Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Trump “Chinese Virus” Lawsuit, Feds Seize $90k in 1/6 Footage Proceeds, Whitmer Violates COVID Order

May 24, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Trump “Chinese Virus” Lawsuit, Feds Seize $90k in 1/6 Footage Proceeds, Whitmer Violates COVID Order
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Trump “Chinese Virus” Lawsuit, Feds Seize $90k in 1/6 Footage Proceeds, Whitmer Violates COVID Order
May 24, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

Former President Donald Trump facing new lawsuit from civil rights group over the use of the phrases “Chinese Virus”, “Wuhan Virus” and others – we review the lawsuit. Capitol Hill Protestor John Earle Sullivan has proceeds from his footage seized by the federal government. Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan is busted violating her own COVID orders by attending divebar. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:

🔵 Donald Trump is facing a new lawsuit by the Chinese Americans Civil Rights Coalition over the use of his words in describing the coronavirus pandemic.
🔵 In a 53-page complaint filed in Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, the coalition specifics concerns over the use of the phrases “Chinese virus”, “China virus”, “Whuan virus” and “Kung Flu virus.”
🔵 The complaint alleges that the virus originated in bats, although experts are now asking questions about the origin of the coronavirus.
🔵 John Earle Sullivan, the defendant from Utah who was charged with crimes in connection with the Capitol Hill Riots, is fighting over proceeds he recorded that day.
🔵 Sullivan licensed his footage from inside the Capitol building to various media companies, including CNN And NBC.
🔵 Federal prosecutors have seized $90k of allegedly ill-gotten gains and are fighting Sullivan’s attempts to retrieve the funds.
🔵 In lengthy memorandum, prosecutors detail Sullivan’s involvement in the crimes and destruction of federal property.
🔵 Governor Whitmer of Michigan is busted at a dive bar in East Lansing, violating her own COVID rules.
🔵 The photo of Whitmer with Michigan COO Tricia Foster appeared as part of a montage on Facebook.
🔵 Whitmer is being criticized for violating her own rules imposed on May 15th, that limit gatherings at restaurants to 6-people per table.
🔵 A review of the photograph shows Governor Whitmer has over twice the legal limit of people at her table!
🔵 Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!

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

Channel List:
🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE - https://www.rrlaw.tv
🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. - https://www.youtube/c/RobertGruler
📈 Robert Gruler Crypto - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkU...
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwm...

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!
📌 Saturday, June 12 @ 12-2 pm / Noon ET – Law Enforcement Interaction Training Live Virtual Seminar with Robert (via Zoom)
📌 Saturday, June 26, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)
Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ 

Connect with us:
🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprou...
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq
🟢 Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrule...
🟢 Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/
🟢 Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq
🟢 Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv

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

Otherwise, don't forget to join us on Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com

Why Locals? We head over to Locals to continue the conversation before, during and after the show. You can also grab the slides (and other stuff) from the show as well as a free PDF copy of Robert’s book which is also available to buy on Amazon here: https://rcl.ink/hHB

WATCH ON ODYSEE:
🟡 MAIN: https://odysee.com/@RobertGru

Show Notes Transcript

Former President Donald Trump facing new lawsuit from civil rights group over the use of the phrases “Chinese Virus”, “Wuhan Virus” and others – we review the lawsuit. Capitol Hill Protestor John Earle Sullivan has proceeds from his footage seized by the federal government. Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan is busted violating her own COVID orders by attending divebar. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:

🔵 Donald Trump is facing a new lawsuit by the Chinese Americans Civil Rights Coalition over the use of his words in describing the coronavirus pandemic.
🔵 In a 53-page complaint filed in Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, the coalition specifics concerns over the use of the phrases “Chinese virus”, “China virus”, “Whuan virus” and “Kung Flu virus.”
🔵 The complaint alleges that the virus originated in bats, although experts are now asking questions about the origin of the coronavirus.
🔵 John Earle Sullivan, the defendant from Utah who was charged with crimes in connection with the Capitol Hill Riots, is fighting over proceeds he recorded that day.
🔵 Sullivan licensed his footage from inside the Capitol building to various media companies, including CNN And NBC.
🔵 Federal prosecutors have seized $90k of allegedly ill-gotten gains and are fighting Sullivan’s attempts to retrieve the funds.
🔵 In lengthy memorandum, prosecutors detail Sullivan’s involvement in the crimes and destruction of federal property.
🔵 Governor Whitmer of Michigan is busted at a dive bar in East Lansing, violating her own COVID rules.
🔵 The photo of Whitmer with Michigan COO Tricia Foster appeared as part of a montage on Facebook.
🔵 Whitmer is being criticized for violating her own rules imposed on May 15th, that limit gatherings at restaurants to 6-people per table.
🔵 A review of the photograph shows Governor Whitmer has over twice the legal limit of people at her table!
🔵 Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!

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

Channel List:
🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE - https://www.rrlaw.tv
🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. - https://www.youtube/c/RobertGruler
📈 Robert Gruler Crypto - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkU...
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwm...

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!
📌 Saturday, June 12 @ 12-2 pm / Noon ET – Law Enforcement Interaction Training Live Virtual Seminar with Robert (via Zoom)
📌 Saturday, June 26, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)
Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ 

Connect with us:
🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprou...
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq
🟢 Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrule...
🟢 Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/
🟢 Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq
🟢 Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv

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

Otherwise, don't forget to join us on Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com

Why Locals? We head over to Locals to continue the conversation before, during and after the show. You can also grab the slides (and other stuff) from the show as well as a free PDF copy of Robert’s book which is also available to buy on Amazon here: https://rcl.ink/hHB

WATCH ON ODYSEE:
🟡 MAIN: https://odysee.com/@RobertGru

Speaker 1:

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 and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today because we've got some good stuff to get into first and foremost, Donald Trump is being sued by a civil rights organization over the use of the word Chinese virus in some other interesting turns of phrase to describe COVID-19. And we're going to go through this lawsuit because it is a 53 page complaint. We're not going to read the whole thing. We're just going to go through some of the highlights, but it is interesting. It , it sort of , uh , uh , another lawsuit against the former president and we're going to see what is to come of this. So then we're going to talk about the Capitol hill or guy by the name of John Earl Sullivan. We've talked about him previously. He was the guy that sold the footage of him, sort of going into the Capitol building back on January 6th to the news media for something like $70,000. I think we talked about that on this channel. I think one was 35 grand to NBC another one 35 grand to somebody else, just for some kind of, you know, some , uh , rough cell phone footage of him getting into the Capitol building. Well, the government is now seizing that money. So something like $90,000 has been seized from Sullivan he's out of custody. His case is still pending. Criminal charges are moving forward against him, and he's trying to get that money back. He says, I need it to , uh, to live. I need it to pay my bills, pay my rent . And of course, to support my legal fees , uh, the government is fighting that. And so we're going to see what happens. The prosecution came out today with a big long memo or not today, but very recently with a big, long memo detailing why they're saying he should not get that $90,000 back. And so we want to go through that because it is a little bit fun. Then we're going to be taking a look at governor Whitmer governor Whitmer. If you saw this over the weekend, she was busted breaking her own COVID regulations restaurant . She went to a dive bar with a number of other friends, friends . And for those of you who do not live in Michigan, there is still a lockdown order. Or there's a, I don't know if there's a lockdown order, but there's still some regulations. Let me just be careful about that. Still some regulation saying that when you go out to a restaurant, apparently you're supposed to have six people per table, big Gretsch , Rona had more than six people , uh, uh, not too good. So she got into a little bit of trouble over that, and we'll have fun with that because I'm nothing like calling out the double standards. When you see them. We love to have fun with that. If you want to be a part of the show and join in on the fund , the place to do that is [email protected], which is where we take questions. If you go over there right now, if you type that into your web browser, you're going to see that there's a live chat happening right now. And so if you want to ask a question or drop a comment, or even lob criticism, my direction, feel free to do that. You can go and support the show and then ask your questions there. Before we get into the news of the day. We want to also thank those of you who came to the monthly meetup over on locals , nice turnout. We had over 30 people who showed up. And so it was a lot of fun. It was me bumbling around with some technology. Apparently I selected the wrong zoom function. So we had a webinar going so I could hear from people, but couldn't see people, but they could see me and we could sort of hear it from everybody, but we got a lot of great questions out and it was really awesome to sort of put a voice. We couldn't put a face to a name yet. We're going to get that fixed on the next one. But to put a voice to a name, to hear from some of you out there who have been supporting us for a long time over at locals, and here on this channel, it was a lot of fun, a lot of great questions, good conversations. And I sort of finished that night, like with some really serious existential questions about, you know, what is my future look like? And , and am I going to be sort of doubling down on some of this content? Am I going to be, you know, reorienting in other areas, whether, whether it comes to the law or, you know, what does the future hold? And I really appreciate the encouragement. I appreciate all the support and I really appreciate the great questions and the conversations that we're having. I mean, people ask the , you know, there's some questions about the death penalty and about alcoholism and about reconciling all of these complex issues that we talk about on a regular basis. And it was just so much fun. I mean, it's exactly what my vision was for this community is sort of people who want to talk about some of the complex issues and dive in a little bit of a deeper level. And so it was just the first monthly meetup, very low stress. And I think it was very friendly. Everybody had their dinner table, table manners there, and it was just a lot of fun. And so I'm looking forward to sort of growing this and doing more of them and building a bit, a bit of a, of a more close knit community. And I'm still trying to sort out how to scale that because it's only so scalable, but, you know , but the point is there's, there's a lot of cool things happening over there and I'm very grateful for it. It really means the world to me. We got a lot of fun. Thank you to all of you who showed up and there was leaving even a little bit of a goodie that we gave away. Feel free to share that good eat with other people who are not able to make it, those of you who were there and got that little bit of a, of a little bit of a love there. So, all right. So enough of that, thanks once again, to everybody over at locals, if you want to join up and be a part of that, you can check out watching the watchers.locals.com. All right. So let's get into the news of the day. Donald Trump is facing a new lawsuit. He's got a lot of legal things floating around right now in his world, but there is a new lawsuit that is being filed against him from the Chinese American civil rights coalition. And it's specific to some language that Donald Trump was using back when he was president specifically when he was using the phrase China virus and the Kong flu. So we're going to get some background here from insider business, insider.com. It says here that a Chinese American civil rights group is suing Trump for $22.9 million. That is a lot of money. That's , that's not that much money. George Floyd got more than that, but 22.9 is still pretty hefty for calling COVID-19 the China virus and the Kung flu. That's $1 for each Asian American and Pacific Islander living in the west. So they want a lot of money. Former president Trump is facing the lawsuit. Civil rights group is arguing that the use of the derogatory terms for the Corona virus has led to a rise in violence against Asian American and Pacific Islanders. And we are seeing, you know , uh , sort of , uh , a slew of, of news stories covering this. And it , it does feel like just in terms of coverage, it feels like that there is more of this out there, whether that's true or not. Uh , you know, I don't know. The former president has famously used terms such as the Chinese virus, the China virus, the [inaudible] flu and Kung flu to describe COVID-19 the Chinese American civil rights coalition is suing Trump for roughly 22.9 million or $1 for every single Asian American and Pacific Islander. The money is going to be used to establish if they win a museum showcasing AAPI contributions to the U S in the recent months, there's been a spike in against Asian-Americans most notably in March, there was a fatal shooting at three Atlanta area spot that left eight dead, including six Asian women. I wasn't sure did that. Did we ever figure out whether that was race-related or was that just sort of a massage parlor situation we have in April more than 80% of Asian-Americans said violence against them is on the rise. One in five of those surveys blamed Trump for the rising violence experts told insider that the disrespectful monikers for those Corona virus used by Trump perpetuate dangerous microaggressions , Ooh , against the AAPI communities. You know, these microaggressions . It's like, if you use the wrong pronoun or something like that, I think that's probably a major aggression right now. I think that used to be a microaggression , but now that's a major macro aggression. And so some of the microaggressions we've seen those, those words, like, you know, don't use the word baby. If you're going to be talking about something that is sort of like baby, like behavior, use the word, like , um, infantry , uh, uh, cognitive something , right? They , they, they mash all these things together and it doesn't make any sense. It's these microaggressions that everybody's on high alert about Trump's first tweet about a China Chinese virus resulted in a surge of anti Asian hashtags on Twitter. Close-up photos of president Donald Trump's prepared remarks for a white house briefing in March revealed the former president's pension for offensive terms. He crossed out part of the phrase, Corona virus and altered it to Chinese virus , according to so Nam chef . And I remember this specifically, and I want to play a clip here. I'm going to try it , keep it together on this next clip, but I've, I've watched this clip I got to , I'm not kidding you probably a hundred times. And I don't know why. I think it is so hilarious. Actually. I do know why I'm gonna explain it. So it's this clip. I may have played it on the show before. Uh, maybe, maybe not. This is actually not a good version of the clip because we have a hard cut right at the key moments, but I'm still gonna play it anyways. You can look up the whole clip if you want. It's it's really, I've always thought it was hysterical. So here is Donald Trump. This is this reporter who is yelling at him over the use of the term, the Chinese virus. And so she goes on this thing, you know, isn't it racist? Don't know what can't you understand what a problem. This is? You're the president. Maybe you should not use that phrase. And Donald Trump says, oh no, no, it's not racist at all. Why do I call it the Chinese virus? It , because it came from China and it , if you recall Donald Trump, he , the way he says China, he says at heart , he says China. And I've always sort of had the suspicion that he does that on purpose, just to sort of irk people just to kind of twist with the knife a little bit. You know, a lot of people think that Donald Trump is not self-aware enough that he's sort of, he doesn't understand his personality and his stick , this, you know, this sort of orange guy who doesn't ever back down, who's always aggressive. Win-win , win-win win . You know, the ideas that he has, no, he's out of touch with that. He doesn't even recognize the sort of caricature of himself. I've never bought that. I think that he understands fully what he's doing as I think most politicians do and celebrities and actors and actresses and lawyers and doctors, we all have these different personas and these different masks that we wear, whether or not you recognize it or not, you do it right. You don't, you don't act the same way in front of your mother that you do on a first date. And so you act as a president when you're president and you act as a reality TV person, when you're a reality TV person and you carry over some of those winning characteristics from one endeavor to the next. And so even when Donald Trump was president and he was doing some of these, you know, kind of goofy things, or some of these personality quirks, there would be moments. When I would say he's doing that on purpose. He knows that he is irritating everybody in this white house press room, and he's just doing it. I'm sure him and pants are going back behind the wall , uh , back behind the doors, after the conclusion of this and going, oh, that was good. Right? Kind of giving each other, the fist bump. And this felt like one of those moments specifically when he says China and he says it like that, he says China, and you can't see it , this clip because there's a hard cut , but I want you to listen for it. Maybe we'll play it twice, but he says it. And if you watch this full clip in like slow motion, you can zoom. This is up on your big screen, put it on your 55 inch, whatever, watch Trump's micro-expressions in his face, not aggressions expressions. When he China, he kind of goes like this. He goes like, oh, that was , uh , that was a good one. Like, he knows that that felt good. When he goes China, he goes, oh, that's a good one. And then he carries on with his thought and there's just a split second hair trigger. Just moment where he goes. That was a good China. And he , and he , he got, he kind of lets it just sit there for a minute before he picks back up. So see if you can catch it, if not watch the whole thing. I'm going to try to keep it together. Usually this clip , uh , sends me rolling, but we're going to, I'm on, I'm on presentation mode today. So we're going to, we're going to bear through this one. Here it is. Why don't you keep

Speaker 2:

Calling this? The Chinese virus. There are reports of dozens of incidents of bias against Chinese Americans in this country. Your own aid secretary ASRM says

Speaker 3:

He does not use this term. He says ethnicity does not cause the virus. Why do you keep using this? It's in China . It's not racist at all. No, not at all. It comes from China. That's why it comes from China. I want to be accurate. Yeah , please. John, please. I have a great, I have great love for all of the people from our country. But , uh , as you know, China tried to say at one point, maybe this stuff now that it was caused by American soldiers, that can't happen. It's not going to happen. And that as long as I'm president , it comes from China.

Speaker 1:

So it was, it watched the full thing. Very, very good. I'm not going to play it again because probably people think I'm out of my mind right now, but the whole, he says China and he cuts it and he has this little, little bit of a pretty good, pretty good China, right there liked how that one landed. Then he just picks up with the rest of his thought . So enough of that here is the actual lawsuit. So this is the complaint. This was filed last week on May 20th, 53 pages. We are not going to go through all 53 pages of this, but I do want to show you what is happening here because it is interesting. We have the Chinese American civil rights coalition against Donald Trump, former capacity as the president being filed out of S D N Y Southern district of New York. I think this is the same jurisdiction that Ms. Glenn Maxwell's in. So a lot of activity out of this court, we have the parties. The plaintiff is a nonprofit organization. That is the Chinese civil rights organization. Then we have Donald Trump, former capacity as president. Why are they suing him for his defamatory, slanders and his libel since COVID-19 broke out and for his private citizen as a private citizen for the defamatory statements since leaving the oval office. And so here is the crux of the complaint. Let me just point out a couple of quick things. He took the oath of office in 2017, and you're going to notice, you know, I really actually have a lot of criticisms with this complaint. Uh , not , not because of the political , uh, sort of character of it more so, but just because it it's, it's sort of over the top. I think it's actually just poorly written, very dramatic. I don't like dramatic legal brief , just let's get it . What are the issues? Let's not make a big, you know , dramatic , uh , heyday . It, this office has always come with the inherited duty and the responsibility for every incumbent sense , Washington. So I don't even know what that's okay. Since March 16th, 2020. And as recently as March 16th, defendant has repeatedly used the term such as Chinese virus, China virus, Wu Han virus, Kung flu virus, and herein, after referred to, as these statements in his official capacity, he justified the use of these statements by insisting. We just heard this clip quote, because it comes from China. I want to be accurate. He said, hence, defendant announced unequivocally to the world that he used these words as factual statements rather than opinions. And so let's pay close attention to this. So they're going to go through this complaint. They're going to be very upset that Donald Trump made all of these statements because he was using them as facts. Well, then they're going to come out and say, well, Donald Trump was calling it the Chinese virus while there's no evidence that it can came from China, but we also don't know where it came from. So if you don't know , I know where it came from, then how do you know that it didn't come from China? So we're going to see there . They're very angry at Donald Trump for making certain claims that they're trying to connect to a factual inaccuracies. And what they're going to show us is that they can't just prove the factual inaccuracy. So how is it defamatory or libelous if it might even be true, right? It might actually be the truth because we just know if you're not, if you haven't seen this video, I put out a , uh , an hour and 20 minute long video on channel. Number two link is in the description below going through the Nicholas Wade article for , for the COVID-19 escape theory that came out of the , uh, the , the, the theory goes through these four factors that Nicholas Wade analyzed that show that the virus came from the Wu Han lab of virology and not emerging from nature. So if we're going to be having this conversation, this civil rights organization is saying, well, Donald Trump was making stuff up when he said that it came from China, but now we're looking at it and we're saying, well, there's actually some serious inquiry happening. We're even seeing Dr. Fowchee out now saying, well, maybe it's worth a second. Look, defendants. Uh , according to this complaint, it says, these words are not supported by the known facts that so they're calling these facts, okay? They're they're saying Trump's words are not supported by these facts that the zoonotic virus is not originated from human. So we have some language issues. It transmits from one person to another, regardless of gender, age, race, or ethnicity. And according to who reports and the CDC bulletins, the origin of the virus was unknown. When the defendant used these words in March and still remains unknown on March 16th, 16th, when the defendant repeated it again. So now they're trying to tie this back to the time in which he said it, they're saying he should have used a more accurate statement and would have been like the first outbreak of COVID-19 occurred in China. Okay. Not that it came from China. So you can see here in the, in this complaint itself, they're unhappy about this. It comes from China. I want to be accurate. What they would have preferred, he said would have been the first outbreak of COVID occurred in China. Okay. So I mean, that, that sounds pretty close. Like the virus came from China. The first one would have come from China. They said they just want to say the outbreak occurred in China. All right . Now , nevertheless, they say the defendant's intention was never about the truth because he said it a 1920, 22 different names, whatever you want to call it. He said, meanwhile, defendant has stubbornly disregarded the official terminology and guidelines from the world health organization. Defendant has always bragged about the fact that he has the largest group of followers. Something like a hundred million people. Not anymore. He's not on Twitter anymore. Duty comes with authority. See this, this dramatic language responsibility comes with power. Holding the most powerful office in the country. Defendant reckless neglected his official duty to represent all Americans. Okay. This, somebody needs to proofread this defendants. Defendant recklessly neglected his official duty defendant, reckless neglected. Okay . It goes on the presidential. The presidential immunity shall not apply in this case because making defamation statements against one group of citizens is not part of the, of official duty. And the constitution has never enumerated such power. So when you see, when you see lake legal language like this, that is there . There's no citation here. It's just sort of broad statements, making broad claims truth matters words, have consequences.dot dot, especially from those in powerful and influential positions against the well published world health organization, guidelines. Defendant MIS lied on behalf of the members of the lawsuit, Chinese Americans. Here we go. CDC gives us a bulletin, September one, 2020 animal Corona viruses, rarely infect people and then spread between people. According to this lawsuit, this occurred with two earlier Corona viruses. So they talk about MERS . They talk about SARS, then SARS COVID two. It is a beta Corona virus like SARS and MERS. According to them, these viruses have their origin origins in bats, no citation, no nothing there. Although we do not know the exact source of the current outbreak, we know that it originally came from an animal likely ABET . So how can, how can these two statements, how can this sentence even reconcile with itself? So if we don't know the exact, the exact source of the current outbreak, then how can we know that it came from an animal likely a bat , right? So, so I don't know if this is medically accurate or not. Right? I don't, I don't even know, but I'm just saying as a judge, or as somebody reading this, you go, if you don't know the source, then, then it you're just speculating. Okay? So it's not even a fact here. All right . The sequence from us patients are similar to the one that China initially posts suggesting a likely single recent emergence of this virus from an animal reservoir. So then they go back to the CDC bulletin. You're going to see here, they've got all these different remarks listed. United States will be powerfully supporting those industries like airlines that are particularly effected by the Chinese virus, right? So this is, these are all different tweets from Trump. Here's another one, March 17th. We had , we see Chinese virus here. Uh , we see it here. We see it here. I will be having a news conference today to discuss the FDA concerning the Chinese virus. I have a press conference over here, right? And he's going on and on here's some screenshots. These are also listed. I think it's individual exhibits in the lawsuit. So European countries are getting clobbered by the China virus, fake news, doesn't report this. And so all of these are just listed in the lawsuit, right? One by one 88, 89 90, all the way through 93. Then what they're going to do is go into to why they should, when this, you know what, what's, what's the problem with this? So they're documenting what happened here. Donald Trump is the president. He's got all of these responsibilities and he's used this word. That is very difficult story because they're trying to explain, well, we don't even know where it came from, but we know that it didn't come from , uh , uh, something. They don't even know that we have. We have a contradictory statement, although we don't know where the source is, what the source is. We do know that it came from an animal, probably a bat. But if you don't know, then why are you speculating? So we have a lot of contradiction here. Now they're going to tell us why they should win this. They tell us the defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander. They say, you need a false statement purporting to be fact. So that right there, you know, I don't know, right . If it, if it actually did come from China and he calls it, the Chinese virus and his statement is very similar to what they wanted him to say. It was, there was an outbreak that originally came from China. He said it came from China. We just played the video. So a false statement purporting to be fact , but they're agreeing with the fact they're agreeing with this statement, all right , what else do they need? Publication or communication? He's a president. He communicates a lot fault amounting to at least negligence . So he screwed up. He shouldn't have said it or damages and damages and some harm caused by the person who was the subject of the statement. So how do they prove that every one of those 22.9 million Asian American and Pacific Islanders, how do we prove that they were or harmed or that they had some sort of damages? We don't really right. We can't really know that. So they're just sort of making up a number one for every person in the population. All right . So just on the face of that, it doesn't look like a very strong complaint, but let's continue to go through it just for a little bit and see what else is happening here. Let's see, it says, labeling the statement and opinion does not automatically make it an opinion. They also say that the defendant's statements are not true whenever questioning why using Chinese virus and other similar terms said that it came from China. He said, I want to be accurate. However, defendant has more than once said, the virus has 1920, 22 different names, whatever you want to call it at campaign rallies to his supporters. And he says, and this says such racially charged and reckless rhetoric demonstrates his intention when using these inflammatory words was not about the truth at all. So they're saying that well , well, so here then false statements purporting to be facts . So we're going to let's see how they break down that element. They present a timeline. We have a comparison to the European flu, to the Spanish flu. We've got something about apple in here. The origin of the virus was unknown one year ago and still remains unknown at the present. The director of national intelligence testified on April 14th, that the community does not know exactly where when or how COVID-19 was transmitted. Initially the accurate statement would have been the virus originally came from an animal rather than human that's that's, that's not, that's not true. Right? So they're saying that in order for Trump's statements to not breach this element, okay. In order for it to be defamation in order for them to succeed. In th in the defamation case against Trump, they got to prove that there was a false statement that he made. That was purporting to be fact, this is from their document. They are even acknowledging this. So let's just use their own standards and say, they've got to prove a false statement. Well, then they come over here and they say that the intelligence community does not know exactly where when, or how the COVID-19 was transmitted initially. So how can anything that Trump said, then be false because if they don't know, then it could easily be true. They're saying that an accurate statement would have been the virus originally came from an animal rather than human. That is not a known fact. That is not a proven, known fact that is still up for debate. So anything that Trump says related to that cannot automatically be a false statement purporting to be fact, because it's not a known fact. They want you to think it is, but it's not where the virus started from remains unknown more or less. I think there's a consensus that it started in Guan , which is in China. The first outbreak of the virus took place in China and the virus spread from one person to another, regardless of race, race, and ethnicity. So, okay. So that's fine. Yeah. Number four is true, but what does that have to do with any of the elements of defamation? It doesn't have anything to do with any of it. So, oh my goodness. This is bad. Let's continue on. They say the first amendment does not apply in this case. This would be good. The first amendment protects ordinary individuals from government censorship. It does . It does. All right. All right. Okay. So that's what the first amendment means. Okay . If an ordinary individual says Chinese virus or other similar terms, the plaintiff would not file this lawsuit because such individual has no power, no command of federal agencies, no daily intelligence reports, no bully pulpit, no platforms, no followers. Therefore he has no duty, no responsibility, very little impact or influence. So this person whoever's drafting this document has absolutely no idea what they're doing. This is, this is kind of hysterical. We are now in, we are now on page 43 and there's no citations. So there's nothing. What are they? Oh my gosh, this is, this is hysterical. Our founding fathers intended for the first amendment to protect ordinary people in the press from dictators, rather than the first amendment to allow defendant who held the most powerful, constitutional office to knowingly and intentionally repeated lies and spread defamatory statements. Therefore the first amendment is not applied to the defendant in this case. Oh my gosh, this is so great. I can't even take it. Oh my gosh. Anybody who's in law school or any other lawyer watching this right now, you gotta be kidding me. Justice Powell wrote for the court, look at this, no citations, nothing notably out of perimeter. Justice Powell also wrote not a single citation in this whole document. Defamation per se. Defendant has acted with fault negligence and actual malice in his campaign speeches more than once showed his intention was never about that. So they're repeating themselves now. Alright, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Any laws, any count, three negligent infliction of emotional distress. Oh my gosh, this is bad. All right. So what are they , what do they want? Plaintiff respectfully says that they want $1 as an apology to every Asian American living in the U S 22.9 million. In total, they want punitive damages. They want reasonable and necessary attorney's fees. They want the cost of the suit. And then they want plaintiff will donate the award to establish a museum that will showcase the history of their communities and their contribution to the United States. Uh, so this is an actual lawyer. It looks like G a N who's. Who's a lawyer somewhere. Why ? All three zero, two , two attorneys for plaintiff. I don't know what that bar number is. I don't know if that is a New York bar number. I mean, my I've got two bar numbers. I've got one in Arizona and one in California and they both are numbers, not Y L in front of it. Uh, maybe that that's her name. Those are her initials. So why L three zero two, two. I don't know if she's licensed in New York or , or someplace else, but very curious, right? It claiming that there are a lot of facts in there that haven't been proven facts and saying that Donald Trump was saying stuff that was not facts when we don't have a, any evidence. Yeah . That if something is not true, you got to know what the truth about that issue is. And we don't know what the truth about the origin of the Corona viruses. So if Donald Trump made a position, you can't disprove that because there's no evidence to disprove it. So how can defamation stand if he hasn't been proven to have said anything false yet? Can't and there's more information coming out that there may be some truth behind this intelligence on sick staff at the wool Han lab fuels debate over the origin of the virus. This is coming over from the wall street journal shortly before November, 2019 report says researchers went to the hospital before the confirmed outbreak written by Michael Gordon, Strobel and Hinshaw posted today. No yesterday Washington three race researchers from China's Wuhan Institute of virology became sick in November, 2019. They sought hospital care. According to a previously undisclosed us intelligence report that could weight to growing calls for a further probe details of the report, go beyond a state department fact sheet issued during the final days of the Trump administration, which said that several researchers at a lab had symptoms consistent with COVID and common seasonal illness. The disclosure of a number of researchers, and the timing are raising questions. Everybody's asking questions about this. Let's jump into some questions. Well, let's, let's finish up here. Let's we're going to get to some questions a little bit quicker on this story here, because we covered a lot of this. So I did go through this, some of this in the , uh, in , in a long video on channel number two, really breaking down this Nicholas Wade article, he talks about these three different factors that he analyzes that, that he uses to come to a conclusion about the origin of the Corona virus. One is sort of geographical proximity. So he talks about these caves and, you know, the , the, the origin of a virus that would have come from bats from a cave, you know , deep in China, there would be evidence that the Corona virus infected people in that locality, but they didn't. It was something like 1500 miles away in Wu Han where it first started. So he goes through that and he sort of compares and contrasts this. He also looks at a , uh , you know, some other very important physical traits within the virus. And I, you know, I'm not a medical doctor, but he talks about Ferinde cleavage sites. And about this looks like sort of a Frankenstein virus. It would be like the analogy that I use in that other video is specifically about when you are, when we're talking about Frankenstein, we're talking about this creature that was cobbled together from all different parts of the human body, take the head, take the torso, take some arms, take some legs, stitch them all up. You've got Frankenstein. Well, when you do that, you sort of make the connection you sever and , and put the pieces back together at different junctures, right? So you would do it at the neck. You would do it at the shoulder. You pull the shoulder, he pulled the arm off at the shoulder blade because that kind of makes logical sense. You wouldn't, we wouldn't try to connect it, you know, right here, midway in the, in the bicep or whatever this bone is called. It it's, it doesn't make any sense to splice it here. You wouldn't connect a head in the middle of the head. You would connect it at the neck. Well, that's what the coronavirus sort of looks like. There's this very interesting splice right? In the virus in a weird spot and make sense that if you are going to be manufacturing, one of these things, that's where you would splice it together. So I go through all of that in the video. And a lot of people are asking questions about this. And so if Donald Trump is being sued for making stuff up, well, they got to show that he made stuff up. They can't show that, that you know that , um , in fact, maybe it's actually true. Maybe everything he said was in fact, true. Even Dr. Fowchee is out there now talking about a second investigation. So let's take a look at some questions. Now, coming over from watching the watchers.locals.com. First up in the house, we have Dr . Arenal MD in the house, as in the pleadings, they say that we are represent all Asians. Wouldn't that mean an automatic dismissal due to standing SARS. COVID two came from China when they stipulate to that seems like such a frivolous suit. It shouldn't even last a minute. You're right. And why? I don't think that it will. I think it's hilarious that this has even got so got as far as it did, I saw this on a couple of different, new stories, new news headlines today , Trump's being sued again, really excited about it. And I opened it up and I'm like, did somebody just sort of did like some intern draft this up and just file it? Is that even a licensed attorney? I don't know. Would it be worth looking up, but you're right. Yeah. I mean, they can't rep is this a class action lawsuit or are they representing all Asian-Americans and they're in there asking for damages on behalf of all Asian Americans. I mean, the lawsuit is going to get tossed immediately, but it is just, it was fun to sort of go through that. Pinky . Number two is in the house as what about these names? The west Nile virus, Rocky mountain spotted fever, middle east respiratory syndrome, or murders also called the camel flu pinky . You're going to get me canceled, but I'm going to keep reading German measles, Spanish flu. There is a reason to believe Fowchee is in trouble for moving the gain of function research from an American lab to a world health organization, lab, or a China lab. I think there's a good reason for that. And have you noticed his about face? Somebody should check on Fowchee because he's been wearing a mask a long time. Somebody probably wants to get him a neck brace because he's just, he's kind of getting whiplash. He's kind of just changing positions all over the place, max up in a mask up. And even if you're vaccinated, oh , forgot. Just getting don't have to do that anymore. Uh , there is no evidence that this virus emerged from the Wu Han Institute of virology. Whoop . Just kidding. It's probably worth an inquiry. Now. Remember when he was screaming at Rand Paul? No, we never did anything. Now he's out over the weekend going. Yeah, that's actually a good question. We should probably be looking into that. So I'm concerned about his neck because he's, he's, he's kind of jerking us all over the place. I hope he's doing okay. We have N Y renal MD says, even this day, Democrats disparage Russians with no evidence. This is a garbage lawsuit. Even if he was lying, he can, if he wants, what are their damages? I know, I know it's hilarious. And Liberty or death in law school right now. He says, it feels like I'm sitting back in SIF pro the suit is a classic classic example of a rule 11 motion against the attorney that filed this dismissal under 12 B6 for failure to state a claim is what that rule says. Look, I call it the Kung flu on my YouTube channel, my locals , and anywhere I can. I'm so scared. They will Sue me as well. I know Liberty. You're probably sitting there going, are you sick? Are you serious right now that a lawyer wrote that Jeremy Machida says the naming of illnesses by locality has been long established commonality. The west Nile virus was named after the west Nile district of Uganda discovered in 37, Lyme disease was named after Lyme Connecticut, Ebola, hemorrhagic fever from the Ebola river in Zaire in central Africa. MERS was an acronym for middle east respiratory syndrome, which originated from Saudi Arabia in 2012, to name a few. Wow. What a great comment, Jeremy. That was very interesting. I had no idea about any of that. So Merz middle east respiratory syndrome. Well maybe I wonder if they sued anybody in damages for every single middle Easterner in the United States, $1 that's going to be donated to a fund to a museum somewhere. Good job, leafy bugs in the house. Leafy bug . Good to see you says, surely this is textbook one, a protected speech. It seems like a totally frivolous action to me. Do you think the plaintiff is relying on the venue being generally anti-Trump? How else could it not get laughed out of court? DC would probably have been a better choice than SDN Y if that's the case. Yeah. I mean, look, based on what I saw on that, I think it's an odd , it's basically an easy dismissal because there's, I don't even know what they want. You know, they're, they're sort of asking for damages for a party that they kind of represent, but not really. It's not a class action lawsuit. They haven't, they're not vial see a single law in there. I don't think faith clipped all 53 pages, but you know, are there, are they sighting to , to any, any that we're seeing some quotes that they're referencing different judges and different opinions and different facts of law. They're saying that the constitution doesn't say something well, they better tell us what the authority is for that. Because a lot of people have differing opinions on what the constitution does say. So what is the authority that it says, what they're claiming is reality. They didn't put any of that in any of the slides that we looked at, we have Liberty or death says , I don't see how this attorney filed this with a straight face rule, 11 sanctions, please, to prove defamation, you have to show that the use was malicious and false. They admit they have no idea where it comes from. So they know where it did not come from. So you can see here based on the exclamation points that we're seeing. So what happens here when we go through the show is, you know, faith is capturing questions as they come out in real time. So you notice that Liberty's , uh, first comment was a little bit more benign. We only , we had zero exclamation points in Liberty's first comments now, because this comment presumably came when we were further into the lawsuit. When w when we were deeper, three exclamation points, look at that three full exclamation points, rule 11 sanctions, please. The first request was just, Hey, rule 11 sanctions. This is ridiculous. Then when we got to about page 43, we get three exclamation points. I told you it was ridiculous. Liberty agrees. Sharon says to a certain segment of the population, everything Trump says or does is criminal and easy prosecuted to the full extent of the law, as well as generating any matter of civil litigation. I think the only ones really profiting from this are the lawyers. I'd be curious what that lawyer charged for that document. Hopefully they didn't pay too much for it. We have, Ryan says, perhaps if this China virus, lawsuit wins, Spain and Germany should seek reparations with regard to the designation Spanish flu and the German measles. Yeah. Yeah. You know, and I take offense to the I'm Italian. And when somebody says Italian meatballs, it's a little bit pejorative there. You know, I don't , I don't know . Maybe I should see somebody woodworking. Medics says , if this lawsuit goes somewhere, does that set precedence for IL Han Rashida to leave AOC, to be sued? anti-Israel Jewish rhetoric. It's , you know, large uptake in attacks on Jewish people, especially , especially since the squad started speaking out. It's a good question, woodworking. You know, first of all, I think this lawsuit is not going to go anywhere, but let's say that it did, right. What if you're somebody who says, you know what, Donald Trump said, it was wrong and it was defamatory and he is responsible for some of this anti-Asian violence. And he does owe them all $1 for their museum. Well, what if you just applied that standard across the board? What if every time anybody criticized anybody that happened to have a political, or let's say a racial or ethnic demographic, a component to themselves? Well, if you criticize them, even if it has nothing to do with their race or their origin or their ethnicity, if they happen to have an ethic , well, maybe they're taking it as your criticism about their political stance as condemnation of their ethnicity. And then if that's the case, now that's the family story. And if that's the case, now you can be sued and you can too, you too can go get $1 for your entire ethnic community. If that standard is put in place, we have the doctor in the house as imagine if you believe liberal, orthodoxy enough , you ground a BS lawsuit on it. No one has said it definitely had an animal vector. There are many facts, fear , insight, that point to a manufactured source. This is what happens when you live in an echo chamber, LOL, the first amendment doesn't apply. Yeah. And it just doesn't apply just because it just doesn't. Yeah. If you're the president just doesn't, you're too powerful. So the first amendment doesn't apply, I don't know where that is in the constitution, but that lawyer does, we have this seriously. Was this a , was this suit pro se, did this attorney get his JD from the university of American Samoa? Oh, and there it is. We've got the trifecta now liberties at full, what is it's full comedy relief now at this point in time, because it's just so bad. Leafy bug says, if this succeeds then people who live in the Zika forest, along with the Ebola river west Nile have not along, but many other stretches of the Nile will all be lawyering up. Yeah, I know. Yeah. Not to mention, I mean, you know, the Amazon river is going to be real in some legal, hot water. When Jeff Bezos finds out that there's, this sort of overlap between that name also because we have a big problem. Key woe is here, says with all the Asian-American lawyers in this country, this lawsuit is a joke. Sounds like it was written by a CCP hack , hazy . We have Liberty or death says, I'm wondering how the lawyer established jurisdiction in SDNY considering president Trump is a citizen of Florida. No , it's a good question. Maybe he has a residence there. I don't know what , I honestly don't know what they're doing. And I think that the lawsuit supports the fact that they don't either. They have no idea what they're doing. [inaudible] is finishing up this segment says for the record, I'm an American, I'm an , I'm an Asian American and I'm offended by this lawsuit claiming to reference and embarrassed. Well, well, AQL , you know, I, it sounds like you don't want that dollar on your behalf. Well, I don't blame you. I wouldn't want that dollar either. I don't even know what, what they're upset about, but okay. Thank you for the common. NQO glad you're here. Glad that we can all have a little bit of fun with some of this ridiculousness. I know that it kind of is, you know, in that gray area, but a little bit silly. So I think it's fun. Thanks for those great questions. Uh, all of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com . If you want to support the show, that's the place to do that. And we really appreciate it. We've got a , uh, an event coming up on Jan on June 12th, law enforcement interaction training. So go register for [email protected] Okay, so let's get into the next story. The next segment we are going to be revisiting the Capitol hill riots. John Earl Sullivan. One of the Capitol hill rioters is now trying to get $90,000 back. If you recall, we were talking about this guy back on January 6th , he was running around the Capitol grounds and taking a lot of video footage of a lot of the mayhem that was going on that day. And he got some pretty good footage, actually. So good. In fact that he celled sold it to a number of different media companies, including NBC and CNN. He made something like 75 to $90,000. Now the government is seizing that money. They're saying you can't have that. That's ill gotten gains. You got that from your criminal behavior, from your criminal conduct. And we're going to seize it while he's trying to get that money back. He says, I need this for my life. I need this for my bills and my finances and my legal representation. And the government just issued a big memorandum saying, no, you don't, we're not going to give it back. We're going to tease out what's going on here. Let's take a quick look at law and crime. They say from their article written by Aaron Keller over the weekend, it says that the government defense seizure of $90,000 from the defendant who sold his video to CNN and NBC. So while CNN and NBC and everybody was like, you know, really, you know , sort of hysterical over this, they had no problems handing one of these insurrections . [inaudible] $90,000 for the footage. Oh, you , you almost just wrecked American democracy. How about we send you though for what you got on that cell phone? Okay. Federal authorities have seized more than 90 grand from a Utah bank account owned by the defendant, charged with playing a role on the January 6th seat . The defendant, John Earl Sullivan. We just saw him. He licensed the video. He recorded of the throngs of protesters outside the courthouse Sullivan filed court papers describing himself as legitimately self-employed, as a documentarian, asked that the government return the money. Okay. So sort of , uh , you know, this is a legitimate exercise of my power. I'm a journalist. And so journalists have certain protections under the first amendment. And, you know, we, we give them access to certain things , uh, not the Capitol building during a riot, but I understand what this guy is attempting to do. According to documents on file in the us district court Sullivan spoke with federal authorities several times after the deadly breach beginning, the very next day, he told investigators he was present when Ashley Babbitt was shot and killed and provided video of the incident. So that's why it was so valuable because it was a very important video, right? There were a lot of people there, but not everybody caught and captured the shooting of Ashley Babbitt . Defendant's recording, which is still live on YouTube. We have a clip of it here in another slide, contains statements. Federal prosecutors have attributed to Sullivan, which suggests he was not merely just a passive observers. He said, apparently there are so many people let's go. This S is ours F yeah . He said, at one point, according to prosecutors, we accomplish this. He said, we did this together F yeah , we are all in part of this history. Let's burn this down. We got to get this burned. He said, it's our house. [inaudible] we are getting this. There he is. Solomon is being charged with all of these different violations. You can see here, they include civil disorder. They include entering remaining unrestricted grounds, disorderly and disruptive conduct. We've got possession of a dangerous weapon on capital grounds, false statements, a lot of other charges see them all here, but you'll notice you have a different for , for forfeiture section down here. So , uh, basically as part of this document, the grand jury document, they're also saying we're going to , we're going to seize all that money. We're going to take, we're gonna take the proceeds that you got as a result of this unlawful activity. Here is a quick snippet of some of the footage. Now you'll see up here in the top, right? Courtesy John Sullivan. This is from w uh, w USA nine. And so I clipped this from YouTube. So I think it's all, you know , YouTube friendly, but just bear in mind. This of course is footage from the Capitol building. I just want to play this so you can understand what they're talking about. We're going to take a look at the memo from the government explaining why they should continue to seize this $90,000. This is some of the stuff that they referenced in the memo, water

Speaker 4:

Revolution. Let's take this.

Speaker 5:

According to the department of justice, 26 year old , John Sullivan is charged with one count of knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority.

Speaker 6:

I can't believe this is reality. We accomplished

Speaker 5:

Together one count of violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

Speaker 1:

So you heard a couple of his quotes in there. We read the quotes that that's the video that they're talking about of a lot of questions about what happened on that day. But we're going to see if we have a commission that forms in the Senate, and if they do anything other than just try to politically steamroll their opponents, if they actually inquire about anything, I'll be curious as to what they find. We go back to the article before we take a quick look at what is in the memo. Government determined that the defendant received at least $90,875 in payments from at least six companies for the rights to the footage. We're talking 89,875. And payments went into his bank account thousand dollars, went to Venmo, registered to his phone number and another personal bank account invoices say that he sold footage to CNN on January 6th for $35,000. So CNN is paying good money for this to an insurrectionist. And by the way, John L. Sullivan, we talked about him. He's sort of a total outcast. It sounds like from both sides of the political spectrum. So he sort of has some connections to BLM, but they sort of disavowed him. They threw him out of their organization. So it sounds like he was sort of trying to get into, to maybe become a mega person, but they threw him out of the organization. And so he's kind of just this. Nobody wants to be around this guy because he's so toxic. Now you can be the judge of what that means, if anything, but CNN bought footage from him for $35,000. We have Australian broadcasting for 2,500 NBC universal paid another insurrectionist $35,000 and then left , right . LLC paid the, an insurrection is $5,000. So we got big media here, really kind of funding the insurrection to some degree. I mean, they're paying $90,000 for four . That sounds like they funded it. Interestingly , the defendant's attorneys filed the invoices while describing Sullivan as legitimately self-employed as a documentarian, want pretrial release. And the government is saying, no, this is all legal grounds at the outset defendant notes that he needs the funds in the C's bank account to pay his rent and household necessities. He says that the proceeds of the C's bank account are not the product of criminal activity alleged in the indictment. He's saying that the defendant is deprived of the needed assets in violation of due process. Prosecutors said, now we don't, we don't agree with that. Let's take a look at what the memo has to say here, government memorandum, this is filed out of the DC circuit as almost all of these are, this was filed a couple of days ago. I think it was on Friday 28 pages. Again, we're not going to go through the whole thing, but I showed you previously that the grand jury, when they indicted him, they had a forfeiture allegation in there finding probable cause to say that , uh , the, the funds at issue are forfeitable so that they can actually take those. Uh, they don't have to wait until after a verdict. They're saying they're giving us a little bit of a background here on what happened. So I want to cover this briefly at various times in his statements, the law enforcement defendant has claimed he was at the Capitol only to document and report. So what we're sort of talking about here as legitimate activity versus criminal activity, and what he's going to be saying is that yes, I was technically in the building. So maybe that alone, maybe that trespass, that entry of the building by itself was a criminal act. But the thing that he was doing inside the building, which is documenting and recording what was happening, there is more in alignment with some of the journalistic protections that we have. You know, we , we sort of allow, you know, I'm not, I'm not a free speech journalist attorney, but there are, there are some additional protections to, to journalists for , for kind of doing their duty in the furtherance of free speech in this country. And so what they're trying to do is separate the two out. Yes, he was in the building. Yes, that was criminal criminal activity. But the video recording itself was not criminal activity. If he were there, you know , spray painting things or smashing computers or taking Nancy Pelosi's laptop or putting his feet on her desk or any one of those other things walking out with the podium. Right? All of that was criminal activity that would have been theft that would have been removal of property from within the facility. This wasn't, this is sort of just documenting things, more analogous to a journalist. So he's making that argument. And if you take that argument one step further, if you sort of extend that, extrapolate that out. Well, if what he was doing inside was lawful, physically being inside was unlawful. But what he was doing in there was lawful according to his argument, not, not something that I'd necessarily buy, but if you extrapolate that, then the proceeds that he got from that lawful activity of recording the footage would be outside the scope of the forfeiture [inaudible] of that original document that gave them authority to go seize those funds. So this is where he's sort of trying to tease one out from the other, not so sure that it's going to work. Uh , the defendant admitted to law enforcement, however that he has no press credentials investigation has not revealed any connection between any journalistic organizations prior to the events of January 6th . So in other words, they don't buy it. He posted on January 6th video from , uh, on or about January 5th, which he states to the camera. I mean, I didn't didn't I kind of make up a background though, on the fly a little bit. I think I made up a , what did I say? I was, oh yeah, it was just a journalist, but I use that all the time. I'm just a journalist I'm here recording. I got my camera on my shoulder. Literally. I had my big camera on my shoulder right here and I had my gimbal. So it kind of looks like it. Yeah. I'm just here recording the situation. Yeah. Live streaming . Look, I have, I have people in my live stream . That's why I pulled it back out. Defendant also said on his livestream video that he posted on 11th through 13th of December, says , uh , uh, I don't make money off of it. So I don't consider myself a journalist. Oh. But as far as like reporting stuff, like I am now, I'm an activist too. So like, it kind of plays hand in hand. But as far as like being a journalist, it would be cool to be one. I don't have anything against it. So in fact, he's not a journalist, not a journalist, not a journalist on January six . However, he was captured in recordings by other individuals shortly after exiting the Capitol , expressing excitement that he captured the shooting of the woman on the film, the defendant stated everybody's going to want this. Nobody has it. I'm selling. I could make millions of dollars. The defendant also spoke like someone on speaker phones , dating. I brought my megaphone to instigate S I was like, guys, we're going inside where F and S up, I'm going to make these Trump supporters F all this S up. Oh, see that I'm gonna make these Trump supporters F all this S up. I mean, you'll see, I have it all. I have everything, everything on camera, everything. I just told you, I mean, everything. Trust me. When I say my footage is worth like a million of dollars, millions of dollars. I'm holding on to that. S so pretty impactful a statement right here. Right. You know , a lot of people were trying to say that this guy was a maniac. Somebody who was out there , uh , part of the Trump crowd, allegedly trying to steal the country on that day. I guess we've talked about this in America. Now, if you take the podium from the Congress building, you control the country. So we learned that from the media and a lot of our elected officials this past January six, I didn't know that didn't learn that in law school, but apparently that's a thing now. So this guy, many people were saying he was one of those people. He was one that he was, he wanted the podium. He wanted that special ring and all the power associated with it. But it sounds like maybe he wasn't. He says, I'm going to make these Trump supporters F all this S up. But I mean, you'll see, I have it all. I have everything, everything on camera. So it kind of sounds like to me, he was sort of instigating the Trump supporters sort of, he was like excited to hurry them along for maybe those other people were, were not Trump supporters. Like this guy was maybe they were also instigating stuff. Like he was, I don't know . I mean, this, this is in the prosecution's document. They filed this, the government that is prosecuting this guy prosecuting a lot of the other Capitol hill writers from their document . So they know this, that that's what he's okay. We can continue on open source news reporting has also detailed how in the days after January six , the defendant repeatedly changed the self-description of the homepage on his website. So he got a lot of activities . So he had to go update his social media pages. Of course, on January 10th, he changed the description from activists to athlete, to motivational speaker, to activist, a video journalists to athlete over a photo. Oh, so that was all one thing. Activist, athlete, motivational speaker to activist, video journalist athlete. Okay. He's using threes , which is good. The rule of threes is pretty good about that. You sort of keep things in groups of three on January 11th, two that's for marketing that's for law. That's for sort of establishing themes and telling stories. Rule of three is a good one on January 11th, 2021 . He, again, updated that text to video journalist activist and athlete changed the image to a loop from his video at the Capitol. And then he just called himself a video journalist. So he's going through a little bit of an identity crisis, which is very common in 2021. So on February 15 , 2021, prior to a hearing on pretrial release conditions, he's attorney filed a pleading with the court, attaching receipts for services, documenting the defendant's employment. I would like to see what those receipts look like based on the pleadings, the government determined he received 91 , uh , just under $91,000. We went through that procedural history. It's working its way up the courts they're defining what proceeds mean. Uh , warrants were served. Government C see , the government sees a total balance of $62,800 from the bank account . So he made about 90 was like he spent around 28 grand. I wonder where all that went on May 19th, grand jury returned a superseding indictment that added weapons charges, false statement, and forfeiture allegations. Oh, so that's brand new. So he's got new charges coming. It says that he obstructed influence impeded official proceedings. So we've got some weapons charges. Now they're saying here, the argument it's well-established that the government has an interest in obtaining full recover, full recovery of all forfeitable assets. The defendants request for a hearing to challenge the seizure of the funds should not stand there saying it's based on probable cause. Here are a couple of quick details. They're saying that his bare bones assertion that the funds are needed for household expenses does not merit a pretrial trial hearing. It sounds like what he wants to do is just, it's just basically scared this for hearing say, you know , courts , I need, I need this money. Let's have a hearing about this. The prosecution is coming back and saying, well, just the fact that you need it. That's not enough. In fact, the threshold has to be considerably higher. So a couple other standards here laying down some rules for us. We have Kaylee versus the United States. Supreme court is telling us that pretrial seizures require probable cause for two elements. Number one, that the defendant has committed an offense permitting forfeiture, and that the property at issue has the requisite connection to the crime. So I think this is really where they're going to be hanging their hat on the, the, the idea being that the recording of the video itself is not closely connected to the crime. The crime really being the breaching of the capital building. It's the trespass it's going inside. But the recording of the video video once inside is not a close nexus to the criminality, but I don't think it's going to hold up. The defendant asks to extend the qualified right to pretrial hearings from the right to counsel context to household expenses. Sixth amendment concerns do not necessarily translate. So this is the right to counsel arguments. We see here, we've got chief judge. So in a prior segment, we talked about a lawsuit that was filed by the Chinese civil rights coalition. And you'll notice that in that document, we didn't see much of this. We didn't see any citations here. We actually have some citations. So this is what you'd be looking for in a legitimate document. Another reason the government says that he should not get the money back in any event. The defendant's threshold showing of necessity for the seized funds is undoubtedly inadequate. So they're saying he hasn't shown that he actually needs this courts say that in the sixth amendment context, every court has addressed the issue that found the defendants merely conclusory allegation, that he lacks funds to get an attorney is insufficient to trigger the Monsanto hearing instead, what does the defendant have to do? They must present some evidence that he will be deprived of counsel of choice if he cannot access the C's assets. So it's a little bit of a different standard, right? Think about these sort of two from two different perspectives. One, if you're a defendant and the government comes and they seize your entire bank account, one way that you can approach that is you can just say, Hey, government, I need that money so that I can go hire an attorney. Well, if that's all the evidence, you've got just a claim, I need it for, oh, you need the money back for what? For an attorney. Okay, well, we need more than that is what this court is saying. We need something very specific. We need you to show us what the attorney is, how much they cost, what your financial records look like, what would make it impossible for you , you to retain the attorney, the attorney of your choice. And if that impossibility is directly related to the seizure of your funds, then maybe the court will consider opening up those funds only for the limited purpose of giving you the exact funding necessary to provide for your legal defense. So it's sort of like asking mom for money for , uh, for school or for a dance or whatever you're doing. You know , um , mom, I need $20. What does she always say to you? What does mom say to you? For what, what do you need that for $20? For what? Pizza? No, you get $5 for pizza. Okay. That's it get out of here? $20 is too much, much . So here, they're saying, when you come back and show us what you need now, when you go to your mom and you say, mom , look, mom , you know, the Ferris wheels, a dollar, I got to buy some popcorn. That's a dollar. I got to do this. And okay, well you get eight 50 then, right? And then when you get home, you got to do the dishes and do the chores. Love you mom. But the point is, it's very, very specific. This complaint continues on. They're saying that the defendant assertion falls short of even the undoubtedly inadequate standard, where the defendant said in a sworn declaration, he said specifically beyond the money seas , I do not have any funds to pay attorney blazers retained . I said, okay, well, that's, that's not enough. We need a lot . The more information we need to know about your dependence and about all of your revenue and about money and cash on hand and money and savings and money and checking accounts, not just a bare suggestion that you can't afford it. That's not good enough here. The defendant in this case, Sullivan submitted no declaration, no financial affidavit, affidavit, no banking statements. If he has not provided any information about his assets outside his bank, his account ending in seven, seven , one five or anything else, no detailed sources of income, no government understanding about his employment. Now he's currently employed by his father, no other assets, nothing. So the government is aware of at least one other bank account. He has a positive balance in there. So the government knows where your money is folks. He says, and it bears the burden of persuasion to establish the bonafide financial need, to use the seed, the seed funds to maintain basic necessities. The motion's conclusory state payments fall. Well short couple more years . The seized funds are traceable to , and they're sufficiently connected to the defendant's obstruction of a proceeding. So this goes to that second prong. He's saying that when he went in the building and it was just recording the footage, that that was not close enough, that was not close enough as an in , as a nexus to the criminality video is not a crime is his argument prosecutor here is saying, yeah , it is the defendant's asserts that the proceeds of the C's bank account are not the product of the criminal activity. Alleged in the index, that criminal activity was entering building, not recording. He's not charged with recording a video he's charged with recording and breaking into the building. The 19 page affidavit on which he relied contains no disclaimers of traceability. Should this court reach this issue? Uh, they're saying that based on the totality of the facts and evidence specific to this case, a strong nexus between these proceeds and the crime exists, basically talking about this concept of a gateway function, the governing standard for the causal connection between the proceeds and the crime is a, but for test under the, but for tests , which has been adopted by DC proceeds mean that the property that a person would not have obtained or retained, but for the commission of the offense. So a very important concept in the law. What they're saying here is that if he would not have committed the crime breaking into the congressional building, he would not have captured the video. It , right. He would have been outside of the building. So he wouldn't have been able to see anything thing from the inside of the building. In particular, we're talking about the Ashley Babbitt footage that CNN and NBC paid almost 70,000. They paid $70,000 for. So if he would not have been in the building, it would have never captured that footage. So 75, the 70,000 plus the , the, the other 1000 total $90,875 would have never gotten that if you had not committed the original crime of breaking into the building. So I think that makes sense. Logically, they say the defense and it would not have attained the footage inside the Capitol at all, had he not unlawfully, breached and remained in the building. He was there with close proximity, frontline vantage points. So they just go through everything. He even tells officers trying to usher him in. He says, we're just recording. There's too many people to be acting like this. Like you're not solving anything. He says, I'm just recording events. It's not worth it. I'm just trying to record. I'm just filming no freedom. Let's see what he's doing. At another point, he tells someone, that's why I'm a photographer. That's why you gotta have ID. But in the speech , your lobby doors, he tells one of the law enforcement officials, Gordon , the doorway doorway. We want you to go home. I'm recording. And there's so many people that are going to push their way up. Right? Meanwhile, the commercial value of the footage was substantially the result of his proximity as a frontline participant, he was the eyewitness of the video shooting. That's why they paid 70 grand for it. If he was outside the building, oh , they had a lot of people recording that stuff. That's not worth anything. This is worth a lot because it's the shooting of Ashley Babbitt , defendant boasted at least twice upon leaving the Capitol that he would make millions of dollars from his footage bears to mention that, although the defendant's proceeds happened to pertain to video footage and to entail transaction with the media, the government's theory of forfeiture is content neutral and serves content neutral purposes. So has nothing to do with any political ideology or anything like that. They're saying it's just a matter of fact, he got money in the commission of a crime and they want to seize that. So they say, should the court reach this issue? There's probable cause supporting the proceeds of the crime to be seized. They request that the government deny or that the court deny the defendant's motion to release the seizure order. And for bid seizure of other counts, they want the trial to continue. They want a, the court to deny a pretrial evidentiary hearing at this time signed off by Channing D Phillips acting us attorney , uh , is to sign up by Candice won a Wong here. So I think the government's probably gonna hold onto that money. Probably. Now we do know that he may have some other sources of funds. So he has actually writing a book. Here's Earl Sullivan here on channel 13

Speaker 6:

Sullivan reads words from the first chapter of his unfinished book. The one he's been writing while waiting for his trial, when I was on house arrest, I just sat there and just wrote it all out. So Levin is writing about what happened at the us Capitol on January 6th and the groups he says were involved, show how these two groups kind of, you know, came together and forming that narrative that built up to the [inaudible] was arrested in the summer of 2020 for organizing a protest and Provo were shot .

Speaker 1:

Yeah. So that's some of his other protests . I think he , I think he was with the BLM organization or an Antifa organization, one of those two organizations and they threw him out. Like we don't like you. So that's a John Earl Sullivan. Let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. We have Sharon Whitney says here's yet another example of government overreach and total annihilation of our civil liberties. They probably seized his money to help pay off some of the debt from the insane spending spree they've been on lately. Wonder how many other folks they're going to come after we got Besa . Thank you, Sharon. We've got Besame Pinto says Sullivan is an Antifa BLM activists who bragged about infiltrating mega by wearing a Maga hat. Yeah, I that's what I thought I had heard that. And Sharon says , uh , I wanted to insane spending spree they'd been on lately. Yeah. There was another story. I think that there was, I think 300, 400 cases now, total that they're prosecuting now. So his is being added to that list. And Sharon, you just made me think about this. I wonder how many other people are having their assets seized in general. Right? We know this one is a big number. This is $70,000 nineties in total because it came from very, very , uh, avail , very viral footage. We all saw the footage. Everybody knew about this, but what about other defendants? I wonder if they're seizing anything from them Besson Manto says, yeah, he's a, he's a BLM supporter. Definitely heard that we got Sharon Quinn . He says, yes, it's a raindrop in the ocean. But if the government gets away with stomping on this citizen, they'll feel empowered to come after anybody who said or did anything pro-Trump including voting. Yeah . You know, forfeiture is actually a big issue. I wasn't, I didn't really talk about this story to dive into the forfeiture issue, but the government does see stuff all the time and big chunks of money. I mean, they'll, they'll, they'll charge you with a drug crime and then hold onto your car, you know, forever. Y I don't know it was used in the commission of a crime, along with a laptop that was in there. A lot of cash stuff that may or may not be connected to the, to the crime. In my opinion, it's not even close, but they can connect it just based on the fact that it's in close proximity and they take a lot of money. You're seeing a lot of , uh , forfeiture reform and civil assets, asset forfeiture reform , uh , being discussed in this country in close proximity to criminal law, as it should be. It's a barrier . It's actually a very big issue. Leafy bug is in the house as BLM and Antifa have only distanced themselves from this guy because they don't want to be tied to the January 6th . Right. It's really strange how he isn't in jail, awaiting trial. Like the other trespassers just happened to be in the right place to video Babbitt shooting. I wonder what else he knows. He seems to be getting special treatment. I'd be curious. We have a Liberty or deaths as well . Look at all those law and case citations in this complaint. I know it's oh, oh yeah. They are supposed to be there. Oh, oh yeah. She just forgot. And the other one silly, we have Nya , renal MD says I stipulate for the court. My client is an idiot, not an activist or an athlete. I see what you're doing. Idiots are also protected by the first amendment shame on the prosecution. So yeah, he's basically just agreeing stipulation means you're just agreeing to something fact. So rather than us trying to duke this out activist athlete, journalist, we just say, okay, we all agree. Moron. Not, not, not too bright. Right? I'm not calling him a moron, but I , I get the joke. We have N Y says, sorry, judge. I need a lawyer to prove I need a lawyer. Yeah. We have chat. Good to see you. We have chasse gal says forfeiture for before being convicted of anything, smacks of no due process. Civil forfeiture is abused by the government. All the time needs to be reformed and or eliminated. In most cases, it's actually a big issue. Right. And I, and I, of course, you know, of course this audience is highly informed on these issues, but it is a big issue. I wasn't sort of talking about the story for that, but it is right. You , you , you sort of see what happens. The government just says, well, we think that that's our money now. And you say, well, I haven't been convicted of anything. What happened to my presumption of innocence? He hasn't, he hasn't pled guilty. His trial hasn't happened yet. He hasn't been convicted. The government just gets a warrant and just goes into your bank account and just takes money out of it. And you got to go fight to get it back. And you've got to prove sort of that you're not guilty of that. Is that, is that a fair thing? Not really. We have Jack Elia says is the purpose of demanding complete listings of the intended use of the money so that the court's officers can potentially initially initiate, tracking and surveillance on the activities of those to whom it goes, you know, it's a , it's a good question. And , uh, the answer I think would, would be yes, right ? We're still under investigation. So you're opening that up and they probably already have access to most of that. I mean, they knew about his, all of his other bank accounts. So in their initial warrants, presumably the said, yeah, you can monitor all of those things. Go take a look at whatever you want. And the basis of that authority of course, was the Capitol hill riots. This guy is a dangerous insurrectionist. So the judge, whatever you is , whatever you want, 90 grand jurors enjoy it. Great questions . All of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you so much for your support over there and be sure to check out our upcoming events because they are a lot of fun and we've just had our monthly meetup really enjoyable. We've got another one coming up next month, and then guess what? The month after that, and we hope you can join us for all of [email protected] All right. So we have a short segment here to wrap up the day, big Gretsch, Rona, Gretchen Whitmer out of Michigan. We've talked about her a lot. Somebody who's been very aggressive with her COVID lockdown protocols, and we've had some opportunity to kind of poke fun at her over the last year or so. Well over the weekend, she was busted, violating her own COVID orders. Don't you hate that? Well, we're going to talk about it. I know let's get into it. This comes over from Breitbart, Gretchen Whitmer apologizes. Okay. Listen. Any one of these people, if they want to apologize, and a little bit of a mayor Kulpa will take it. She says she admits, she made a mistake in violating the Corona virus orders at an east Lansing bar. This was published over by Kyle Olson at Breitbart May 23rd, yesterday, Breitbart news obtained a photo of Whitmer and her appointed chief operations officer Trisha foster among a group of 13 people. Very important. Number 13, dive bar in a college town on Saturday Whitmore's office refused to acknowledge to Breitbart news, but released the statement to Eric Lloyd of nine and 10 news. And let's take a quick look at what the law says first, before we get into this, here's the law she wrote here. Uh , gatherings are prohibited at food service establishments, whether indoor or outdoor, unless so gatherings at food at restaurants, they are not allowed. They are prohibited. You cannot eat at a restaurant unless food and beverages is only permitted in designated dining areas where patrons are seated. Groups of patrons are separated by at least six feet. Okay. We've got some, we've got some guidelines, six feet and no more than six patrons are seated together. So we've got a six and six rules , six feet, six people max at a table booth, or a group of fixed seats. Groups of patrons do not intermingle. And I'm cured . I don't know what that, what that intermingle means. I mean, I know what intermingled means. I don't know what they think intermingle means, but let's count this. We got six people, six feet of distance at a dining facility. Oh, that , uh we're . Oh, no. Um, we see some violations here. We let's count them. We've got one here. We've got two, three, four, five, six. This must be the CFO over here. Six, we got seven over here. Big is here. Seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, no, 13 people. Oh my gosh. There's 13 people here. Let's do a distance measure right here. What did we say? This is that we're going to measure this. Probably like, I don't know, 18 inches maybe, which is definitely not six feet. We're going to , we're going to measure that at 18 inches. I would say, I would guess that it might even actually be closer. Definitely not six feet. This one looks a little bit far here. Maybe we've got some distance here. We're going to calculate that. Ugh . Gosh. I mean, even that's like two feet, maybe, maybe on a good day, two feet, probably all of these other ones, folks. It's not even worth measuring. You know, this one, I mean, we're talking like inches a matter of inches between these , this lady and this guy. I think they're touching right here. I mean, I, first of all, somebody should be arrested. I think for this, this pair probably are in violation. You know , look, we know what the legal limit is in Michigan. It's six. This is over double the legal limit. Okay? Twice the legal limit. We hear about this in DUIs all the time. Every time a prosecutor comes out and they say, oh my gosh, he was almost twice the legal limit. And it's like this big, you know, dramatic catastrophe over double the legal limit right here. We have 13 people. Legal limit is six. Well, you know, it's a travesty of justice. We're we're let's see what happens. We have governor Whitmer. She released a statement throughout the pandemic . She says I've been committed to following public health protocols. Yesterday. I went with friends to a local restaurant. As more people arrived , the tables were pushed together because we were all vaccinated. We didn't stop to think about it. In retrospect, I should've thought about it. I'm human. I made a mistake and I apologize. Well, big Gretsch apology accepted. Now, are you going to, and you're stupid orders. Now, are you going to do that now? Let's see. She gave her statement. The group shot of the 13 individuals appeared to violate the restaurant capacity order. Now this is not an old order. Okay . This was issued on May 15th gathering limitations. We already read the rules six by six, rural clear violation last week, according to Tory Sachs , which is an organization called the Michigan freedom fund. She said last week, Whitmer refused to immediately end her ridiculous restrictions, like a maximum of six patrons per table for indoor dining last week, she wouldn't refuse it. So, okay. Now Whitner Whitmer has once again, completely disregarded her own rules. Whitmer orders , rules, she and her staff don't follow themselves while Michiganders and businesses suffer. She must end her restrictions immediately. So now that we know what the rules look, we're all human. We all make mistakes, right? Not all of us are the governor. Not all of us have to lean live and set examples for everybody else. So she sort of held to a higher standard, but we still sort of, you know , give people the ability to make a mistake and own it. As long as they sort of correct their mistake. You know, we want people to sort of move in the right direction. I'm a criminal defense lawyer. I talk about this all the time. People come in. They're good people. They made a little bit of a mistake. No problem. We're going to help you get back on track. So what would we , what would we be expecting from governor Whitmer to end the stupid rule? She put it in place. Cause she ended she going to do that Michigan freedom fund called on Whitmer to immediately lift all orders this week, a recommendation, the governor ignored. Oh, there you go. So nothing. So nothing. So, so she violates it and nothing. So , uh , apology rejected. How about that? I accepted it and I reject it back your direction. Let's take a look at Liberty or death says Whitmer should start a show. Governor's gone. Wild stores, Newsome and Cuomo. She was on girls gone wild when she was she's younger. So she has the experience. Is that true? Is that a fact? No kidding. Wow. Okay. I wouldn't, I don't want to watch that show Liberty. I don't want anything to do with it . I think that that's an awful idea. I love you, but that's no, God , that should be canceled. I would cancel girls gone wild, starring Newsome and Cuomo. Oh gosh. And now that I really think about it. Yeah. That's that's horrendous. Leafy bug says those rules only apply to the little people. Yeah they do. When you're governor, you get a different set of rules. You can do whatever you want. Like takes trips and fly all over the place and have other people pay for them. We have our last question coming from seen and unseen says it's not surprising. Our governor Whitmer did that. Considering her recent trip to Florida during a Michigan travel ban was a chartered flight that was paid for by a nonprofit . It's so ridiculous. I have so much disdain for these people who just tell all of us how to live our lives and then go and do the exact opposite. Just go, do whatever they want. Then they get on the media and they tell us all you losers have to go get this and you have to go do this and you have to go do this because you're so dumb. And since you're so dumb, we're going to pass all these rules because we're smarter than you. And we're in positions of power. And we get to tell you how to live your life, but we're not going to follow those same rules because those are just for you sheep people. And we're just going to continue to live like wolves that are mauling America at every turn. So that is a sounds exactly right. Like a lot of our elected officials. So she's just right on par. That was governor Whitmer. And of course, all of those questions came over from watching the watchers.locals.com . We had some awesome new people sign up over the weekend. We have deeds. 13 is now in the house. We got dot queen. Welcome to you. We have FL teacher, Florida teacher. We have 13 SPD. Damon is in the house and we have social cue , super excited. Welcome everybody. We have a lot of cool stuff coming up. We've got a June 12th event . And then we have another event I think at the end of June, which is going to be our next monthly. So you're all going to be joining us. I hope. And a lot of great questions came over from NYU renal MD, pinky to Liberty and others. Funny show today. Thanks for the great comments. And if you want to ask comments, you can do so. By going over to watching the watchers.locals.com, download a copy of my free book, download the slides that we went through today. You can also take a look at the impeachment party documents. If you want to impeach anybody, you can download my existence systems template, which is available. If you are a local supporter as well, you can share links throughout the day and connect with some great people. We have another monthly meetup. So I told you at the beginning of the show that we did this one, so may 22 is in the can. It was a lot of fun. I really appreciate everybody who's signed up and was there. We had about 35 people at one point and it was just a lot of fun, very, very, very good time. So thank you for that next one's coming up on June 26. We also have law enforcement interaction training coming up on June 12th. That's going to be at 12 noon Eastern time. It's going to be 9:00 AM, Arizona time. We're going to talk about dealing with the police. So I'm still working on my final presentation, but it's going to be a lot of fun. And I want to also tell you about a second channel that I just, I third channel that I just started last night. It's ridiculous. Uh , we're talking crypto folks. I mentioned on my , uh, on , uh , on a previous show that I was very interested in cryptography and cryptocurrencies. If you've been on this channel for some time, you know that we talked about Balaji Srinivasan and we've talked about decentralization. We've talked about sort of these freedom concepts that I think are going to be built into technology. If, if you can fathom that very interesting space and we're looking at charts that look like this, I want to show you something that we are talking about on channel number two, this is what it's called trading view. And I have not made a video about this yet specifically, but I want to show you something that happened today. So , uh, very briefly, of course, if you are not interested in cryptos at all, you can bail on outta here, but these are eight different coins that I just have here on trading view that we can see. We have Bitcoin up here. We have a theory from over here, which is sort of the second biggest coin in the market. We have what's called ADA, which is car Dano , which is the proof of , uh , of stake coin that a lot of people are interested in. We heard that Elon Musk was very unhappy with Bitcoin because of its power consumption. And so car donno has been sort of a different technology. That's based on proof of a stake , not proof of work like Bitcoin is we have Solano, which is another interesting coin that I'm keeping an eye on internet. Computer protocol. Very interesting coin. This coin is, is going to be something that is intending to replace the entire internet. It's called internet computer protocol. Very interesting coin. You can see that this is actually working its way back up was pretty low this afternoon. Uh , we have doge coin. We've all seen a lot of that in the news. Elon Musk was talking about this coin on Saturday night, live Shibu . She by any new is another sort of knockoff of Dogecoin. You can see this is , uh, uh, selling now for like a 0.000010 , uh , of a , of, of a , of a dollar, very, very inexpensive , uh , light coin been around for a long time, kind of a boring coin, but something that's kind of a staple, one of the earliest coins. And if you'll notice, when we go over here to Bitcoin, what happened here today? What is this really big spike? What happened here? You notice that right at about 1946, something happened. There was a big spike. Bitcoin went up from about 30, 37,000 per coin, all the way up to about 39,000 per coin. Uh , so jumped up about $2,000 in value and you'll notice that same spike appeared over here in the Ethereum markets. See this major jump right here. We also saw it in the car markets big, big spike, less so a little bit longer here. What about dos ? Let's take a look at that . Oh, look at that spike. Big, big dose spike. So what was that? It was Elon Musk. He tweeted that they're going to be focusing on Bitcoin. They're going to be focusing on a council . That's going to be working with all the different minors from around the country to reduce energy consumption, which led a lot of people to think. Maybe that means Elan's coming back to Bitcoin. Now I don't like the idea that one person can shift the entire market. This is a scary thing. I don't like that idea that one person can tweet and the entire market shifts because here it went up. But what happens when it goes down and we've seen that historically, we saw a really big dip. Uh, previously historically may is actually been a rough rough month for the cryptos, but they're working their ways back up anyways. Very, very fascinating stuff. If you want to check that out, I have a second channel that is linked down below. It's actually a third channel at this point in time , uh , because YouTube is not nice to us on this channel. So we're diversifying a little bit and we're going to create content on other channels. And if you're interested in this stuff, I would , uh , I would ask you to come and join us along. Keep in mind, I'm still learning a lot. And so I'm going to flub some stuff here and there I'm gonna make mistakes, but , uh, I'm , I'm counting on all of you to correct me and we can learn together as this space continues to evolve. Very interesting space, a lot of very cool stuff going on. And so I'm going to be talking about it. It is down in the description below. If you want to check that out. Otherwise my friends that is it for me before we wrap up one final reminder that I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group. And that means we help people who are facing criminal charges. We love it . We're very good at it. We offer free case evaluations. We have a mission here to help good people find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. And so if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who is facing a criminal charge, whether it's a DUI, a drug offense, a misdemeanor, a felony, anything, and everything in between, we can help. We can even help clear up old cases. So if we can quash old warrants, get your driver's license back, help you restore your rights. So you can vote again so that you can go apply for federal benefits, possess a firearm. I mean, there's a lot of things that we can do to clear that stuff up and help nudge you on the right path again. So if you want to speak with somebody from our team, we offer free case evaluations. We have an awesome group of people here. We're very passionate about what we do. And so it would mean the world to us. If you trusted us enough to send your referrals our way, we'll take very good care of them. We'll make sure they leave our office better than they found us. And that is it. My friends, thank you for indulging me and all of those little outro projects. I'm really excited about all of them. And I appreciate the support along the way we were going to , we are going to be back here, same time tomorrow, same place. And I hope to see you here. It's going to be at 4:00 PM. Arizona 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the east coast for that one, Florida man out there, everybody have a tremendous evening, have a nice hearty meal. If you haven't eaten already sleep very well because we're going to be ready to go tomorrow. I'll see you here. Bye-bye .