Rittenhouse Case Update, Ozark Christian College Transgender Shower Lawsuit, Obama Confirms UFOs?

Kyle Rittenhouse was back in court today for a pre-trial conference – we review what happened. Ozark Christian College loses injunction in lawsuit challenging Biden Administration’s transgender shower executive order. UFOs are here! Expert weighs in on Tucker and Barack Obama chimes in! And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Kyle Rittenhouse appeared for a hearing at the Kenosha County Circuit Court to discuss the ongoing criminal case.​
• Judge Bruce Schroeder conduct the proceeding, and scheduling several deadlines, including motions deadline and jury questionnaire deadlines.​
• The hearing, lasting only 11 minutes, was largely procedural, with the Judge holding to a November 1 trial date.​
• Review of the Kyle Rittenhouse Court Docket in Kenosha and upcoming deadlines.​
• A federal judge rejected the College of Ozarks’ request for a temporary restraining order to stop the application of a Biden Administration order regarding discrimination.​
• Biden’s order was signed on January 20th and aims to stop discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.​
• Ozark College filed a lawsuit, claiming that the new Executive Order violations free exercise of religion by forcing the school to house transgender students in student housing.​
• We review the complaint, the School of the Ozarks, Inc. vs. Joseph R. Biden Jr., filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.​
• U.S. Government officials getting curiously loose-lipped with new revelations of unidentified flying objects! What is going on?​
• Congressional report on the existence of UFOs and UAVs is due in June, and experts are weighing in on what to expect.​
• Barack Obama goes on the Jeremy Corbel for a moment of being serious and acknowledge there are objects that are flying around that are not identified.​
• Review of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program and a clip of Luis Elizondo on Tucker Carlson discussing the United States government being in possession of “exotic materials.” ​
• 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.buzzsprout.com/​
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
• Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/​
• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​
• Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
• Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

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://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

Why Locals? We head over to Locals to continue the conversation before, during and after the show. You can also grab the slides (and other stuff) from the show as well as a free PDF copy of Robert’s book which is also

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our system with a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we had a bang in week and it's Friday. We're looking forward to a very pleasant weekend unplugging from politics. But before we do, we've got some news to get to Kyle Rittenhouse was in court today, not that eventful of a court hearing, we're still in the pretrial phase of this case. And so Thomas binger, the prosecutor was there. We had Mark Richards. Kyle's attorney was there. We have a new attorney who also joined the crew. And so we're going to take a look at who that is also representing Rittenhouse, but today was largely a scheduling hearing. And so we got some court dates that were scheduled down in the future. We got some clips of the hearing that took place. Not really anything too, uh, too interesting, but we hear from Thomas binger, we hear from the defense and we hear from the judge. So we are going to talk about all of that. We'll have a Kyle Rittenhouse update for you. Then we're going to change gears. We're going to talk about the college of Ozarks, which is a college, uh, of the Ozarks. And they are in the middle of this lawsuit against the Biden administration around the complicated issue, really that has to do with, I think, showers and sort of discrimination and maybe transgender issues and gender identity and sexual orientation and all of these sort of amorphous weird, difficult to define concepts. There's a lawsuit that's taking place in particular. Ozar college is not happy that the Biden administration issued an executive order that said that the school can't really make any distinctions or delineations based on gender identity. And so this is a Christian college and they've got some pretty hard rules about dividing people based on genders. And so the Biden administration said, well, you can't really do that anymore. They filed a lawsuit and the judge said, you guys hold tight. They denied an injunction there. They're basically saying that the courts or the school loses at this moment pending further review. And so we're going to take a look at what's going on in this case, including reading a little bit of the complaint from, uh, Ozark college against the byte administration, what are they complaining about? Is this a transgender shower issue? Is this something that is even worse, you know, litigating over or so we're going to break apart that complaint and we're going to see what the judge had to say about it. Then we got to talk it's Friday, we're going to lighten it up a little bit. We got to talk about the UFO's cause the space aliens are here. As you know, on this channel, we are watching the Watchers. And so if they are somebody else watching us, watching the Watchers, that is cause for concern, we cannot allow that to stand. So we have to take a look at what's going on with these unidentified flying objects, floating around our atmosphere. Apparently our government knows something about this. As we've talked about on this channel, we do have to go over a report that is scheduled to come out in June that is supposed to be delivered to Congress. If you recall back during the Corona virus, a bill, there was a little bit of money that was tucked away in there for a report about these unidentified aerial phenomena, UAP or UFO's or UAVs, whatever you want to call them. They are floating around. And Congress is now asking questions that are supposed to be an, a declassified or a, uh, less than top secret report that is going to be delivered to Congress. And we're starting to hear other people, you know, kind of poke their heads up and lend credence to this idea that maybe in fact, the government doesn't know anything about what is happening out there. I'm talking about Barack Obama, former president was on a talk show, Jeremy Corbell show and sort of got serious for a moment and said, no, actually there are things flying around out there and we don't really know what they are and people are looking into it. And so everybody's sort of scratching their heads on this one. What's what, what do you mean? Cause they're, they're doing some very interesting things, like sort of disappearing into the water, sort of, uh, trans deucing different mediums going from the air into the water, almost like there's no distinction between the two different, uh, physical properties of error and liquid and very, very interesting things are happening. So we've got a lot to get into. If you want to be a part of the show, you can do so by going over to our community@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, which is where we take questions. So if you want to ask a question or leave a comment or a LABA criticism, feel free to do that. That is taking place in our community@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Quick reminder, we've got some dates coming up that are very important. We've got now tomorrow. Oh my goodness. It's tomorrow. We have our very first community meetup for the locals community. Wow. Is going to be fun. It's going to be at 7:00 PM Eastern time tomorrow May 22nd. That's going to be 4:00 PM Arizona time. We're going to just chat. We're just going to poke our heads into a little zoom room and say hello to each other. So if you want to be a part of that, I would encourage you to do that. And the place to do that is@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. When you go there, you're going to see a pin to message. You can sign up, register for that, and then we're going to connect tomorrow. So it should be a lot of fun. Then on June 26, put a pin in this date, we've got our law enforcement interaction training, and there's a lot of good stuff over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. So thank you for your support really means the world. Thanks for indulging me every time I go through this spiel, but we really do appreciate all the love and all of the support and all the people that are over there helping us to sort of build a little bit of a different, safer, more free platform. It really means the world to us. And one final reminder, there is a second channel that I just started this past weekend. So if you want to check that out for non live content, it is down linked in the description below. All right. So let's get into the news. It's been some time since we've talked about Kyle Rittenhouse, if you recall, we spent a lot of time on this channel dissecting what went down on this case, we call this happened. So in the aftermath of the George Floyd unrest, there was a protest taking place out in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Kala Rittenhouse was there. Uh, he was out there protecting property, protecting vehicles and sort of a, a counterforce to the social unrest that was there. There were people running down the streets. There were a lot of businesses that were being torched. We remember all of this, you know, Wendy's and different facilities were getting just burnt to the ground. So Kyle Rittenhouse was there as part of, I think our response to that unrest, there was an interaction that happened and he was being chased down the road and he had a semi-automatic assault weapon and he fired back and ended up in my opinion, defending himself the diff the self-defense resulted in several people, dead, two people dead and another person shot. And so he was being charged now with a whole slew of different crimes for murder, essentially. And the question was, wasn't this self-defense. We went through, we did a deep analysis on it. And we went through frame by frame. We were looking at the audio spikes where, where the gunshot muzzle flashes went off. And we went, we spent a lot of time on this case, and it was one of the clearest cases of self-defense that I have seen. And we've talked a lot about that, right? In my practice. In my years, as a criminal defense lawyer, I've seen a lot of cases. So pretty obvious to me now, this case has been going on for a long time. And it were, we had another court date today and recall we're still in sort of the pretrial phase of this case. What we saw with the Derek Shovan case happened very quickly. I mean, surprisingly quickly remember that George Floyd died May, 2020 and we're already done trials over it's May, 2021. We got this whole thing wrapped up within a year. Well, out of this case, this is taking a lot longer. So we're going to see here that trial is not even scheduled in Rittenhouse this case until the end of November, this happened right around the same time. So this case is going to be going on for about a year and a half, maybe even longer than that. So I would not be surprised if we do get to November and we're not even ready for trial yet, right? That this may be pushing into 2022, uh, maybe early or even middle of the year, which is sort of what you expect in a murder case. When you have a lot of media fanfare, a lot of vitriol, a lot of people absolutely angry at Kyle Rittenhouse. And, you know, they don't like this, this concept of self defense and, you know, firearm ownership and a lot of different things. So the point is it, this is normal. It is normal for it to take this amount of time. And we're in the pretrial phase. We still have some work to do before we get to a trial. And you're going to notice that that's not even until the end of the year. So we're going to take a look at this article over from Kenosha news. Kyle Rittenhouse makes his first appearance in the Kenosha county court recall he has been appearing via zoom for a long time now, but this was his first time in court. Pre-trial hearing in the homicide case was remarkable more for the media circus, outside the courtroom, then for the legal proceedings insight. And that's right, it was very bland because it's a scheduling proceeding, really Rittenhouse 18. He's facing the possibility of life in prison for shooting three men, killing two injuring, a third during a Kenosha, following the shooting of Jacob Blake by Kenosha police officer last August. All right, so this happened a little bit later. I thought that I, if I recalled, I thought this happened earlier, but this was last August. It sounds like at Friday's hearing Kenosha county circuit court, the first in-person appearance for Rittenhouse, since he was extradited attorneys discussed scheduling the case, moving forward, scheduled for trial November 1st. And this is a quick look kind of a recap from the court docket on where we've been and where we're going. We've got on March 10th, we had ADA Thomas binger, and we had ADA, Jeff zap. They appeared for the state. We have Kyle Rittenhouse was with his attorney, Mark Richards, attorney Kim Kimberley Motley appeared gage gross Kreutz was, is the surviving sort of, you know, quote victim who got shot here. They all appeared via zoom and they request an adjournment of the trial date. And they said they had an ongoing investigation. So, uh, at this moment in time, we had the pretrial conference that was scheduled for the 17th. And then we had the jury trial scheduled for November. They scheduled the final pretrial for today, which was May 21st. Uh, some online motions were submitted. And of course we had the court date that was scheduled back in April today before things move forward, the court is going to hold hearings on legal motions that are going to be filed later. And so, you know, we saw a lot of this with the Derek Shovan case. We spent a lot of time on the channel, right? These are all pre-trial motions. What expert witnesses, what evidence what's, uh, you know, sorts of questionnaires, do we need to draft up? Are we going to be having any motions to suppress or any evidentiary hearings or any, you know, Dobber motion? There's a lot that they can, that we can sort of unravel here. And they're trying right now in this court proceeding to just sort of schedule it out to say, all right, we're going to do that in August. We're going to do that in November. We got jury questionnaires. It says, uh, the article says in cases with pretrial publicity courts in Kenosha, they've sent out questionnaires that are sent to a pool of potential jurors before they are called for jury duty quote in advance of trial. We're going to need time to build in and send those out, said district attorney, Thomas binger. He told the judge that, uh, brew showed her Schroeder that Rittenhouse he's free on a$2 million bond. He arrived in the courtroom through an entrance, usually close to the public through the rear of the doors with his attorneys, Mark Richards, and a new attorney, Corey cheer efficacy. Sure, sure, sure. Efficacy, I think is how you say it. And so we're going to take a look at him as well before we do want to show you briefly a little bit what the courtroom looks like inside. And so over here, here, take a quick look at what's going on. Thomas binger took his picture from a prior zoom, uh, proceeding. And so he is seated right here. Uh, and then we have another, it looks like ADA, maybe he was that, that was the other Zephyr, uh, individual. We have Mark Richards over here. Kyle Rittenhouse is over here. And I think the other attorney was calling in via zoom. So, you know, courtroom pretty much pretty empty, kind of a couple of witnesses. This is the court clerk, and you're going to see her sort of, you know, uh, maneuvering things around. It looks like the judge might be behind this camera, that the one that we're actually looking, looking through. So the judge is sort of, uh, you know, my direction, I guess. And let's take a listen in and see what is happening here. You're going to hear from Thomas binger, remember Thomas binger, you know, he's, he's kind of an aggressive guy kind of likes to sort of take control of the proceeding and just say, Hey judge, this is what we're doing. We're not one, two and three, four, not uncommon. A lot of prosecutors, you know, sort of do that. And a lot of the times the government will just default to the prosecution. And is that right? Oh, wait, it's your case? Right? You're prosecuting it. So you're going to hear now sort of the, the Thomas Mayer kind of take charge or, or sound like he's taking charge with, you know, one, two, three, this is our plan. And the, really, the reason for that is because he's prosecuting the case, right? We got to know what are you doing? Are you going to dismiss it? Because if you're going to dismiss it, that's great. This case is going to be over. If you think this is a self-defense is a reasonable basis for not being able to obtain a conviction in this case. Well, just go ahead and dismiss it. That's it. So you let the government go first and then the defense responds. So we're going to do that right now. So this is Thomas binger in court today on the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

Speaker 2: 13:00

Well, in the case of state against co-written, um, this is here for pretrial today and, um, well, your honor, we have picked a trial date of November 1st. The parties have, uh, been working on discovery issues. I think most of the discovery issues are resolved. Although the defense has informed me, they're requesting an additional item from the autopsy of Mr. Rosenbaum, that I will get to them as quickly as possible. From my point of view, your honor, I think there are, uh, three, uh, deadline issues that we need to address at some point here. Uh, one is, uh, a deadline for the filing of motions. Counsel had proposed the deadline of July 1st, and I think that's reasonable with the court's approval. Uh, second of all, uh, it's my understanding the defense has some experts that they wish to, uh, use in this case. Um, I would like to ask that a deadline be set for the disclosure of those, uh, witnesses, and then the state may need some time to identify potential witnesses to rebut those experts, uh, depending on the issues. The third deadline question that I have is with regard to jury questionnaires. I think, uh, the parties are in agreement that this is a case where we will need jury questionnaires. That's going to be a process. That's going to take some time to draft them up for the parties and the courts to, uh, review them and come to some agreement on them. And then of course, in advance of trial, we're going to need to build in time for those to be sent out and returned by the jurors and time for the parties to be able to analyze them before jury selection.

Speaker 1: 14:36

Okay. So, you know, kind of standard stuff. I want to go through a couple of quick things. So number one, he mentioned even you may not have heard it cause he's of course wearing a mask. I thought that we were done with that, but apparently they're all wearing masks still. So, you know, they're all talking behind their garbs and we can't understand what they're saying, but he said, if you missed it, he said specifically that the defense was waiting for some additional information from the Rosenbalm autopsy. And Rosenbaum was one of the guys who was shot and killed, obviously during this, uh, this ordeal. So I'm curious to see what they're looking for is this drugs, is there, uh, some sort of other, you know, material evidence that may, may be a part of that autopsy, like a toxicology report that maybe says that, you know, he was on methamphetamines or cocaine or something that maybe would have been an upper or stimulant that would have caused him if you recall this? Uh, if I, uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Rosenbaum was the first person who was sort of chasing him, uh, the kind of the person who initiated the entire incident. And so the question would be, well, maybe he was very angry or sort of jacked up on, on drugs. And maybe that is part of the defense. That's going to be showing that he was the aggressor. He was the, the person initiating the entire incident. So they're waiting on that. Thomas binger is going to get that information over to Rittenhouse and his defense team. They were also talking about some motions. They, you know, motion deadlines in July sounds pretty reasonable, nothing really to comment on there. They were also talking about expert witnesses and their disclosures. And so we're callback. If we, if you've been with us for a little while, we did this with these Shovan trial, where we were analyzing the different expert witnesses from different sites. Now in a trial, you don't just get to show up with your experts and just say, Hey, Hey, I got, I got Johnny, Lisa and Billy here. We're going to testify about blood results. You can't do that. You got to disclose that to the government. You've got to say, Hey, we got Johnny, Billy and Lisa, and they're all going to talk about blood results. You're on notice. Now, if you have anything you need from them and you got any questions for them, let's hash that out now because they're coming into court, they're going to be ready to rock and roll. So the government of course wants to know, does the defense have any expert witnesses? And if so, then disclose those over to us. And then as we saw from the article from the star Tribune, sounds like there was that the star Tribune. Now that was Kenosha. Something star Tribune I think was from Minneapolis. But this was something where there's a media circus. We saw that from the article they needed to bring Kyle Rittenhouse and his defense attorney in the back door, because there, there was a, it was a circus. It was, they couldn't get in and you can see inside the courtroom, it's a little bit different, right? Not a lot of activity, but outside the media is ready to pounce on this thing. So then the question becomes, what do the potential jurors look like? We're going to be in the same thing that we went through with Shovan again, they're going to have to send out these questionnaires and they're going to have to say, Hey, what do you know about the case? Did you see the video? Did you see the news story? Did you, maybe the city council out of Kenosha is going to settle for 30 million. Did you hear about that? Did max is Maxine waters going to parachute in from California and get involved in this case too? Well, we will see. So there's a lot there. They're going to have to send out jury questionnaires to those jurors because as we know, it's, we're going to go through a lot of jurors to get whittled down into a panel. We're gonna go through the same thing that we went through with Shovan. So Thomas binger kind of kicked us off back from Kenosha news, the hearing itself, if you'll notice, it just laughed lasted 10 minutes. Not a lot of time outside the courtroom. There was a large security presence with dozens of Kenosha county, sheriff deputies on hand, both in the hallways and outside in front of the steps to the building. A small number of people were protesting, but they were focusing on another case happening at the same time that of Clyde Macklemore, a BLM protestor charged with the felony for an incident at the public safety building, during a protest for the Blake shooting, which must've been the Jacob Blake shooting, both inside and out, there were a large number of television cameras. Photographers coming became a one of the most politically divisive criminal cases in the country at the hearing. Schroeder said a July, one deadline for attorneys to file motions in the case and an August one deadline for the defense to disclose any expert witnesses, they plan to call for trial rituals. Richard said during the hearing that two of the expert witnesses, he hopes to call our medical examiners written houses for now next expected to appear in court on September 17th for emotion hearing. So what kind of experts, what kind of medical examiners are we going to be looking at? We're probably going to be looking at I bullet entries and maybe toxicology reports. So they've got to, it sounds like that they are, are, are discussing and right. If it's going to be a self-defense case recall from the video that Kyle was sort of running, running away and it looks like, you know, cause he, he sort of dips behind a dark area where we can't really see what happens. He goes through a car and behind kind of around the corner, we hear some gunshots and then he comes back around the other side of the corner from the video angle that we've all seen. And you know, the question is what happened in that dark little shadowy area where the bullets coming out of Rittenhouse has guns. Were those going into the, let's say the, the front of Rosenbaum's body because he was an aggressor chasing Kyle Rittenhouse, or was he running away right? Where the bullet holes in the back or the sides or the neck, or what is the government going to say about the autopsy? You know, was this something that looks more like murder when we, when we're able to see what the autopsy looks like or, or what? So they are now disclosing experts. We know the defense has at least something to say about all that. The aim of the court in setting dates and deadlines for attorneys is to argue that evidence, are you, what evidence will be allowed at the trial? And then to create a schedule if we need to adjourn the trial in the end, that's something that can happen. But I think we all wanted this November one trial date being, or said during the hearing. So we'll see if it happens in November and it sounds reasonable. I would like to see it, of course, uh, uh, you know, be heard because I always say that justice delayed is justice denied. This is the second attorney who is now on Kyle Rittenhouse, his case. So Corey[inaudible] is, uh, now on the case, along with Mark Richards, who was another attorney there, this is from his website. So, you know, it's it's attorney talk. So just take that with a grain of salt. We have it on our website too. Okay. I'm not talking anything badly about it, but you just got to keep in mind, right? He devotes his legal career to, uh, solely to defending individuals charged with criminal and drunk driving offenses. He handles cases, Wisconsin state law, federal law, drunk driving charges. He's a former prosecutor began his career as an assistant district attorney handling criminal matters, ranging from disorderly conduct to homicide. He provides his experience to clients, all sorts of criminal charges, drunk driving, DUI, drug offenses, discussions, felony. We got some child porn and all sorts of good stuff there. So we got, he was named a rising star by super lawyers, 2.5 and a half percent top. So all this stuff is nice. He earned his law degree, New York school of law admitted to practice law in Wisconsin. And now he's located in Madison, Wisconsin. Okay. So yeah, he's a former prosecutor, you know, I know that I, you know, I alright, that's fine. Former prosecutor, but I guess it's, it's okay if you want to be a prosecutor and then come over to the good side. I mean, if you want to go that route, that's fine. I would prefer you just kind of skip that whole, you know, just join the, the lights stopped. Don't go to the dark side. It's not good over there. Be on the side of freedom and justice and America, pure blood defense attorneys. Good stuff. Now we have, uh, the defense attorneys. Oh my gosh. Look how much better looking these guys are just in general, really nice pictures. Beautiful, handsome. We have, uh, we have, uh, Mark Richards down here. And so he's responding now to Tom is being or who, uh, of course we just heard him flush out what he wants to do in the case. And then we have the new attorney who I know actually see in the courtroom, but I think he was zooming in on this. So let's listen in and see what Mr. Richards is doing to respond. All right,

Speaker 2: 22:14

Mr. Richards, I agree with that, your honor. I think July 1st to have the, uh, um, motions filed is fine. I think disclosure, the experts, um, one of the experts, well, two of the experts is dependent upon, um, getting some of the discovery that we still need regarding Mr. Rosenbalm. So when we receive that, I think we'll be able to know where we're going with that. So I'm a little hesitant to say July 1st to put forth experts. I can name them. I don't know, but the reports will be done. Um, there are some other outstanding discovery issues, but we're working through those. Um, I've spoken to Mr. Bringer about them. I think those were resolved. Um, we'll file a formal discovery demand with any motions, um, seeking what we need before July 1st. Um, I think that's a good way to handle it.

Speaker 1: 23:07

All right. So that's actually good news. We were hearing that there's going to be some more developments. We're going to file a formal discovery demand. If you, if you actually go over to Kyle Rittenhouse, his case on Kenosha's website, you're going to see that there's not a lot of activity there. There's just not much for us as people who are curious, what's happening to sink our teeth into, of course they have no obligation to do that, but I want it dang it. So now that we're going to start seeing some motions, some more substantive stuff being filed, both directions, that's good. We're going to have some more stuff to analyze and discuss. Hopefully we have the November 1st trial date and we can just drive right to that. Let's take a quick look at the docket before we get out of here and listen to the judge will notice that we had the court date. We have notes from the movement and it looks like they moved a date. Then we have this, this is the new attorney. So we have a notice of retainer attorney Corey, chief rec filed it today. And so he was in court today, uh, five 21, five 21 final pretrial conference brew Schroeder's court says that binger and zap appeared in court defense, along with Mark Richards and attorney Corey[inaudible] appeared in court appearances via zoom. We had attorney and NAND swath, Appian and Kimberly Motley. And so these two attorneys I believe are now representing, uh, some of the victims. So I forget who Kimberly Motley was representing. She said it at the beginning. Uh, but we'll see, we'll learn more about that. When they start filing motions or making claims parties report, they're working on discovery state request, the court set a deadline on motions. Defense has no objections, motion filing deadline by 71 defense to disclose experts by eight one includes any filing of any expert reports. So we've got some important dates coming up the parties to have their jury questions also by August one. And then we have a final pretrial conference and emotion hearing scheduled for September 17th at 10:00 AM judgment. And, uh, what is this, uh, jury trial scheduled for November 1st or they didn't move that. And then the approximate length of the trial is two weeks so that it was just basically a scheduling conference. All we really had today here is the judge now clearing up the, uh, the rest of the docket. Do you want to, can

Speaker 2: 25:10

We delay everything until the 17th of, um, of September? I think so. That's fine. Sure. So that a seven 28 date is off and a motion days and pretrial will be, uh, the 17th of September. Okay. Anything else? Nope. Nope. I promote your honor. Okay. Thank you. Enjoy the day. Thank you.

Speaker 1: 25:39

Thank you. Enjoy the day. That's it right? 11 minutes. So not a lot of action there, but some good stuff. We're starting to see some, um, some momentum, I think going this way. It sounds like we've got some pretty hard dates that are scheduled. We have, uh, August, September, then we've got November. Maybe we'll have a trial this year. I would like to see that. So let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com, which is where you can ask questions, support the show. And then of course join us for all the fun things that we do over there. And we have a lot coming up. First one in the house is from econ test, says you're reporting of Rittenhouse last year was par. Exsalonce your coverage of all the angles and nuances is what brought me to your channel in the first place. Keep it up. Well, thank you, Ian test. I look, I really appreciate that. You know, w it was, it is such an interesting case. We are going to continue to sink our teeth into this one. I really have, uh, have kind of, um, an emotional attachment to this one. I think it's very important that there's a strong line in the sand drawn on this for all self-defense cases. I, I appreciate you making that comment. I thought it was good to YouTube. Didn't like it. So I, you know, they, they demonetized us for that in other videos, doing those breakdowns, which is so unfortunate because I think they're, they're just great. They're, they're a lot of fun and we can learn things together, but YouTube doesn't like that. Anyways, we'll sort through that as well. Next up we got in a dark blue Sierra says, I think it was WaPo, but I'm not 100% sure, but the Democrats, state media is already trying to discredit one of the witnesses Richie, which was one of the journalists that was there to cover the riots. They called him a far right-winger and all that good stuff. They don't even try to hide it anymore. Well, it works. It works. Why wouldn't they? Right? Why wouldn't they just try to do everything they did like they did in the Shovan case, because worked out for him. We have farmer's daughter is in the house as good evening off the subject, but I was thinking about the COVID vaccine. We only required one measles vaccine, one polio vaccine. You need the flu shot yearly. If you wish you need a booster shot for tetanus. Now they're talking about having boosters for COVID at some point, is this even the vaccine? I have my doubts. I don't know farmer's daughter. Um, I can't comment on that. Of course. Right. Obviously I'm not a medical doctor and you've got to go talk to your medical doctor about what to do about all of that, but I know the goalposts keep changing all the time. Was it Fowchee who out there now saying yeah, booster shots. Now you need a booster shot. Okay, fine. So good questions. Uh, thank you for all of those farmer's daughter. And thanks for making me my blushing a little bit kind of uncomfortable. No, I'm not. I'm not at all. It's just, it's just COVID. So, uh, thank you for those questions. Watching the watchers.locals.com is where to ask them, and we appreciate all the love and support over there. All right. So we're going to change gears. Now, we're going to talk about the, uh, the Ozarks college of the Ozarks. It is in the middle of a battle, a legal battle with the Biden administration over a new executive order that Joe Biden instituted. Basically, I think the day he took office on January 20th, and it has to do with sort of stopping discrimination in particular, against people who have different gender identities than maybe you might expect. And what this executive order did is it sort of trickled down to all the different colleges and institutions throughout the country. And so we have the Ozarks, the college of the Ozarks, which is a Christian college, and they have some other ideals for how they should run their institution. And maybe they're thinking that if they're going to have, let's say a women and a men's dorm facility, for example, then maybe we want to use biological gender to make that distinction. That may be their argument and what the new executive order does is it comes down and it says, well, if you're somebody who happens to be born biologically male, and now you identify your gender identity is female. And you want to go live in the female dorm room or go use the female showers because at your gender identity, the Biden executive order says you can't that's discrimination. If you don't permit that to happen. Well, now you're in violation of the law. And so that was trickling down and the college said, no, we don't, you, we don't like this. So we're going to file a lawsuit against the Biden administration. And they're going to ask for an injunction, they're going to say, we know you issued this new executive order and that you want us to start following that law, but we're challenging the law. We're asking the court to say, this is in fact illegal. And we want an injunction saying that the government can not be compelled to make us comply with this law. Well, unfortunately for the college, a judge came back out and said, sorry, can't do that. Because what you're trying to do is trying to sort of get around an anti-discrimination rule. This article comes over from the Springfield news leader. It says here, a judge denies college of the Ozarks request to sidestep anti-discrimination housing rules. So let's break this down written by Claudia Riley two days ago on the 19th, a federal judge rejected college of the Ozarks request to sidestep a 2021 directive backed by Joe Biden. So you like you like how they, they say that, right? It's like, it's sort of like, they're doing something pernicious, like they're evil. They're trying to get around the rule. Well, they're just challenging it. They don't think that it's legal. They're saying that this directive bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, judge Roseanne CatchMark issued the ruling denying a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction shortly before 6:00 PM, Wednesday following a two and a half hour hearing that was conducted virtually. She said an effort by the conservative Christian college to stop the U S department of housing and urban development from applying a new directive would not protect the college from any liability related to unfair housing allegations in mid April, the college sued Biden and housing and urban development and related federal officials with support from an organization called Alliance, defending freedom, which is a religious freedom organization. The college requested a jury trial, the college and ADF, the Alliance defending freedom argued that the directive forced religious schools to violate their views by opening male or female residence halls, including dorm rooms and restrooms to members of the opposite sex. Right? So that is part of their concern. Here's a little bit more about college of the Ozarks. So it's a Christian. This is from Wikipedia Christian liberal arts college in Missouri college has an enrollment about 1500 people, student faculty ratio, 16 to one 30 academic majors, bachelor art, bachelor of science college charges, no tuition for full-time students due to student work program and donations program requires students to work 15 hours a week on campus. Two 40 hour work weeks during breaks college refers to itself as the hard work, you and places, an emphasis on character education. So school has been around for awhile established 1906, 115 years ago, Presbyterian endowment for almost$500 million, uh, 83 academic staff, 1500 students. And there's a, of course, a criticism and controversy section here on Wikipedia. And it says college of Ozarks has been subject to numerous incidents, incidents of controversy. So they said they have discriminated discriminatory policies against LGBT people, a strict, biblical inspired moral code for students. The lack of ethnic and racial diversity. It's boycott on Nike products following an ad campaign, featuring Colin Kaepernick. So, you know, all of the, kind of the mainstream, you know, kind of CRT, lefty talking points, they're not happy with how this course Christian college conducts itself. And they're entitled to have that position. Uh, what they're not entitled to is, well, maybe they are entitled to it because the, the, uh, the court said that there's nothing they can do about any of this. Here are a couple of pictures from the college itself. You can see, it looks like a kind of a beautiful place. Actually look at this, uh, church facility. Nice, nice, uh, landscape got some people marching. It looks like nice, nice group of students there. All right. So Biden's executive order, which was in fact, signed on January 20th states, all persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity, right? That's kind of the new one that is out there these days. Uh, any entity that violates this order faces financial penalties. So the suit was filed in Western district of Missouri states that HUD's directive requires the private religious institution to place biological males into female dormitory dormitories. And to assign them as females, roommates, that's according to the school, okay, now you gotta be cognizant of this, right? The, and ministration, didn't see that the vitamin D administration didn't go to the college and say, all right, Christians, all of you, uh, boys who, uh, you know, happened to identify as transgender, you get to go over to the, to the school, the girls dormitory or anything like that. That's not what they're saying. The school is sort of taking this, uh, statement, this executive order and telling the government what the consequences will be for them. And so from, from what we're seeing, right, I'm not seeing any evidence yet that this is even a problem, right? Is it, are there any students there that are uncomfortable because some student is transgender and trying to cross dormitories or something? Is that happening? I don't, let's see. There is no doubt that this is creating serious consequences said Julie Blake and ADF attorney representing the college. And the hearing Blake argued that the directive was a rule change that was enforceable. And the college wanted to address it prior to any complaint. College need not wait for an actual prosecution or enforcement action before challenging a laws constitutionality. Oh, this kind of sounds familiar. Remember this? So, so it sounds like nothing in fact is actually a problem right now, other than the rule. So my point here is that there's not a student who is, let's say born biologically male, who's now identifying as female who was saying, I, I, my gender identity says, I'm female. Therefore I should be allowed as a biological male to go over into the female dormitory. Right? Like that's not actually happening right now. So this is, we're sort of speculating that that might happen or that this could be something where they are penalized, because we know that the new order includes financial penalties. So the school's now saying, we just want to figure this out. We're going to file this lawsuit because it's probably going to happen. We know how this works. When there's these rule that come up, somebody somewhere always sort of pokes it. Remember the, you know, the, the, the baking, a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage and stuff like that. This is stuff that gets pushed because there are interest groups on many different sides that all want to push these issues and then win in court. So the question will be, you know, what, what, what, what's the judge going to do about it while we know the judge said this is not enforceable, and that we're going to get a written order here in a little bit. So there, there, I'm sorry. Let me back that up. I, I misspoke. The judge said that the executive order from the byte administration is enforceable. Not that it's not enforceable. What I was saying is that the school, any, any attempt to sort of escape enforcement of this so that they don't have to pay those financial penalties that the judge said, sorry, this is going to be applicable to you. The school filed the injunction. They wanted the preliminary injunction to stop the government from encroaching on them. And the court said, no, that injunction is not going to be sufficient. We're not going to allow you to do that. So the government is free to continue to impose that regulation down upon you. Sorry. Scott spun up there. We have Blake said that the college faces serious fines and potential liability. If it doesn't comply, college has said that it has long assigned dormitories in separated intimate spaces, such as showers and bathrooms based on biological sex, James law, an attorney representing HUD. And the feds said that the memorandum was not directed at the college. And does not specifically address the kinds of issues that the college raised here, like showers or roommates, which is kind of the point. Like that's why the school is suing is because they know that they know that there is an opening for potential liability if they don't comply with the rules. So they're filing a suit to get some clarity on this law, representing the government said no complaint has been filed against the college, or by HUD, there was not any immediate threat of one. So the plaintiffs can establish either irreparable harm or the likelihood of success necessary to sustain a preliminary injunction, which is legally. Right. Right. So now what we're, what, what does this remind you of anything kind of reminds you of all of the election litigation from 2020, when somebody files a lawsuit before the election and the courts come out and say, well, there's no harm yet because the election hasn't happened here. So we're not going to hear the case, same concept while they're suing to get some clarity. Government comes out and says, yeah, but there's no proof of irreparable harm. Cause there's not, not anything happening right now. And there's no likelihood of a success necessary to sustain that preliminary injunction. So those two elements fail. Judge agreed, Serena Orloff. Another attorney argued that the directive reinforces anti-discrimination policies long held by the agencies said, we recognize the colleges may have strongly held beliefs. Nothing that the government has done should be taken to suggest a lack of respect for the college's religious beliefs. But at this juncture, this is purely a one-sided dispute. She says in the hearing Orloff asked the judge to consider another perspective. Let's say a hypothetical student that may someday experience housing discrimination on the basis of sexual identity. She said the directive or memo states that if such a complaint was leveled, HUD will investigate. That's a lengthy process. It would be particularly unfair to cut off an avenue of redress for a hypothetical student before he or she even had the opportunity to make a complaint. It seems rather unlikely in light of the colleges code of conduct. So Orloff said the college warns that the directive will allow a transgender student to enroll in live on campus. So they respond to that seems rather unlikely in light of the colleges code of conduct, according to the suit, college will discipline employees and students for following violations of the code of, so this is from the school's code, gender inconsistent with sex, gender transition, sexual relations with the person, his or her spouse, sexual relations with persons of the same spouse. So this is all part of the school code of conduct. So if you go there, you're agreeing not to do those things suit. The college explained it was founded in 1906 to provide the advantages of a Christian education for youth of both sexes, especially for those found worthy, but who are without sufficient means to procure such training, still follows that mission. All in married students are required to live on campus for their freshman year. They can apply to move off campus starting the sophomore year. If their parents live within 40 miles, college is room and board$7,900 a year. Student who work on campus can graduate debt-free each year. Faculty must sign a contract agreeing to comply with the colleges drug-free workplace policy, the handbook and employee commitment, summarizing faith and practice biblical references in support of college policies and the colleges, lifestyle, and sexuality policy and the suit. The college explained it teaches that people should be treated with dignity, grace, and love, whatever their sexual beliefs. So let's take a quick look at what is going on in this case. Very long complaint. Let's take a look at the docket from the federal court. First we see back on February. I'm sorry. What does that, uh, uh, April my gosh, just forgot what month the fourth month was January, February, March, April. All right. So it's Friday folks motion for extension of time, right? And then we have some different suggestions. And then on five 13, we've got an order denying a motion for extension of time. We've got different extensions being requested motion for preliminary injunction. We have a motion for a temporary restraints. In order, we got a briefing schedule. We've got some attorneys now filing a response. So we've got attorneys coming in from the governments, added a party to Joe Biden and his crew U S department of housing and urban development. They show up order, granting a motion to file a very long document. Then we have suggestions. Then we have some reply suggestions. So let's take a look at the original complaint. This is, uh, the, the, the first document that was filed basically against the Biden administration. So we see here, the school of the Ozarks against Joe Biden filed in the Western district of Missouri in the district court verified complaint. They want a jury trial. So we're going to, we're going to go through the introduction here with a little bit slower pace. And they were going to fly through the rest of it. Very, very long complaints. So we're not going to read through the whole thing, obviously, introduction. So this action challenges, the federal agency directive that requires private religious colleges to place biological males into female dormitories and assign them as female roommates. And they're referencing the exhibit from HUD us department of housing. They issued this executive order it's entitled, preventing and combating discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The directive imposes an immediate and binding legislative rule under the fair housing act, prohibited, prohibiting all regulated entities, colleges, and others from discriminating on the basis of gender identity, both in the occupancy of their dwellings and in policies governing those dwellings. So absolutely would apply to the college directive. Also prohibits entities from making statements to the contrary, such as by telling students that they only qualify for access or dormitory room placements based on their biological sex. So they can't, they can't even use that distinction anymore. Now it's just whatever you identify as so biologic, no sex is not basically cannot be allowed anymore for decades. The college has prohibited male students from living in female dorm, dormitories and vice versa, regardless of whether the students identify with their biological sex college, likewise separates intimate spaces like showers and bathrooms, college regularly make statements communicating these same policies, including this month during its arrangements for the fall defendants failed to take into consideration. So defendants being Biden into consideration the college and other entities with similar student housing policies. So they're saying, yeah, it may have sounded. It's great that you don't want, you know, housing organizations to discriminate against people based on their gender identity. Like if you are an, uh, an apartment building, right? If you have an apartment, let's say downtown, you know, Chicago, great, you go get an apartment somewhere. Or that that facility shouldn't be there. Well to discriminate against you, right? That's I think what the Biden administration was going for here on this basis, but did they think about colleges? Did they think about Christian schools where maybe people have a different theory of opera, a different belief about what education should be. People are gonna sign a code of conduct, and they're going to go follow their religious teachings. And they're going to follow an old institution that has some religious tradition, and they're going to make that agreement and go participate in. Well, now the federal government is going to come in here and say, you have to do something this way. Now they're saying what we've been doing it differently. Did you think about this? Because there's some pretty good reasons for why we do what we do here. And we just went through some of those reasons. Federal government says that's too bad. We don't really care because we're the feds college thus seeks an order setting aside the directive. They say it was issued out observance of procedure required by law. It's contrary to the law. It's arbitrary and capricious. It's in excess of statutory jurisdiction and it's contrary to constitutional rights. So we got all the whole of claims and we're going to just fly through each one of those quickly. The college also seeks injunctive rule. They're saying that they're violating the first amendment 10th amendment appointments clause, religious freedom restoration act, regulatory flexibility act to protect the college from the actions of the federal governor defendant's temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction. They're describing housing policies for the fall semester. The directive threatens massive penalties on the college for maintaining its policies and making statements about them. So they've got a fall class to fill. They're trying to figure out what the rules are. Do they have to change their policies and their guidelines and all this stuff while the court. So they're asking for the government, they're asking for the court to tell the government don't enforce this against us right now, until we can flush this out. We've got first amendment, 10th amendment were religious freedom restoration act all sorts of constitutional problems with this executive order. So don't impose it on us and start assessing those penalties until we can sort this out the court, he came back and said, well, we're not gonna assess the penalties against you anyways, cause nobody's even complaining about this yet. See if that stays, we're going to look at the rest of this lawsuit briefly and then jump into some questions, claims for relief. So I just want to show you sort of the structure of this lawsuit. We're not going to read all of this claims for relief. The administrative procedure act without observance of procedure required by law. So they're saying that HUD is subject to the APA, the administration procedure act they've promulgated these nationwide things. Sex means biological sex. According to the text and structure of the fair housing act that the directive contradicts the texts and so on. Right? Then we go over here claim to another claim under the administrative procedure act. Then we get down to claim three. We have another one saying that under us code section seven oh six, it's arbitrary capricious. And it's an abuse of discretion. They say that Biden and the directive, the defendants explicitly rely on an interpretation of the fair housing act or implementing its regulations that is erroneous, that the act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, let's say it's wrong. They're relying on, on the wrong law. Without reliance on this legal interpretation, the directive would not have been promulgated. The defendants fail to adequately consider important aspects of this issue. They failed to consider its impact on private religious universities and colleges and their student housing policies, including their Liberty interest in freedom of speech, religion, and association, the defendants failed to consider its impact on the privacy interests of students occupying the residence halls of private religious universities. They failed to consider the interest of private colleges in not being subject to a prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in student housing failed to consider all sorts of different things, any alternative policies with respect to the interest of private colleges, like I don't know, maintaining the status quo, the lane compliance dates to allow for implementation. So it didn't even give them an opportunity to make these changes. Just January 20th, Biden comes in no more gender identity discrimination. This college, right? They've been open since 1906. They say, Hey, we're a religious Christian organization. We actually have some pretty clear policies about how we organize this here. And what you're telling us to do is impeding on our constitutional authority to conduct business. As we want in accordance with our religious freedoms that are guaranteed under the constitution, United States Biden comes in. Not anymore. It doesn't sorry. So make some changes. School comes back and says, well, can you give us some time to implement this? Or what, or how about applying the policy prospectively instead of applying the policy retroactively for the past year? How about grandfathering in existing categories of single-sex housing? So they're not subject to this same requirements that you impose. How about exempting institutions with religious moral or associational objections to these policies? Or how about even this? How about crafting privacy exemptions for college students and employees? They didn't do any of that, right? They just come down and tell you, start following what we want. We have the claim for regulatory flexibility act anything interesting. Here we have the appointments clause of the constitution. President shall have the power to make appointments. Directive was signed and issued by defendant. Warden is acting assistant secretary. He sought to exercise powers that only a principal officer of the United States may exercise. So they're saying that the guy who signed off on the document didn't have the authority to sign off on the document. So I love that. Love that just going after everything, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, we all know that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Under the fifth amendment of the constitution. We got due process of law. First amendment colleges, speech about it. Student housing, including statements are all free speech. The directive prevents the college from expressing anything that infringes on that, the directive and the defendant's enforcement of it violate the first amendment. The government mandating compelled speech by the college requiring it to post notices, expressing that in student housing, it does not engage in discrimination is compelled. Speech is what they're saying. College wishes to communicate with its employees, with his students and not post notices. So don't tell us that we have to go do that stuff. Defendant's prohibit speech concerning housing statements, including statements or notices, affirming discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender, your identity. We have claimed seven principles of federalism, basically that, you know, the, the feds should not be coming down and encroaching on what the states want to do. We have claim eight, there were religious freedom restoration act. I told you this was a, this was a very long complaint, very, very long, a lot of material here. The colleges sincerely held religious beliefs, preclude the college from telling students that they qualify for access to resident halls and roommate placements based on sexual orientation or gender identity, rather than on biological sex. They say we can't tell them that. Okay. We know that we have to tell them that we can not tell them that that's in of our religion. And we have the religious freedom restoration act, which says we've got some protections on that claim nine, the free exercise of religion, the first and the fifth amendments Congress shall make no law establishing religion, fifth amendment due process again. So what are they asking for? They want that this court to vacate and set aside the directive. So the byte administration directive needs to go. They say they want a temporary restraining order that this will not be enforced against them. They want a declaratory judgment saying this law violate this executive order violates all these laws, the APA, the regulatory flexibility act fair housing act and others, including many different provisions of the constitution. This court render and declare judgment that this new implement patient is also not legal and lawful or not. What does this say? This, they want declaratory relief. All right. So a temporary restraining order, they just want basically more declarations that the law, the executive order are not valid. This was signed off on the 15th day of April, 2021 by Gregory Walters and Julie Marie Blake as well. Well, as a declaration, under penalty of perjury from Jerry C. Davis president of the school of the Ozarks. So that was all submitted very long complaint. They had a long, um, two and a half hour oral argument yesterday. And here's what the judge tells us proceedings are held before. Judge CatchMark denying the motion for temporary restraining order denying the motion for the preliminary injunction. So everything that the college asked for denied, okay. And there was an evidentiary hearing held yesterday. Proceedings were held and noted on the record. There is going to be a written order to follow. So we don't really know why the judge ruled the way she did, but it was grueling. So on the hearing, uh, they had a hearing a couple hours, judge denied, denied. She's going to write off off, uh, it sounds like a more substantive written order. We're going to see what that looks like. We note here, this is a text only no document is attached. So we'll see what that looks like, but definitely not a win for the college now, temporary, right? This may be something where they appeal that order special action in that order, or they are, I'm going to continue with the lawsuit and try to get to the merits of the underlying claim. What they're asking for in, in the injunction, uh, doesn't mean that the case has been dismissed yet. Right? We haven't seen that yet. So we'll see where it goes. First up on the questions is Sharon Courtney in the house says, okay, so this is another example of anti-scientific dogma, especially with regard to biology, completely taking over all government institutions. It will be interesting to see the flood of lawsuits, which will come as a result of this and other insanities just wait until the children abused by surgical gender reassignment starts suing doctors, parents, et cetera, when they grow up. Yeah. I think that, I think that probably going to see a lot of those, unfortunately Liberty or death is in the house as I am not one for discrimination. When it actually manifests as masterpiece cake shop, wasn't only, wasn't the only bakery. Ozarks is not the only school. When you go on the hunt to be offended or to find discrimination, you will find it. Even if it does not exist in everything becomes discriminatory. It is like a casebook. If you highlight everything that nothing stands out Liberty, that's good stuff, man. That's beautiful. Yeah. If you highlight everything, then nothing stands out. And we say this all the time, right? If like, if everything is a problem, then how can we really talk about the problems? And I say this all the time with racism, right? If everything is racist, is anybody a racist? Cause if everything is racist, then is that just kind of the way things are like, what's the point of even calling it racism as a distinction anymore, which is it, which is just what it's so frustrating about the language that we're using, because you can't even really like, what are we alright, good question. There. Liberty or death, I'm going to get riled off in a, in a tizzy over here. So we're going to go on to the next question. All right. We got Sarah Smothers. What's up. Sarah says aren't private schools and colleges protected from this kind of stuff based on religious beliefs. Well, you would think so, but the answer is no, they're not. Uh, at least according to this judge, right? Judge CatchMark from Missouri district court. Federal judge said that the, the injunctions at this stage are not applicable. So we'll see, right, this is going to be a contested issue. It's not going to stop here. The reason why I wanted to share this story, because I think this is kind of the, the first in a long trend, we're going to see a lot of these types of claims. And as somebody who studied a lot of the constitution and read a lot of Supreme court case law, I'm very curious to see what the courts do with this. How do they balance these? Because think about this, we're, we're balancing some very important factors, right? We want people to feel good and to feel, you know, authentic and to live their lives. And we don't want anybody to be discriminated against for something that is out of their control, right? If that person's a jerk, well that person's a jerk, but if they're born a certain way or they have some immutable characteristics that they can't control or their identify a certain way, I think we all want to say, we want people to be happy and healthy and live nice, healthy, wholesome lives, right? And if they want to live that way in their own little world, and that doesn't impinge upon me or anybody else's rights fine, right? That's kind of a live and let live philosophy, win and help other people win. So when we're getting into this situation now where we were, where we embody that, and we say that we want to apply that standard to transgender people. We want to apply that to homosexual sexual people. We want to give people who are in these popularly defined niche, demographics, and they have some unique peculiarities that that many of us don't have. And I know somebody would probably take issue with that, but they have some issues that, that, that 99.9, 9% of other people don't have like different pronouns. Okay? Most people, that's not an issue, but there's a certain segment in society that does have that, that we have to think about. Fine, no problem with that. We can make sure that they feel included and inclusive and all of that. We're going to bend over backwards to make sure that they can feel a part of it. Can we apply that same standard to the religious people, maybe. Okay. The same concept, they have a different way of thinking and organizing their, they have a different set of priorities, a different way of structuring things. So can we give them that same freedom to say, well, well, you know, we think that maybe we're going to have a different structure. We're going to have a code of morality and conduct. It's going to be based in biblical, biblical teachings and stuff that has been around for thousands of years. It has a lot of tradition and a lot of power behind it. Maybe we're going to give them the same benefits. How about we all just let everybody live there. Is that too much to ask, but no, now we've got, yeah, the federal government coming in and telling who can do what with certain things. And we're going to have to see how the Supreme court balances those out. How are they going to say, well, this, this one particular group gets these benefits, but this group doesn't that, that, that doesn't work out. That's not a functional way to, uh, deal with constitutional legal issues. And then the other question is going to be about it's, it's a lot of these constitutional issues, free speech, free religion, free association, free expression. And those are all going to be kind of coming to a head in these one issues. It's like so exciting as a constitutional, uh, student, somebody who wants to, I understand how the Supreme court and the judges are gonna sort of travel this. If they can, we'll see. We have, and why renal MD says the underlying complaint that the left world population have is the crime is you just do not believe it. Yes they do. Yeah. Yeah. That's what it's all about. If you look at how they attack their critics on a foundational basis, you must bake a cake. As I like it, having just institutions provide condoms and access to abortion is more destroying the foundation or the left side. That means it's not about equality or protection of rights, which is sort of what it feels like. Yeah. It sort of feels like the, the strategy here or the tactic is to remove you from the conversation. And we've seen this implemented. If you have a critique of anything, you're a racist. If you have a critique about some sort of, um, new policy that is connected with BLM or CRT or whatever, then the only reason that you don't understand it is because you have white privilege. You can't see it because of your male patriarch or female patriarchy, or because of your position as somebody who in a disfavored class. And when you argue that way, you can't, we have a conversation. And so many of us have been saying, this is frustrating. I went into clubhouse rooms, I've been on Twitter spaces. Hey, let's see what these people are talking about. You really can't have a conversation because unless you are part of the homogenous, nice sort of, you know, sycophantic, ideological, aligned, you know, perspective that everybody's racist. Well, you're a, you're an enemy. Anything you say is invalid. You have no ability to PR to offer, offer your perspective because it's invalid because you're a racist. All right. Pinky number two says, so what a third dorm section work? I don't know. I'm sure somebody would complain about that, right? Somebody would say, well, no, it's kind of like separate but equal, right? I'm I'm not a, I'm not a biological Fe, uh, male who identifies my gender identity, female, and then gets put into a third sort of, of, you know, off housing, sex sex, right. That that student theoretically is going to be, you know, is, is identifying as a female. So they don't want to be put into a third section. They want to be put into the female section. Well, the school says you can't do that, but the Biden administration says you better do it, or we're going to find you Mestizo Quixote says, it seems like the feds are using a very small Christian college as a test to see what they can get away with. There are plenty of larger Christian universities like Notre Dame that have the same policies. Oh, that's a good point. Very astute observation. Good point. And yeah, we'll see what happens now. They are, they do have the backing of a, well, you know, an organization and how much resources they have. But I think that in situations like this, people tend to sort of circle the wagons around these issues, which is a good thing. We have N Y renal MD says, I understand executive order. However, as far as I know, transgender status is covered under federal law. What law or Supreme court, however, is part of the transgender status is covered under federal law. Uh, what, what law or Supreme court. So I don't know. I mean, how has the Supreme court identified a specific, probably transgender as a protected class? I don't know that I've seen that, but I could have missed it. I'm not saying that I, that I know the answer to that. I really don't know, uh, what we talk about our different protected classes in the Supreme court, constitutional law. I'm not sure that the transgender specific label or that identifier has made its way into constitutional law. I just don't know. Uh, truthfully, I could be just missing that. So I don't know if it's there or not. We have Nadar, Bluss says the federal government has become way too powerful. And intrusive Confederation is the solution. It's a union of sovereign groups or states United for purposes of common action, usually created by a treaty. Confederation of states tend to be established for dealing with critical issues, such as defense, foreign relations, internal trader currency with the state government being required to provide support for all its members. This comes over from the dark Lussier well in the dark. You know what I would encourage you to take a look at by the way is it's called the network state. And it is this concept of a new society that sort of starts off in the cloud. I made a whole video about this a couple of Fridays ago, maybe a couple of months ago, it's called Bella Balaji. Sreenivasan the network state. If you go on our channel on this channel, you'll see, you can find it. And he talks about this specifically, he talks about using crypto and cryptocurrencies to sort of create these proof of work and these proof of stake relationships with other people around the world where you can create a sort of government structure in the chain, in the blockchain. And he has a whole article about it. I went through, I did a whole video on it. He has another article, a followup article. Absolutely brilliant, but he's doing what you're talking about. I mean, this is, this is being built as we speak right now, you see that Peter Thiel is a sinking, a ton of money into sort of international floating cities. You have, I think in, um, there's a south of Honduras, I think a south American country that is also experimenting with, uh, I have all these things bookmarked. I'll probably talk about this on the second channel, if you want to subscribe to that one. But I have all these different things bookmarked about these private organizations and these private entrepreneur entrepreneurs and these billionaires and these crypto bros who were out there creating alternative governing structures based off of the algorithm. And you govern yourself based on consensus and is a brilliant concept. And I think that this there's something to it. So I encourage you to go check that out. His name is Balaji Srinivasan. He is absolutely brilliant. One of the only people I think who is, who is thinking in a way that is exciting Elan's is kind of doing it too. We have NYU renal MD says, how likely would this judge a, an Obama appointee, nuke Biden's transgender care act. She's a young judge and will go nowhere. Sorry. Reality. Yeah, I think that's probably right now, eventually this, this issue, this issue, not this case specifically, but this issue will work itself up to the Supreme court and we'll get some guidance from them on this, but it may take some time, right? This may take an additional several years. If they decide to take it, eat on test says, how is it that this disfavored class can understand what is in the mind and the hearts of the favorite class, but the intense thoughts, feelings of the disfavored class are beyond the comprehension of the favorite class. Where's the science on that? That's a great point. Eat on tests. Great point. It is weird, right? I think what you've identified is a massive double standard. Massive. It just doesn't exist. It's like, it's like, you just have to be a wall and stand there and accept whatever arguments are coming your direction. Because if you ever even respond, you have, I've just proven their point because they've set the terms, they've set the premise of the argument. And the premise is if you oppose their argument, you are racist. So if you engage in the argument, that means you're accepting the premise. And if you're accepting the premise and then engaging in the argument while you've just proven their premise, you've proven that you are in fact a racist because they've defined the terms. It's pretty effective. It's pretty compelling. It's good business. If you can get it, it's like, gee, it's like, it's like the closest thing that we have two Jedi mind tricks. You know, these are not the droids you're looking for. Oh yeah. These are the drawers looking for. And you're right. I forgot. You know, you're a racist, I'm not a racist. You are a racist. I'm not, I'm not a racist. You're arguing with me. You're a racist. Oh, I guess you're right. I am arguing with you. Yeah. I told you, see, you didn't even realize it digit. No, I didn't realize it. You're right. I was arguing with you. I guess I am a piece of dark. It just like, it's very powerful folks. So if you can incorporate that into your life and you also want to be somebody who is intellectually dishonest, you have a framework to do that. So those questions came over from watching the watchers.law.com. Uh, that's a fun segment. That'll be a good one. We've got all, we've got some fun stuff to wrap up the Friday show with. So I'm excited about this. You know, I love talking about this time because it's ridiculous. UFO's back in the news. We've been talking a lot about the UFO's on this channel. So it's Tucker Carlson. So as a lot of other people out there who have been wandering around wondering, what's been flying around in the skies, we don't know what it is exactly. And now we know that Barack Obama also agreed. So we've got Barack Obama today from the guardian. He said, I've seen the saucers. He weighs in as us interest in UFO's arise. There was a 60 minutes report on the government grudging acknowledgement of UFO's. It stars interest across the crunch, the country. So we're seeing a lot of this. Now we're seeing, uh, we've seen many, many different Navy videos and we've covered some of them on the show. We saw the, uh, the flying look like, uh, a weather balloon, the silver metallic, you know, like a, like a Thumbtack looking thing. We saw something that looked like a cell. We saw something that looked like a tic-tac that was sort of zipping across the screen. We saw something that looked like a blur, like a, like an orb that was flying through the air. And then just sort of went into the ocean without stopping. And the Navy went to go find that and it wasn't there anymore. And so we've seen a lot of people now sort of poking their heads up and saying, well, we Navy confirms. Yeah. We don't know what that was. Pentagon confirms that that also is a little bit concerning. Well, as I mentioned at the start of the show, there was a very important that was passed back during the Trump administration. It was a Corona virus bill that actually had some funding to a delegated to go to Congress, to draft a report and provide that to Congress detailing what is going on with these unidentified flying objects or these unidentified aerial phenomenon or these unidentified whatevers. So this article says that Barack Obama now is getting involved. He says for some time expressing interest in an unidentified flying object was deemed a mostly unacceptable in wider sense, but attitudes appear to be changing in America this week with luminaries, from Barack Obama to former NBA star hill, O'Neill sharing their thoughts. Obama was asked about this issue of UFO's during an interview saying that he is confirming footage and records of unidentified objects and that they exist. He says, well, this article says much of the new found and newly sincere interest in UFO's this week appears to stem from a CBS report on Sunday with the defense department and the intelligence agencies do to deliver a much anticipated official report on mysterious aerial sightings. Next month, 60 minutes interviewed a number of credible witnesses, including the former Navy pilot, who said he had seen the unidentified aerial phenomenon, the government's preferred term every day for at least a couple of years. Okay. That prompted Obama's discussion of the aerial phenomenon. He said this to CBS, what is true? I'm actually being serious here is that there's footage and records of objects in the skies that we don't know exactly what they are. We can explain how they moved their trajectory. They did not have an easily explainable pattern. And so, you know, I think that people still take it seriously trying to investigate and figure out what it is, but I have nothing to report to you today. So former president is now sort of also agreeing here he is.

Speaker 3: 1:08:24

No, no, look, look the truth. The truth is that when I came in the office, I asked, right. I was like, all right, you know, is there the lab somewhere where we're keeping the, uh, aliens and, uh, uh, you know, they did a little bit of research and, uh, uh, the answer was no. Um, but what, what is true, uh, and I'm, I'm actually being serious here is, is that, uh, there are, uh, there's footage and records of objects in the skies that we don't know exactly what they are. We can't explain, uh, how they moved their trajectory. Uh, they, they did not have, um, an easily explainable pattern. And so, you know, I think that we're, uh, people still take seriously trying to investigate and figure out what that is. Uh, but I have nothing to report to you today. Okay. Um,

Speaker 1: 1:09:33

Yeah. And so this was kind of the same shtick that bill Clinton gave us. If you recall, remember bill Clinton, he, there's a lot of clips on YouTube about him as well. And he's a little bit more persuasive, but it's the same line. If you could, you could actually put these, side-by-sides almost the same story. Biden went in. I'm sorry. Uh, Clinton went in and bill Clinton went in and did the same shtick. He said, when I got in there, when I got elected, I went in there and I said, you show me the aliens. And you tell me where they are. And I want to go to area 51 and I want to do this. And he said, by God, they didn't find anything. Right. And he's charming as hell guy. And he is he's persuasive. And you sort of get this feeling that he did go in and look like, you know, he seems like he really did want to know, because we all want to know. Right. We're all human. So I, you know, you kind of watch him and you believe him, then Obama comes out, does the same steak? Well, when I went in there, I tried to do it. Okay. And we have no information about it, but we do know that he is acknowledging that, that we kind of don't know what it is. Right. So is he talking about things that are being created by our military or from a foreign military or from a foreign world? Right. Either way. It's a little bit concerning. If our military is making these things and the president's not aware of it, or he, you know, is if this is being honest, if you want to take that for, for what it's worth, but that he doesn't know what it is. Maybe it is the U S military. There just don't acknowledge it. You know, we're testing this out. We got some very advanced technology, but we're just not telling you what it is, if that's us. All right. That's, uh, that's, you know, that's one reason why they're going to be playing coy about all of this, but what if it's not, what if it's the Chinese? What if it's the Russians? What if it's some other entity or nation or organization, or, you know, Satoshi Nakamoto, the bit coin guy, you know, somebody who's just secret evil mastermind somewhere in a volcano mountain tucked away in the depths of Afghanistan. You know, I don't know, but it's a big deal because we've seen, seen the footage we've heard from military experts. We've heard from security researchers and nobody can really explain it. And the best thing that we got was birds. Oh, these are just birds that are flying around on infrared cameras. And the reason why you can't tell that they're birds is because they are, um, you know, close to the camera and the sensors are not made for the camera in the birds, going down the planes going up. So it looks like it's doing all of these trick shot things, but it's just camera angles. And it's just infrared birds. That's all it is. So it could be that right. Maybe it is birds, maybe Obama and the rest of the government is trolling us. Wouldn't be the first time, you know, it comes back out, oh, these are just big, you know, flying Eagles, soaring around the skies, uh, at 30,000 feet. All right. So Tucker Carlson also had somebody on his show. I want to tell you a little bit more about this guy. This article is over from, I think this is from the daily wire, says that the right wing Fox news host, whose most recent work has seen him dabble in anti-vaccination conspiracy theories. Also. Now this is not from the daily wire. Also saw 60 minutes report and played a clip on his show on Monday. UFO's it seems are pretty much the one thing Obama and Carlson might agree on, which is why it's so weird, right? Cause they're on opposite ends of the spectrum. The Pentagon admits it doesn't know what in the world. This is Carlson said after he showed his viewers footage of the UFO from a national security perspective. That is a very big problem. He said as is his wont Carlson went on to spin the issue of UFO's into a specious criticism of Biden on Monday. Oh, Neil shared his experience of seeing a flying saucer with BC when CNN interviewed a former combat pilot who told of how she had spotted UFO off of San Diego. All right. So that's other stuff. So on Tucker Carlson show, he had somebody on named Louis Elizondo. Kayla Louis Elizondo came on the show and he was, he did about a seven minute segment with Tucker and they were talking all of UFO stuff. And so I want to show you who this guy is pretty interesting stuff. There was a program from the United States government called advanced aerospace threat identification program. And it was an unclassified, but unpublicized investigatory effort funded by the us government to study UFO's or explain UAP unidentified aerial phenomenon program was first made public in 2017, began in 2007. So for 10 years, sort of was operating with a funding of$22 million until the appropriations were ended in 2012, the program began under the U S intelligence agency, according to the DOD. It ended in 2012 after five years. However, reporting suggested that the U S government programs to investigate UFO's continued. This was confirmed in June, 2020 with acknowledgement of a very similar military program unclassified, but again, previously unreported called the unidentified aerial phenomenon task force. So the advanced aerospace threat identification program becomes a UAE PTF and a group, including Louis, who was the AA tip program director founded a public benefit corporation named to the stars academy of arts and science. So the, the leader of this organization, the advanced aerospace threat identification program is this guy, Luis Elizondo. And so, you know, he's, he used to work for the government. He was part of this program and they've been, the program has been around for a long time. The end of 2007 first made public 2017. Appropriations ended in 2012, got rolled into another program called the UAP taskforce, the unidentified aerial phenomenon task force. So this guy has been around the block, right? That's a little bit of background on him. You can decide whether he's credible or not for yourself, but here he is. And a little bit of framework on this. So they go, this is near the end of the interview. They go through the whole interview, Tucker, Carlson's asking him questions. And before we get to this clip, Tucker asks him something about, is there any material, have you recovered anything? You know, you've been involved as a U S government have any down Roswell spacecraft or any, you know, alien body parts or anything like that. This gentlemen, here's

Speaker 4: 1:15:11

His answer,

Speaker 5: 1:15:14

Tucker, you know, that the United States government is in possession of, of exotic material and I'll leave it at that. Uh, more analysis needs to be done. Um, there's enough uniqueness about it, where, where it demands, additional analysis, additional expertise. And, and thankfully there are pockets in the U S government that are willing to have the conversation and conduct the analysis. I'm not going to say those right now, what those elements are, uh, because I'm, I'm worried, frankly, for the same type of reprisal that I'm facing currently. Uh, but, uh, but there are pockets of people that are willing to do the right thing. And, and fortunately these individuals are, are, uh, are patriotic and, and willing to, to do the job.

Speaker 1: 1:15:51

All right? So even if the government doesn't tell us what the heck's going on, this guy Lewis says that there are some good people inside who will, they're going to disclose and sort of continue to leak some of this information. We've already seen this, this slow drip of this leak. I mean like this image, right? Or I'm not, I'm not sure. I'm not sure that these are actually even links. I think that the Pentagon is now being a little bit more open, responding to foil requests. And when the leaks do happen, they're actually confirming them. So we'll see where it goes. We've got a report scheduled to come out in June. Of course, we're going to cover the hell out of that. So we want to make sure that you're here would love a subscribe. Would love a, like a thumbs up and a comment. If you are so inclined, let's take a look at some questions. First one in the house comes from Sharon Whitney. And again, these are all come over from watching the watchers.locals.com and our rumble addresses down there as well. Sharon Whitney in the house says it's true that there are some unknown aerial phenomenon doesn't mean that they are quote space aliens. If they were aliens from outer space, why are they just flying around and not landing and taking over? Why would they be interested in us? Uh, anything other than a potential food source? Look, if these are aliens, they're technology to get here as centuries, at least ahead of ours, it just doesn't make any sense. I, I think you're right on that, Sharon, I think you're right. You know, are these really little space aliens flying around or is it just our, uh, useless, worthless, lying, rotten governments, just not telling us the truth, which one's more likely did, did some super advanced technology alien technology from 50 billion light years away create some faster than light travel that our physics tells us doesn't exist. And they just have super advanced levels of, uh, of, of intelligence and all. And they just got here and they're just poking, or our government it's filled with a bunch of jerks who lie to us, which one is more likely, I think I have an answer and why renal MD is in the house as one good thing about Biden being president as anyone think he will shut his mouth if they really know about aliens. Oh, maybe they'll, um, maybe that's why they hurry him along so much, right? Maybe they're just waiting for him to blur it out, you know, uh, reveal the truth to all of us, all this, hurry him along. Keep the face mask on. Now Darla Sierra says, which is more likely project blue beam or the DOD telling the truth. I'll go with plot project blue beam for a thousand dollars. I don't know what that is. Project blue beam. We're going to have to take a look at that. Is that a secret alien program? And our last question of the day says, if we're busy worrying about aliens from outer space, we won't be so worried about things like hyperinflation eradication of our civil liberties and other things. Yeah, that's a good point. And you know, I think that's kind of where this is going. You know, I think they all know it's not aliens, but it is certainly fun to talk about. And it's kind of fun to get in touch with your inner child and maybe one day, right. And we're just little, we're just little, um, look, we all think that we're very smart and we know physics and all this stuff, but we are just a bunch of big farm animals banging into each other on this planet. And so if space aliens can figure out how to travel faster than life and, you know, jump through wormholes and they can cross dimensions and they understand the multi-verse and string theory, and they can just kind of hop around and go move forward and backwards in time. And well, maybe they are here. I don't know. It sounds more fun than a bunch of lines bureaucrats. Uh, but anyways, we'll get there one day. Maybe, otherwise we'll just upload ourselves to the cloud. We have, uh, I want to welcome some people over to locals. Welcome to Kinkaid. We got one sign up yesterday. Welcome Kincaid. Appreciate you being here. We're grateful that you are there. And so Kincaid is not alone. Maybe you want to sign up to there's a lot of good stuff you can get over there if you do. And I want to thank the people who asked great questions today. You know who you are up on the board there. Hey, quick reminder. Oh, I don't know if you saw this, but I'm going on a ricotta law. We're going, I'm going to be, we're going to be chatting tonight at 9:00 PM. Arizona. No. Yeah. 9:00 PM Arizona time. So that's 11:00 PM central, which is midnight, I think, Eastern time. So he is back east central time, I think. And so, uh, we're gonna be on his channel. Go check that out. You probably know who he is already kind of a big deal or a Qaeda law at 9:00 PM Arizona time, which is Pacific time going to be 11:00 PM. So I'm going to go home, have something to eat, and then we're going to be on Medicaid law. We're going to be streaming with him and I'm looking forward to that. So please go check that out. Give him some love and support, subscribe over there. And we'll see you there at, uh, in a couple of hours also@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. You can download a copy of my book. You can do it for free. You can download these slides for free that we just went through today. Copy of my impeachment party document, as well as my existence systems, you can share links throughout the day and meet great people. Other quick reminder that tomorrow. Oh my goodness. Tomorrow, Saturday, May 22nd. I'm so excited. We're going to have our first monthly locals meetups. So everybody from the locals community, if you want to come and say hello, tomorrow is the time to do that. 7:00 PM Eastern time, which is going to be 4:00 PM Arizona time. We're going to be on there for one hour. Camera's off is okay if you don't want to show your face. No problem. Uh, hopefully we hear from you though, cause it's going to be boring if I talk to myself, but you can register for that. If you're a member at locals, there's a pin, a note there and you can just go and register. We'll see you tomorrow. Super excited about that. That should be fun. And then we'll see you on June 12th for a law enforcement interaction training seminar, where we're going to talk about how to deal with the police. I'll everybody knows that you're supposed to remain silent, but what happens when you're really put under the gun there, pun intended, what do you do? How do you handle that? We're going to talk about it. There's a lot of different ways to, um, to sort of unpack that meatball. We're going to do that all on Saturday, June 12th. So register or don't register yet because the Link's not there. They're going to post that this weekend. So just go join locals. Then you'll know where to go from there. All right. And so that's it for me, my friends. I want to thank you so much for being with us all this week. Had a lot of fun, a lot of good stuff to talk about. We are before we get out of here, I want to remind you that we are a criminal defense law firm in Scottsdale, Arizona. That's what we do on a daily basis. We have a whole team of people here. I know I'm on YouTube a lot, but we that's what we do. We're boots on the ground day in and day out, helping good people facing criminal charges, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. We're very good at what we do. We can help people with a whole range of criminal charges, criminal cases, misdemeanors, DUIs, felony cases, traffic cases, old warrants. If you want to restore your rights, possess the ability to possess a firearm again, or go and apply for a restore your rights. So you can vote again, apply for federal benefits. There's a lot that we can do. I can't even say fit it all out so much that we can do to help. And we're excited about it. And so if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who is in need of some of those services, we can help. We love it. We're very good at it. And we offer free case evaluation. So we have a whole team here in Scottsdale. If you want to come on in, we'll make sure that you leave our office better than you found us. We'll give you a copy of my book and we'll make sure you have a plan. So if you happen to know anybody who needs some of that help, we can, uh, we have some links in the description below. You can schedule online or just give our office a call. We'll do our very best to make sure that you leave in a good spot. We'll do everything we can to help. So that is it from me, my friends, we are going to get out of here. I'm looking for my camera lens so that I can close the camera off before we wrap up out of here. That is it. My friends here it is. I'm going to see you back here. Same time, same place next week. I want everybody to have a very tremendous lovely weekend. Get a lot of rest unplugged from politics a little bit. Cause we're going to be back. Ready to go on Monday. It's going to be at 7:00 PM. Uh, 4:00 PM Arizona time. Then it's going to be at 5:00 PM. Mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM east coast for that one, Florida man, everybody have a tremendous weekend. I'll see you next week. Bye-bye I'll see you at 9:00 PM. Arizona time on ricotta LA. Now bye-bye.