office on prosecuting, not only Donald Trump, but kind of everybody, even remotely connected to him, including his family and others. And she is making good on her promise. She has been going at this case since 2019, we are talking about Latisha , James. This is what she looks like. And this article came from CNN yesterday, may 19 says the New York attorney general adds a criminal capacity probe to the Trump organization. And so we've been talking about this this week, really kind of a theme this week is then there's been a lot of excitement out there from a one particular ideology when it comes to the Donald Trump indictment, a lot of excitement, a lot of enthusiasm. I might even say

Speaker 4:

Little bit too much on certain channels, but they are having a good time with themselves. And now we're seeing that there's another rung on the ladder. Now there's a criminal capacity element that's being added, of course, by Latisha James, let's read this article. So she is joining the Manhattan district attorney's office in a criminal investigation of the Trump organization. So if you recall, there were already two different probes that we talked about previously, catch you up to speed on this. There is an investigation into white house counsel, Doug McGahn that he's being questioned or was being crushed question in front of, I think the judiciary committee and the congressional house of representatives. And , uh, they were very excited about that. But when you read the fine print, this was a negotiated interview and he can kind of refuse to answer anything he wants. And the executive branch can assert executive privilege over certain questions. And so nothing's going to come out of it. But if you're over on MSNBC, they're jumping out of their seats. They're so excited. There's another investigation that was taking place out of the Trump organization with the CFO, from the Trump organization, that's being run by the prosecutor of Manhattan district attorney, a guy by the name of Cy Vance. And so now what's which taking place out of Manhattan, which is where Latisha James is. She's a New York state attorney general. So now she's getting in on this , uh, saying that on the Manhattan investigation, we're going to add a criminal capacity probe to this. So it's not only that we're investigating for, you know, civil errors or like a civil audit or anything like that. We're doing a, we're adding a criminal capacity to this. So we're going to break this down. We've been following Latisha , James here pretty closely the attorney General's office investigation into the Trump organization, which has been underway since 2019. Can you believe that we're going to talk about that, but I want you to put a pin in that date 2019, it's 2021 now. So she's been going at this for some time and she's going to also continue her civil probe, of course, cause that's been going on. But the office recently informed Trump organizations of the criminal component. She said, quote, we have informed the Trump organization that our investigation into the organization is no longer purely civil in nature. We are now actively investigating the Trump organization in a criminal capacity, along with the Manhattan, da James, his spokesman, Fabian told CNN. We have no additional comments in an increasingly serious sign for the former president, whatever. So they're excited to look. They're all excited. Sonya Mogi and Kara Scannell , very excited about this. So increasingly serious or whatever. We'll see the attorney General's office is working with the Manhattan Manhattan DA's office whose wide sweeping probe into the Trump organization has looked into whether the company misled lenders and insurance companies about the value of properties and whether it paid the appropriate taxes. All right . So it's tax it's baloney , it's tax bloating . We got mislead lenders and insurance companies. All right. So they've been investigating that for two years. Now. James is notification of the organization brings a new level of potential legal risks to the former president. When the new attorney general now able to seek criminal penalties as part of the probe , Trump blasted this on calling it corrupt. And he's absolutely right. It is corrupt and this is a poor use of prosecutorial power. And I would say this both directions. Okay. And I said , I've been, I was doing the show for a long time, but I would be saying the same thing when the Republicans were up in arms over Hillary Clinton, I said, the state charged her already. You know what? She did charge her or don't okay. Get off , get on with it already because I'm just sick of it. They are denying justice by delaying it. Okay. I say this all the time, justice delayed is justice denied. When they go to these commissions, when they send stuff to these boards, when Latisha, James writes a big, you know, a hundred page press report or briefing about what she's going to do to improve justice in her state, nobody cares. Nobody cares because it's not action. It's just, it it's death by commission. It's just another phone book that somebody's going to take and throw on the back of a shelf somewhere. So when we create these commissions and Mueller's , and you know , stars and all of these things, it's just a bunch of government officials just playing patty-cake with themselves, slapping themselves all over the place. And then they come out, nobody ever gets charged with anything. And it turns into this big wasted spectacle of time. And it's just a political football that's being passed around and I'm sick of it. That's not what the justice system is for. If you want to go out into the world and say, Hey, you know your political position on abortion or immigration or taxation or any of those things, if you've got a problem with somebody's political position, we'll go into the political realm and deal with them there. But not when you're going to be using your, your political power as an elected prosecutor to go after a political opponent, this is what's exactly what's happening. We have somebody who was elected, running campaigning on this idea that she's gonna use her power as a state attorney general, to go after somebody for political purposes, right? She's got before she's elected. She's not the attorney general. So she doesn't have access to any of the investigative materials or anything like that. So she ran on a premise of going after somebody, she presupposed that he was guilty and said, I'm going to go find a guilty crime, elect me to do so, which is really w w w if you don't believe me, here's a clip over from CNN. And look at this before I play this clip. Look at this Kyron , okay. This is from CNN says that the new New York attorney general vows to target the president and his family. And she was sworn in on January 1st, 2019, and her entire campaign was based on going after one, one person. And it's Donald Trump

Speaker 5:

Sworn in on Tuesday, do settlements has made clear that among her biggest targets will be president Trump and his business practices that will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate president after all.

Speaker 4:

Oh my gosh . She's like Starling. She's like, actually, snarling watch , watch this . She says that this illegitimate president, I mean, she is mad around mad. She's mad. And this is her entire campaign. Here. It is

Speaker 5:

Sworn in on Tuesday. Do solemnly swear has made clear that among her biggest targets will be president Trump and his business practices that will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate president after all

Speaker 4:

You're legitimate president. Right . Get her Latisha ,

Speaker 1:

Get him. All right . So here is a , now this has been going on for two years, since 2019, we're going to break down this bizarre, you know, what's been going on here, but let's take a , let's take a look. They are going after the CFO's grandkids and their tuition in schools. Okay. We talked about this earlier in the week. Here's a quick reminder, Manhattan da save and subpoenas the school attended by the kids by Trump's CFO's grandkids, not Trump's kids. These are Trump's kids. These are Trump's CFO's grandkids. New York prosecutors have subpoenaed an elite private school attended by the grandchildren of Allen Weisselberg that she financial officer of the Trump organization. All right . I talked about this previously. I said that what they were doing was apparently saying that Donald Trump paid for the tuition to bypass taxes, saying that he paid rather than paying the money to Allen Weisselberg. And then having to report that to the IRS. Now he just pays the tuition and then maybe he gets a write off or paying a tuition. They don't have to report it as income. Allen Weisselberg is happy because his grandkids have their tuition paid for. Now. We're two years later, we're in 2021. And now they're going after the CFO's kids, grandkids. Okay. Donald Trump responded to this in a strange post I'll . I got to admit very, very strange post . Uh, he posted this over on his website, which is the Donald Trump desk. And I'm not going to read the whole thing because it's

Speaker 3:

Long, but it , it, it was very, it was

Speaker 1:

Strange. It was just a strange thing. There was no grammar. It was like, there's no paragraph breaks. And so it was kind of hard to read. So I've just learned through the leaks of the mainstream media, that after being under investigation for the Russian hoax, a New York attorney general has informed my organization that their investigation is no longer just a civil matter, but also potentially a criminal investigation working with the Manhattan da. He says there is nothing more corrupt than an investigation that is in desperate search of a crime. Make no mistake. That is exactly what's happening here. Attorney general of New York literally campaigned on prosecuting Donald Trump. And I just played you the

Speaker 3:

Clip. Even before four , she

Speaker 1:

Knew anything about me. She said that if elected, she would use her office to look into every aspect of my real estate dealings. She swore that she would definitely Sue me. She boasted on video, that she would be an , I quote a real pain in the. She declared just wait until I'm the attorney. Okay. It goes on and on and on. And you can go take a look at the whole thing

Speaker 3:

On his website, but it is not appropriate for prosecutors

Speaker 1:

To be using their office to go after

Speaker 3:

Anybody on a political basis. Now, if she's got some evidence of something somewhere, we should see it,

Speaker 1:

Right. We should do something about it. Let's see it. If she's got some evidence, charge him, put it in front of a grand jury, let's see some activity on it because you've been going on for two years. Now,

Speaker 3:

This is what the New York

Speaker 1:

Ethical standards say for New York prosecutors performing the duty of a public prosecutor or other government lawyer, a public prosecutor or other government lawyer shall not Institute or to be instituted criminal charges when he or she knows, or it is obvious that the charges are not supported by probable cause. Okay. And so this means she shouldn't be filing charges if there's no probable cause. And she hasn't. Okay. Cause she doesn't have any probable cause. Obviously if she does, she should file something. She doesn't. And if

Speaker 3:

She doesn't have

Speaker 1:

Any good cause to even be instituting criminal charges, as this says, then that means the investigation should , should not continue either because she's got to have a basis to investigate somebody. You cannot politically, you know , go after your political opponents, using the government power. That is insanity. And if we want to allow this to happen in this country, which has been going on for a long time, this is very New York politics, by the way, very, very, you know exactly what you sort of envisioned when you think of like, you know, the Soprano's and the East coast and all of that stuff. It's like this, this Hollywood version of what she's doing is not appropriate where she gets elected and then goes after her political enemies, that's not appropriate. Right? And that, that stereotype, I'm not trying to stereotype the entire East coast, but you know, it's this idea that you have this, these institutions of power that you elect somebody who's going to go in there and then be

Speaker 3:

Hammer for your, your party. Totally.

Speaker 1:

If the Republicans are doing this, it also it's inappropriate, but we just haven't seen it. It's so obvious as what we see here against Donald Trump, it's been going on since 2019. How long is that? A long time? We know now that the Mueller report, which was an entire investigation by the federal government only took 674 days. Okay. The Mueller report was longer than Watergate, but it was shorter than Iran-Contra or whitewater. Robert Mueller's investigation took 400, 674 days

Speaker 3:

After rod

Speaker 1:

Rosenstein was appointed until Mueller sent the final memo. So it's 674 days. Well, how long has Latisha James been going at this? So if you just type into Google, you say days from 2019 to today. Well it's 870

Speaker 3:

Days. Okay. So longer than the Mueller report, this woman has been going after it investigating,

Speaker 1:

Investigating, investigating. Now going after the CFO's kids now adding a criminal capacity to it. Give me a break. Now, if you are, let's say, if you're on the left side of the aisle and you say, well, this is great. Cause Donald Trump's a piece of work and he does need to be investigated. And I'm glad that she has been sort of unveiling, you know, unraveling the layers

Speaker 3:

On this thing. Well, I'll tell you this

Speaker 1:

Leticia James is no friend of criminal justice reform, either. Not that we have seen. If you go on her campaign website, you're going to see a very little small blurb about what her plan is. And when you click through to it, it's a, it's a four Oh four dead link. But if you can't find anything about it, what does she want? What does she say on there? Well, we want a body. Cameras is one of her big components. And it's funny because we got this, this case that has a body camera footage of it. So we have body camera here. We don't want her campaign promises that we're going to have everybody wear body cameras. All the, which is good because

Speaker 4:

In this incident we have a body camera, as we can see, actually we have multiple body cameras on this incident. This was Daniel prudes case. Daniel prude here. You can see sort of laying naked in the middle of the street. You got a bunch of officers putting a hood, a literal hood over his head in Rochester, New York. And then when he sort of stands up a little bit, you have several officers lay on him. You have one officer who does an actual plank, like you've seen the planks. Do you exercise where you sort of get on your elbows and hold your abs up? You know what kind of it hurts your elbows. It's a lot of pressure on there and it's , it's good. It's working out it's you have to tighten your abs and hold yourself up. You can, you know , go for like 60 seconds maybe and you go, wow , that's kinda tight. Right? Well, this guy, this police officer was

Speaker 3:

Doing it, but not on his shoulders. He was doing it on his, with his hands

Speaker 4:

On the back of Daniel prudes neck. And it wasn't for like 30 seconds was like two minutes .

Speaker 3:

Okay. We, we, I think we had to delete the video,

Speaker 4:

Fortunately, but we covered this case in depth. One of the most horrendous grotesque cases of police brutality and most disgusting things I've seen ever. Right. And I would even say that relative to George Floyd and some of the others really, really disgusting behavior. Well, Latisha , James didn't do much about that. She said, Oh no, the New York team , she said, she announced today that a grand jury voted not to indict any police officer on the charges. Oh, isn't that shame. So attorney general releases the statement on the grand jury decision. So, you know, attorney general James could have, I guess just charged him directly, but she didn't do that. She sent it over to a grand jury and then she blamed the grand jury. She says the grand jury voted not to indict any police officer on the charges related to the March, 2020 death of Daniel Pruett in the course of the investigation of the office of the attorney, general concluded that there was sufficient , uh, evidence for surrounding the death to present the case to a grand jury. But she didn't want to file charges herself. Of course. So she kicks it off to the grand jury. If you read the rest of that statement, then her office comes out and says, Hey, but we still think about criminal justice reform and we're still good criminal justice reform advocates. And so we put together this 50 something page document that has a lot of words in it. That sound great. You're going to love it. If you, if

Speaker 3:

You like words, you're going to, and especially

Speaker 4:

Like criminal justice reform words, you are going to love this report because we got so many words in there it's going to make you feel so good. And so she just printed that out. She posted a link on a couple of different websites and everybody goes, Oh, all right, that's great. Yeah. Attorney general, Leticia James, Hey , you know, she looked at this case and she sought , no , it's not a big deal. We're just going to pass that off to the grand jury. See what they want to do with it. Oh no, they didn't do anything. Oh,

Speaker 3:

Well here's a report.

Speaker 4:

Anybody who's upset about this. And then it happens again. The same Rochester police, they pepper sprayed a nine-year-old girl. Remember this story? We covered this the same Rochester police. Uh , this was a little bit more recently. This happened, I think in February of this year and a nine-year-old

Speaker 3:

Girl, several police calling,

Speaker 4:

Hey, stop acting like a child. Somebody says to her, she goes, I am a child. They throw her in the back of a car. She's freaking out because her mom has blood all over her , uh, or, or dad has blood over all over his shirt. The little girl thinks that mom's stabbed dad. It's a meltdown. We had these cops coming in. You're slamming this girl to the ground, throwing her in the back of a squad car and then pepper spraying her. What is a miss Latisha James say about it? Well, she says that her office is looking into it. All right . So that's happened back in February. Not much has happened since which a nine-year-old girl was handcuffed by police and had pepper spray used against her , uh, Leticia James. She tweeted, she said the incident was disturbing and wholly unacceptable. And I was just poking around. I don't see, I haven't seen any news on this. So apparently the officers were suspended. Don't know if they're back . Don't know if she's making any, any changes with the Rochester police, if she's implementing any of her plans from the first time that the Rochester police killed Daniel prude or what, what the hell is going on. But the good news is she is prosecuting Donald Trump and she's getting a lot of accolades from those in the media. Now, what is the game plan here? Really? What is her end game? Why is she doing this? She's already been prosecuting this for 870 days. Right? And I mean prosecuting by investigating it and pursuing

Speaker 3:

Charges 870

Speaker 4:

Days. Well , she runs for office again on November 8th, 2022. I virtually guarantee you, she wins. Okay. And so she is going to be able to continue this all the way out until beyond this, right? Maybe even until 2024, when you know, who might be running again. So if she gets reelected, she can just continue to be a thorn in the side

Speaker 3:

Of any future election

Speaker 4:

Or campaign proposals or anything that's happening. If you know, who decides to run again, which is really what this is all about, they need to keep a weight on, they need to keep some pressure on it. So that the next time Donald Trump gets that itch to run again, that they can say, well, he's under investigation. He's under multiple investigations in

Speaker 3:

Multiple States, and we don't want

Speaker 4:

Anybody under investigation and a criminal investigation to run doing. First question up from watching the watchers.locals.com says, okay, for the past several episodes, you've shown us many exhibits today. We have, as of this moment, two more and so many, I have lost track of the alphabet designations. All these exhibits clearly demonstrate that we are watching a live takeover by a Marxist contingent that has taken over the government and all of its agencies. Now that we see the purges and the political persecution is not to mention political prisoners and total extinction of our constitutional rights. Well, well , Sharon, I'm not going to let that happen. Right? I'm going to be fighting my little caboose off to make sure that doesn't happen, right. We are going to be protecting our constitutional rights aggressively when , and this is, you know, this is only one component of that. We're doing what we can. I know it's a fight. I appreciate you being here. Appreciate your love and support, but we're going to stay . We're going to keep going on this thing best . Semi-auto says Trump has to insist that Tish recluse herself for personal bias. Yeah. So I think you may be accused or it's probably type over cues herself, her personal bias. Yeah. I mean, it's just amazing to me that you can, you can do that. You can just run for office on wiping somebody out using your political power to do that. And that's just a perfectly, okay.

Speaker 3:

Right. And it's different,

Speaker 4:

Different than running a regular campaign. Okay. Campaign a candidate, a versus candidate B. This guy's tax policy is horrendous. This guy doesn't know anything about the environment. This guy is a moron when it comes to the economy and around and around, we go, right. But Hey , have you ever seen, you know, what, if Donald Trump was running against Joe Biden and said, Hey, if you elect me, I'm actually going to arrest him and indict him. And we're going to throw him

Speaker 3:

Vote for me. Totally inappropriate. Right?

Speaker 4:

Totally inappropriate to do that. Now I'm not against prosecuting government

Speaker 3:

Officials either love that huge fan prosecute most of them. But the question is you got to find it .

Speaker 4:

The wrongdoing first, you've got to find something wrong. First, you got to open it . Something has to open the door. You can't start out by saying, I'm going

Speaker 3:

To go criminally

Speaker 4:

Prosecuted that person, and then go find a crime. That's not the appropriate way to do it. Uh, but that's what she's doing. We have hugging money in his back in the house. Hey , Hugin , haven't seen you in a while. Good to see you back. It says, at what level does something like this turn into harassment? So it's a really good question. Hugging. And you know, I , I was actually trying to do some very preliminary research on this out of New York. I tried to find what their standard was for malicious prosecution. And I had a hard time finding it, honestly. Um , they're , they're , they're , uh , statutes and their case law is sort of poorly organized. A lot of the stuff that I saw was coming from , uh, unreliable sources. So I don't really know what the standard is in New York for malicious prosecution. Uh, if, if , uh, if I have some time, maybe I'll have somebody in the office do some research on that, but I couldn't find the rough framework for what that looks like. Or in other words, what, at what point does Latisha James Cross that line from being somebody who's just, you know, asking questions, doing an investigation, representing the people in her constituency. When does it cross over into harassment? I mean, it's been 800 and something days longer than the Mueller report. If she has found something, charge him already enough. All right . And look, I ,

Speaker 3:

If she found , okay, fine charge him . Let's sort it out leafy

Speaker 4:

Bug is now in the house says, Hey, Robert and crew, is there anything that Trump can do to get out of, out in front of this thing? Is there some kind of legal action

Speaker 3:

Lawyers could take to what seems to be a vexatious prosecutorial process? Oops. Take to stop this process. Yeah. So good , good question. Leafy bugs . So it's,

Speaker 4:

It's a tough question because it sounds like this is just entirely political to me. I mean, honestly yeah .

Speaker 3:

If, if there were some legal maneuverings happening, right? So like , let me give you the legal answer

Speaker 4:

Every time there's a subpoena or a warrant, or there's any request for a deposition or, you know, the government is sort of encroaching into some of these areas. Well, they could, you know, their , their counsel could sort of get involved in pushback on every one of those little battles, whatever that may be. Right. I can't speak to every one of them because there's a lot of them,

Speaker 3:

But you're sort of letting the government know

Speaker 4:

Is being represented and you're opposing anything that there'd be that they're doing in the investigation, which they're probably, maybe they're doing or not. I don't know. But that's one thing, but you know, is this really a legal battle? I don't know. It sounds like this is more like a political battle, so I'm not sure what they need to do in the court of law or in the arena of the courts, because it's just a lot of words that basically she's saying, she's sort of keeping the pressure on him. I'll let you know whether, whether it's legitimate or not. We don't know, but she's been at it for two and a half years. So come up with something, right. It's not, we don't have to continue to wait. You're claiming that there was some criminality here. You're claiming that this is worth the investigation. So it's been since 2019, you just added a criminal capacity to it. What do you have where to show us your cards. If you've got something by all means, carry on. If you can go to the CFO and say, Hey Weisselberg Hey, Donald Trump was, had a secret account and he was pumping a bunch of money into Weisselberg CFO's grandkids account. Let's see it it's been two and a half

Speaker 6:

Years enough already. We've

Speaker 4:

Got Jeremy Matree to says, be careful what you wish for when campaigning on the promise of a criminal investigation, you might just become the subject of said criminal investigation. Yeah . Better keep your nose clean. Right. Got to keep those noses clean. It goes for everybody. We have no doubt says Kim Gardner the da who went after the McCloskey is , and Missouri governor is behaving similarly and is being charged with professional misconduct and potentially losing her law license. Are there criminal charges that may be subject to for this type of behavior or is a civil case, a possible route? So,

Speaker 6:

You know, it's

Speaker 4:

Remember we talked about this concept, a lot of , of qualified immunity and about government officials having immunity from certain things that fall within the purview of their scope of duties. If they are acting as a prosecutor and they're doing prosecutorial things while they're sort of protected, they're sort of immune against liability. And we kind of want that, right? We want our government officials to be able to do their jobs. Every time a governor signs a bill into law, we don't want him to, we don't want everybody to be able to Sue the governor and say, well, that law , uh, disproportionately impacts me. So I'm gonna Sue the governor. Now he's basically immune from that. And that's part of his function. So he's immune from that lawsuit. Same thing with , with prosecutors really, they're very protected from this and I'm not familiar with the standard. Well, there are certain things that a prosecution of a prosecutor can absolutely do that breaches, that qualified immunity, right? If they, if they are so far outside the bounds of what would be acceptable conduct for that office, then they would basically break that agency relationship qualified immunity would then evaporate. They would be it's gross negligence. They would be subject to some sort of repercussions in the form of , of a civil case or a criminal case. But if a prosecutor were to do something that was criminal, of course they can be charged with crimes. I guess the question would be, you know, does anything that, that can, that a Gardner or James was doing, does that amount to criminality? Does it amount to harassment or , um, you know, anything in that realm? I don't think so. It, it, it feels political. It feels inappropriate. I think the appropriate punishment is political, but people like this, they like the fact that she's going after Trump Nadar , bla sear says what's up in the dark says, so why doesn't Trump Sue the state again? I think it's qualified immunity. And again , I don't , I can't, I can't speak too intelligently about that because I don't do civil law, but I would guess that there's probably no basis for it because she's going to say that it falls within the purview within the confines of acceptable behavior. And our last question from watching the watchers.locals.com is from pinky to , she says the left has gone overboard. When will it stop? And pepper spray should have on it. Never use on a child, a nice label there . At least, at least in the police stash. It's funny . It's kind of a sad state of affairs. Isn't it? Pinky that we have to put a warning label on pepper spray to not spray a nine-year-old right. 10 that's. Okay. Spray the heck out of that 10 year old punk. He's old enough. He's got two digits so he can handle it. Nine-year-olds though. No, we don't want that in this country only ten-year-olds so somebody tele Tisha , James. All right. So those questions came over from watching the watchers.locals.com . Thank you so much for checking that out. And a reminder got a second channel. So if you're watching this on replay, it's in the description below. So go check that out. A lot of our non live content is going to go on that channel. So we want to make sure that you are over there as well. And , um, we're going to build that puppy up. It's going to be fun. We've got some good stuff cooking. Okay. So we're going to change gears. We're going to talk about caring garner. Remember Karen Garner. She was 73 years old is still currently 73 years old. Don't think that she died. This is an officer involved case, but not an officer involved death. Thankfully, I know we'd normally talk about those, but this is not that however, she did get abused pretty badly. And the police actually popped her shoulder out of socket and then sort of were laughing about it saying, Hey, did you hear that pop? Hey , they listened back on the body camera. That you're that pup . Oh, that was your shoulder. Isn't that fun? Well, both those officers who were being very inhumane to a fellow human have been charged with crimes. This story comes over from the Washington post Colorado officers who violently arrested a 73 year old with dementia and then mocked her now face charges. It took officer Austin whup less than 30 seconds from the moment he stepped out of his squad car to violently pin, Karen Garner, 73 year old grandmother of nine to the ground. And if you recall, we covered this on the channel. We're not going to go back through the body camera video. But , uh , this was Karen Gardner . She was walking along the side of the road. Officer hop comes out, says something like stop. And she kind of looks at him and dementia. She goes, what? And keeps walking away. And he says, what did you say? Excuse me. And he goes and just kind of grabs her immediately dragged her back to the car. And the rest is kind of history from there. We see her spreading around, you know, he's , he sort of puts her hands behind her back. And then the, the risk comes up towards the back of your neck. And you can hear her shoulder pop out moments later. The officer handcuffed Gardner poster against the hood of the patrol car patrol car, her arm audibly popping as his colleague Daria Jalali assisted him. This happened in June. The interaction was recorded by officer Hopps , body camera left garner with a dislocated shoulder and a fractured arm. Her family said she spent hours inside a booking cell without receiving any medical care while the officers mocked her today or mocked her after the arrest on Wednesday, nearly a year later, Colorado authorities charged both officers with multiple counts in connection with the arrest officers. According to the affidavits that were filed in court, both officers previously resigned from the department. So this happened some time ago. And if you recall, when we were going through the body camera footage, we also saw some of the jail footage. And so from inside the jail facility and they sort of carried her in like an animal, right? Remember that they sort of just kind of met him here you go. Throw her right in there. And then I think they even handcuffed her to the bench.

Speaker 7:

So broken arm, dislocated shoulder,

Speaker 4:

They're screaming in pain , uh, you know, multiple complaints of pain throw a right end . Then the two cops sat down at the stations to write their reports. They're analyzing the body camera and they're just yucking it up with each other. Oh man, did you see that? That was crazy. What'd you think? And Jalali is like, well, you know, I kind of felt weird about it and hops like, well, that was crazy, man. That was also a mood . You know, I'm fighting for justice out there in America. We have hop . Now he was charged. He was 26 years old. He's charged with using excessive force and purposefully misleading his supervisors. Oh . While in custody garner told hop that she was in pain, at least 14 times prosecutor said yet he did not provide medical care. Jalali 27 was charged with not intervening while hop , allegedly used unnecessary force and not reporting hops

Speaker 7:

Conduct. Sarah . [inaudible] an attorney right ?

Speaker 4:

Representing Gardener's family. So the family still wants to see other officers at the police force face charges. We are relieved that some criminal charges were fired at all filed at all. However, we are deeply concerned that they stopped short of charging either of the involved supervising sergeants. Oh, interesting. So remember we watched this, there were other supervising agents. So these two knuckleheads went over there and they got involved in this situation, 26, 27. They're just, they don't know what they're doing with their lives. They're just like out there enforcing justice. Great. So they come back and then they deal with their more senior supervisors. And there's an, a , an altercation there was happening back at the jail facility where there's a conversation and he's like, well, did you do this? And did you do that? So they are talking about it. And so what this defense attorney is saying, well, those supervisors should have immediately seen that there was a problem. There's a woman in the jail cell, right there screaming, you know, writhing in pain. And they should have done more to assist Sergeant Phil Metzler who supervised hop and Jalali remained suspended while the city conducts an independent investigation. Body camera footage shows that garner who has dementia and sensory aphasia, a condition that leaves her unable to understand speech or communicate easily appeared confused. When hopped demanded that she stopped. As he quickly wrenched her arms back, she recreated repeatedly cried that she was quote , going home. She yelled in pain and she fell to the ground hop and Jalali struggling to detain her 73 years old folks. And she, she looked about as tough as a 73

Speaker 3:

Looks . So you have two officers hops , uh, uh , larger gentlemen . And , uh , they just

Speaker 4:

Took her down. Prosecutors later dropped all charges against garner days after the release of the body camera footage, her family's attorneys released booking photo showing hop Jalali and other officer hunched around a computer. As they rewatch the video of the arrest and fist

Speaker 3:

One another. The officers claimed that the arrest quote went great

Speaker 4:

While referring to garner as ancient

Speaker 3:

And senile. So why does this happen? Right? Why does this happen? This is not just one person. Okay. This is

Speaker 4:

Two officers acting together. Then they go back

Speaker 3:

And they rewatch it with another officer. And they're all just joking

Speaker 4:

About this. She's ancient. She's senile.

Speaker 3:

It went great. Oh yeah .

Speaker 4:

But you broke her arm. You fractured her arm and then injected her shoulder

Speaker 3:

From her body that went great. 73 grandmother. Good for you.

Speaker 4:

We have meanwhile garner, she sat handcuffed on a bench in a booking cell about 10 feet away from the officers weeping and in pain, her family said it took six hours before garner was seen by a doctor .

Speaker 3:

Doctor. Her attorney said hope was

Speaker 4:

Charged with assault and attempting to influence a public servant, both felonies and misconduct ,

Speaker 3:

Uh , misdemeanor hop made substantial emissions in his interviews about the incident

Speaker 4:

And in an attempt to thwart the investigation of his conduct Jalali was charged with official misconduct and not reporting the use of force by a peace officer. Both misdemeanors, both officers were expected to turn themselves in cloth. Lynn said, and we're gonna , we have a clip from the cloth when he is

Speaker 3:

The da who I think is involved in this.

Speaker 4:

He says, I believe this decision speaks clearly to our community. That accountability will be achieved through our independent, critical incident response team process.

Speaker 3:

Wow, that's a mouthful. We have an ICI, R T P I C I R TP independent critical incident response team process. Ooh . Yeah , that's good.

Speaker 4:

I hope today can be a step forward rebuilding trust between the criminal justice community and the Larimer County

Speaker 3:

Community, as well as seeking justice for the family.

Speaker 4:

Laughlin said there was not sufficient evidence to charge any other officers ,

Speaker 3:

Which I , I think I agree with that actually

Speaker 4:

Loveland police, chief Robert Ticer backed up the attorney's decision. So that's good. The district attorney and the chief of police are in concert about this. I fully support the charges, brought against these two individuals regarding their interactions, says the chief of police. We understand the desire for accountability and justice. And we are seeing that today from Ms . Garner, Ticer said his department will continue to cooperate with criminal of Garner's

Speaker 1:

Case, adding that he has requested a third-party investigation. Gardener's family they'll call for further charges. The story didn't stop with Hopkins . Jalali said the daughter-in-law. She said, so the charges can't stop with hip hop and Jalali they need to continue. So the family's unhappy about it, right? They want blood. They want the whole department, they want heads and badges and guns. Now on my desk, I don't think they're going to get it. Don't think that that's warranted. But here is McGlaughlin during a press conference from today

Speaker 8:

Are considered decision. In this case today are that criminal charges should have been filed against two former Loveland police officers , Austin hop , Daria. Jalali all charges against them are merely accusations. At this point, they are presumed innocent unless, and until they are proven guilty, this is now an open criminal case. I'm therefore bound by ethical obligations of the rules of professional conduct to limit what I share to preserve the neutrality of any jury pool ensure a fair process in this case. But in short, I will say that while peace officers are permitted to use reasonable force to affect an arrest investigation in this case, showed that Austin hop used excessive force and needed in serious bodily injury to Ms. Garner further, the investigation showed that Daria Jalali having witnessed that excessive force failed to live up to her duties under the law, and as a sworn peace officer to either intervene or report in that out in that conduct. Finally, the investigation found that Austin hop made substantial additions and specific statements in his reporting of the interaction in an attempt to work the investigation of his conduct, the charges filed, which again are merely allegations until proven beyond a reasonable doubt are as follows against Austin hop . Okay .

Speaker 1:

All right. So we know what the charges are. Sorry about the audio. I know that was a little bit low, but , uh , basically I just want to get a feel for what he looks like and what he sounds like and what that was all about. So that was the press conference. The unveiling of the charges, the Colorado in is giving us some information about what's coming next in this case. So these two officers of course were arrested or I'm sorry. Uh , had to turn themselves in. We now know that hope is scheduled to be advised of his charges on Thursday afternoon. And they're going to appear for person appear in person for the first time on Tuesday. So it sounds like next week Jalali did not have any court appearances scheduled as of about noon today. No definite timeline for how long these cases could move through the court system. Yeah, no idea. We have the day after the federal lawsuit was filed, Loveland police department launched an internal investigation into the arrest to look at policies. The internal investigation was paused when McGlaughlin launched the CRT investigation on April 19th as to not interfere with the criminal investigation. So city manager, Steve Adams said in a presentation during Tuesday's city council meeting, that the investigation would continue. Internal investigation is going to be held by an outside agency. Adams also told the council that an outside consultant is going to come in. It's going to take three to four months. So a lot more consultants, good lot of consultants, a lot of consultants and reports. That's what our government does. Loveland city council. Ticer said he's in favor of the city council, exploring ways to rebuild broken trust. Obviously when you have an incident where former police officers are charged with a crime, you have broken trust. I welcome anything we can do to help federal lawsuits . All parties are seeking mediation outside of court. Scheduling conference has been scheduled for July 14th. All right. So short segment on that one

Speaker 3:

On there, but we have two officers who were very, very inappropriate with 73 year old woman with dementia, and now they're being charged. So sometimes good things happen in this country. We have people paying rent

Speaker 1:

Questions for the harm that they inflict on others. That's good. We have here Sharon Quintin . He says, well, finally, we have something going right with these cops being prosecuted, that treatment they gave that poor old woman was blatant police brutality. I hope they get sued to the max as well. It was really, really, really bad conduct, really reprehensible. Jeremy Latrina says, what does it say about officers that feel threatened by an old lady with dementia? And you know, that's my question. It's like, where does this come from? What causes

Speaker 3:

This to be the way certain

Speaker 1:

People think? You know, I just don't. I just don't understand it. You know, I just can't like, for example, right. If I am an officer, I could never imagine myself. Let's say just pick me up and tomorrow. Hey Rob, you're a police officer. Okay, well , I'm walking down the street. Oh, I'm patrolling down this street, 73 year old woman walking down the street. And I say, ah , they say to me, that's illegal. You have to go stop that from happening. I said, okay, no problem at all. Happy to do it. So I'd get out of the car.

Speaker 3:

Excuse me. Ma'am um, you're breaking the law.

Speaker 1:

You can't walk here. It's dangerous. Got to help

Speaker 3:

You. I can't imagine in a thousand attempts that I do

Speaker 1:

Anything that resembles what that officer did. I can't imagine it. And then not , not just

Speaker 3:

Officer too . Okay. And it's not just like to steroid it out. Muscle

Speaker 1:

Had bros . Okay. It's a guy and a female and you've got, you know, they're both new 26, 27. And they both grow through this. And the humanity is sort of just been

Speaker 3:

Ripped out of them. And I just take a woman and just ,

Speaker 1:

Uh , 73 year old grandma, they both have grandmas. Yeah .

Speaker 3:

And they, you know, they just, they beat the hell out of her and they just throw her in like a , like a piece of cattle. How does that happen?

Speaker 1:

I can't imagine that those, that both of those people were sort of came out of the womb. Why you're differently than you are . Right . Why are differently than those of us who saw what we saw and sort of, it makes our, our stomach churn . Cause we have mothers and we have grandmothers and we know how this is.

Speaker 3:

So how does a person become distorted to that degree? Why do they,

Speaker 1:

You start on the light side, if you believe that premise. And I do, I believe that people start good. And , and we're, we're, we're sort of brought into this world as clean blank slates. And we become programmed to some degree by our environment, our lives and our circumstances, but that we're inherently good. And then

Speaker 4:

That we, we sort of become, or let ourselves become corrupted. So how does this happen for these two officers ? 26, 27?

Speaker 3:

What , what went wrong

Speaker 4:

In the training process? What in the police culture? What in the policy and procedural manual, what in the training curriculum says that you've got to do this to people.

Speaker 3:

Why does this happen? And if it, and if it's

Speaker 4:

On the process, if it's on the system, if it's on the culture

Speaker 3:

Of law enforcement, then I've got some empathy for those two people. Right? Cause they're just following their training. They're just following their culture. They deserve a defense. They deserve, you know ,

Speaker 4:

Compassion and some empathy, those two officers. But, but why, why did this happen? Why do they do this? Why do cops do this?

Speaker 3:

I don't know. I have to believe it's the culture and the training, but it's, it's, it's a , it's a sad thing.

Speaker 4:

Their lives are ruined her. Life's ruined. Everybody's angry now. Even more.

Speaker 3:

So how do we unring

Speaker 4:

That bell? How do we reverse that clock a little bit? I don't justice first says these officers should be charged and never allowed to work as peace officers. Again, they should also have to act as Karen's care caregiver supervise for at least six months. Oh, I like that. What can you do when these young cops seem clueless ? Clueless and heartless? I just asked the same question. I don't know. I think it's culture. I think it's process. I think it's environment, but I think it's time to

Speaker 3:

Revisit it. No doubt says

Speaker 4:

I'm an I four and I fan can they pop his shoulder out?

Speaker 3:

The punishment? I don't , I don't know. We

Speaker 4:

Have a pinky number two in the house as

Speaker 3:

A I'm so glad she looked frail and they were brutal. The male police officer was way, way out of control. She bet at the scene and got no help. They need to take ,

Speaker 4:

Take their badge and put the male officer in prison for a while . Do you think it's like adrenaline that the officers get and they don't even care what happens? I think it is. You know, I think that, I think that there is a certain contingent

Speaker 3:

Of police officers who are adrenaline junkies. And I've just seen that, just my interaction with them.

Speaker 4:

I've seen them in trials and courts during interviews,

Speaker 3:

Just sort of in the community, right? So we just bump into them at certain events. And there are, there is, there is a sense that I have that there are certain, certain pieces

Speaker 4:

That they're there for the , the thrill they're there for the adrenaline. They want to get jacked up. They want to go out there and see where the action is. And this guy sort of fit the bill of that character for me, you know, not every officer is like that. Like I said, I think most officers are great. And I told you one of the best gifts I ever got, came from an officer that I've ever received my whole life. So I have a lot of, of love and a warm spot for the good police, but the bad ones, I have a lot of problems with. And I have a lot of problems with an institution that oftentimes seems to protect the bad

Speaker 3:

Police and doesn't provide

Speaker 4:

An outlet or a mechanism or a forum for the good police to speak up less retribution

Speaker 3:

Their way either. But there is

Speaker 4:

Some level of culture that I think officers want to get in the mix of things. And when that happens ,

Speaker 3:

[inaudible] these are the results we get. The Darla Sierra says, does officer rank have any effect

Speaker 4:

On what one cop can do? If another cop is ranked higher than them is acting crazy.

Speaker 3:

So, yeah. Right. You

Speaker 4:

Have the chain of command theoretically, but this was something that came up in the Shovan trial . So, you know, one of the criticisms was, even though Derek Shovan may have been one of the more senior , uh , senior, I said almost at attorneys, senior officers

Speaker 3:

There, nobody sort of stopped him. No , none of the other three officers, apparently what they should have done. If they wanted to escape criminal liability,

Speaker 4:

It was like tackle Derek Shovan off of George Floyd, but that they would have had to have intervened. They were aiding and abetting him in the commission of a crime. So in this case, even though maybe they didn't have the authority to knock Derek Shovan off of George Floyd, they, if they, if one of them would have

Speaker 3:

Done that according to the prosecution,

Speaker 4:

According to the prosecutor's office and the laws in Minneapolis, that would have been the correct course of action because they're being charged right now. We have Hugin . Monton says it's not police culture, it's human nature. This was proven during the Stanford prison experiment in 1971, you know, hugging. I almost talked about that today. It ran through my mind, the Stanford prison experiment when I was talking through this about human nature and about how people can be so inhumane too . So, you know, man's inhumanity to man is really what I was trying to talk about. The Stanford prison experiment crossed my mind, but I just didn't want to get into it for the sake of time, but I will do so now because it is very interesting. This was the experiment. I think if , if I recall correctly was

Speaker 3:

Where they had patients and they had tests,

Speaker 4:

The administrators and they put the patients in one room and the test administrators in the other room and the patients were being hooked up to these electrodes. And what would happen would be the , the test administrators would go in and they bring a patient in and they'd hook them up to the electrodes. And they'd say, okay, turn that up to a level one, turn those electrodes up to a level one. They turned them up . The person would go, Oh , this is Whoa. That's a little bit of a jolt

Speaker 3:

There. I said , all right. All right. And so that's okay.

Speaker 4:

We'll strap that person down and make sure they can't move in that , that person's tied up. Turn it up to a two. Whoa. All right , that's hot. Turn it up to a three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. By the level 10, that person is screaming, screaming, melt. They stop stops up . And the person administering the test is being told by the running of the , the person running the program, you got to keep going like, no, the tests

Speaker 3:

Is not done yet. Like you have to like, you have to get up to level 10, like keep going.

Speaker 4:

And as this person is sort of strapped to the table, writhing in pain, screaming, the person on the other end of the room is turning the volume up and this person is dying. Well, the secret here is that the person who's hooked up to the electrodes is not hooked up to anything. They're just, they're just fake electrodes and they're actors, but they know what level they're on. And so they are acting more and more in pain, but the people on the other side don't know anything about that. So the question is why do people just keep putting other people in pain when they're being told to do so? Why? When the test administrator is telling test operator, keep jacking that up. The person on the other side of the glass is like faking, dying and looks like they're dying. They turn it all the way up. It goes up to nine,

Speaker 3:

10, 11, 12, Hey ,

Speaker 4:

This might kill him. No problem. Turn it right up. And this was repeatable happened over and over again. And it's sort of this weird condition of humanity that we listened to authority. We sorta just fall in line and obey commands and that can lead to some very inhumane outcomes. I think that was that experiment. It's a great experiment. Thank you. Hugging Monon for bringing that up. Good, good, good comment. We have Sharon says, I think you're right about it being an adrenaline thing. I think it's also a police culture thing. This is from Sharon Quinney too , where they sense themselves as I quasi military with criminals being cast as the enemy and dehumanized . Yeah. I think there is a big component of that. And you know, I say this all the time, Hey, we're not in Fallujah over here, folks. This is

Speaker 3:

Civilian country. This is a domestic situation

Speaker 4:

That you're in. You're not parachuting into Iraq. So don't treat us like that on the side of a traffic stop. Right? It's a different environment, but you can see sort of the military militarization of the police they've got, they've got, you know, every time we started

Speaker 3:

And then get these sort of, you know , pseudo

Speaker 4:

Tanks and all sorts of military style machinery, it's slightly concerning. And our last question in the house is from E Don test says, Hey, I know this comment is on the last segment, but I just got to my computer. What is the date stamp on the video by Tish? Did she say Trump was an illegitimate president? She questioning the legitimacy of the elections. That's a great point. Somebody better impeach her for that because it sounds like

Speaker 3:

She is fostering an insurrection in this country, which is folks America. We're better than that. Okay.

Speaker 4:

Just like Joe, we want unity in this country. She is not contributing to unity. She is saying that Donald Trump was an illegitimate president, which we know is illegal in this country. Now you can actually get the death penalty

Speaker 3:

Or even talking about that

Speaker 4:

Good point there, eat on tests. Thank you for chime in on that. And those questions all came over from watching the watchers.locals.com , which is where you can support the show. And we really appreciate when you do that, because it keeps our energy going and you get to be plugged in with some other amazing people. Let's see who just signed up. We have

Speaker 3:

D Hill knob welcome

Speaker 4:

To the community. We got Jim Shanahan, 44 is in the house. We have country bumpkin, welcome country bumpkin. We got Lynn , J N N is also in the house. And they all signed up by going to this link down here called watching the watchers.locals.com. You can sign up, you can actually do a full year subscription now and you can save two months. So rather than paying monthly, you just pay for the year. And it's actually a smoking deal. A lot of good stuff coming, and you get access to a lot of very good things, which I will tell you about here in a minute. But before I do want to say thank you to those of you who asked all the great questions from that very, very fine locals community. You know who you are on there. If you're not already over there at locals, you can get a lot of good stuff, including a copy of my book right here, it's called beginning to winning how to fight your case and succeed in the criminal justice system. You can download a copy of these slides that we just went through, download a copy of my impeachment party document or my existence system, personal productivity template. And you can share links throughout the day and meet great people. But you were also going to be invited to our Saturday, May 22nd. That is this Saturday 7:00 PM Eastern time, which is going to be S uh , 4:00 PM Pacific time. And , uh , we're going to meet up on zoom. So sign up for that register [email protected] And I will see you on Saturday evening, just for one hour , camera's off. No problem at all. If you want to do that, but I'm looking forward to seeing you then Mark the date for June 12th. That's going to be the next event it's going to be right around noon, Eastern time, 9:00 AM. We're going to do law enforcement interaction training. I'm excited about this. I've got some hypotheticals that we're going to run through. We're going to do a presentation on how to deal with

Speaker 3:

Police . And if you are a locals subscriber,

Speaker 4:

All that's fruits comes with the program. So a lot of good stuff, I've got more stuff I'm going to open up and probably going to open up the existence system course. I've got another course that I've been working on. Probably gonna open that up for free. So all is good [email protected] Our community is called watching the Watchers and a one last reminder to go check out my second channel yesterday, I just released a premiere to video on the Wu Han COVID escape theory, really that Nicholas Wade article wrote this brilliant article about where the Corona virus came from, whether it came from a bat cave in Wuhan, in China, somewhere in the caves, in the Southern China, or whether this came from a lab called the Wu Han virology lab. So it did a deep dive on that over at channel number two, which is really going to be where we're going to be housing, all of the recorded stuff, all the live stuff is going to stay right here on this channel. I'm going to encourage you to go over to the other one for some of the more recorded stuff, the longer form content, some of the deep dives. And I'd ask you to go and just check that out as well. So the link is in the description. And lastly, before we get out of here, I know that sometimes people get in tough spots when it comes to criminal charges and they're just scratching their heads. And they're thinking, gosh, I just don't know who to call. I'm just waiting for a light bulb to go off. I need a criminal lawyer who could that person

Speaker 3:

Probably B our in our law group. Hey, look at that. Somehow the universe gave me a sign, the RNR law group, that's the place to call. And so I am ,

Speaker 4:

I'm a criminal defense lawyer. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who is facing criminal charges, we would love it if you sent them our way so that we could have an opportunity to help them. We love to help good people facing criminal charges, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. And so we'd be very humbled and appreciative. If you sent them our direction, we offer free case evaluations. We have a nice big office in Scottsdale, tons of space for distancing and, and a lot of, a lot of people who just are really passionate about helping people get through probably the most difficult time in their life and help them to get things back on track. We want to be a part of the solution. So if you know anybody in the state of Arizona facing a criminal charge, whether it's a DUI misdemeanor, domestic drug offense, traffic ticket, traffic violation, reckless driving, criminal, speeding, anything like that, urinating in public, anything and everything in between. We can help. If you have an old record, something you want to quash an old warrant or get your driver's license back or apply to possess a firearm, again, restore your right to be a second amendment enthusiast. Again, the ability to go and clear off your record, or a vote again, or apply for federal benefits. There's a lot that we can do. We are super passionate about it. And so all of our information is down in the description below free case evaluations. You can schedule online, you can call us the phone numbers down, give us a call. We would love to help. And again, it would be very, very much appreciative of your support. It really is what we're passionate about. So thank you for allowing us to continue to do the work that we love and my friends that is it from me. We are going to be back here. Same time, same place, all of it tomorrow. And I hope you can join us. It's at 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM in central 7:00 PM on the East coast. And for that one, Florida, man, my friends, everybody have a tremendous evening, have a very hearty and healthy dinner. I'll see you right back here

Speaker 9:

Tomorrow. Bye-bye .