Biden Violent Crime Plan, FBI Corruption & Prison Smuggling Ring, Newsom vs. Harvest Rock Church

Merrick Garland and the Biden Department of Justice release new memorandum addressing violent crime and detail their plan for the future of justice – we review.  Corruption revealed in New York City jails as 9 (!) law enforcement employees are charged in smuggling and bribery ring. Gavin Newsome loses lawsuit brought by Harvest Rock Church over religious discrimination and is ordered to pay over $1 million in damages. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

🔵 Merrick Garland and the U.S. Department of Justice unveil new anti-crime strategy.​
🔵 FBI says there was a huge jump in murders in 2020 that has carried over to 2021.​
🔵 Review of the memo from Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco – who is the Deputy Attorney General and what does she do?​
🔵 Review of the Memorandum for Department of Justice Employees entitled “Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Violent Crime”​
🔵 U.S Attorneys Office reveals new criminal charges for 9 department of corrections officers and employees.​
🔵 Filed out of the Southern District of New York, the law enforcement personnel are alleged to have taken bribes and smuggled contraband into New York City jails.​
🔵 Who were the bad prison guards? Miguel Compres, Tameka Lewis, Dariel Diaz, Jasmine Reed, Temaine Pelzer, Brian Harrel, Rashawn Assanah, Robert Balducci, Johnathan Garrett – we look at a summary of the charges for each!​
🔵 More corruption, via Reason.com, shows us FBI agents digging through an innocent woman’s safe deposit box without a warrant.​
🔵 Screenshots from the FBI body camera footage showing agents rummaging through Box 8309 even though it was not included in the warrant.​
🔵 The 83-year-old woman who owned the box noticed that $75,000 in gold coins miraculously disappeared!​
🔵 Brief review of the lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Central California under claims brought under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.​
🔵 Gavin Newsome loses a fight against church in California and is ordered to pay $1.35 million for COVID-19 church discrimination.​
🔵 Harvest Rock church considered itself to be an essential business, but Newsome imposed restrictions on signing, outdoor churches and Bible studies.​
🔵 Review of the Final Judgment awarding monetary damages including attorney’s fees drafted by the Honorable Jesus G. Bernal​
🔵 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.com/c/RobertGruler​
📈 Robert Gruler Crypto - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkUI3vAFn87_XP0VlPXSdA​
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​

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.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
🟢 Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/​
🟢 Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Speaker 1 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Mueller . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group, and then 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 a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get into. We're going to be talking about the department of justice under Merrick Garland, which is , uh , under Joe Biden. We have a new , uh , department policy that just was released yesterday. They're talking about their anti-crime strategy in particular to combat violent crime. And so this is kind of a big deal. You know, we've been trying to figure out how to navigate the justice system, the justice world. We've had a lot of fallout since the death of George Floyd one year ago this week. And so a lot of us have been sort of poking around. We've done. So on this channel yesterday, we saw what Chicago was doing with their civilian oversight board. We also looked at Seattle, they're losing like 300 police officers as a result of their efforts attempting to defund the police. And so now we're looking to the Biden administration and we have a little bit of a plan. So we're going to take a look at it. We're going to learn about who a woman named Lisa Monaco is. She's the deputy attorney general under Merrick Garland. We're going to be taking a look at this memo. It's called the comprehensive strategy for reducing violent crime. I'm interested in that, aren't you? We want less violent crime. So we're going to give that a fair reading. We're going to take a look at how that is structured and what they're attempting to achieve. Then we're going to take a look at some corruption floating around our different law enforcement systems. Talking about the New York city jails. There is a new set of indictments or set of charges against nine department of corrections officials , uh, employees, and basically jail guards for smuggling contraband in and for bribing each other bribe, you know , all sorts of bribery charges nine of them out of the New York city jails, all got indicted out of the Southern district of New York. They announced the charges today. So we're going to go through those and call out the bad guards. Then we're going to take a look at what's going on with the FBI. They are very interesting article over from reason.com showing that there was a situation where the FBI got a search warrant to go and break into a , basically a safety deposit box facility from within a bank. The search warrant just said, you can go in and just sort of access this one security safe deposit box. But when broke in there, they had to of course, inventory everything. So they start going through everybody's safety deposit boxes and lo and behold, $75,000 of gold coins go missing. Oh yeah . Don't say doesn't don't you hate when that happens? I know I do. So a woman, 83 years old that had her safety deposit rate, a safety deposit box rated suing the FBI. We're going to take a look at what's going on there. Then we're going to turn our eyes over to Gavin Newsome. Oh, America's heroic governor over there in California. Just wrecking a beautiful state. Well, he's in the news because he lost the lawsuit against a harvest church harvest rock church, which is a church in California that actually sued him for discrimination. Because back when COVID was at his Heights in California, apparently Gavin Newsome had all sorts of lockdowns . We're all familiar with those, but apparently I don't live there, but something happened where he was saying, oh, you can't also do Bible studies. So you're locked down. But specifically churches, no Bible studies and specifically churches, no singing. And you can't even have church outside if, even if you want it to. So it sounds pretty discriminatory to me and a federal judge agreed with that. So we're going to take a look at that. It's a big win for free exercise and we love it. When that happens. We want to remind you if you want to be a part of the show, you can do so by going over to watching the watchers.locals.com, which is where we have our own community separate and apart from all of the other big tech platforms, we sort of hang out there. I post other content there that I don't post elsewhere. So I would encourage you to go check that out. If you like, what you , what you see here, it's a great way to support the show. There's a lot of goodies over there. You can download a copy of my book. You can download my existence systems , template, a lot of, kind of good stuff, and we have fun stuff going on. We've got a monthly meetup coming up in June and we have a law enforcement interaction training. That's also coming up. The dates are down in the description below. If you have a question on anything we're about to talk to talk about. I meaning if you want to participate in the show, you can also do that over there. There is a live chat happening right now. And so if you have questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to throw those in there. And miss faith is going to clip those and add those to the show so we can have a nice conversation. All right. So enough of all of that, one more reminder, there are a couple of other channels that I would encourage you to go and support very interested in crypto, which is down, down below. We have the RNR law group channel, which is Arizona law and posting a lot of content there. So if you're in Arizona or you're a , an Arizona attorney or something like that, check out that channel love the support. All right. So enough of all that let's get into the news of the date . The Biden administration has been in office for some time, about five months now. And one of the biggest issues, in my opinion, that sort of swept him into power was justice reform. It was a big issue in the summer of 2020. We had the George Floyd death along with many others, sort of on the heels of Brianna Taylor and Ray shard Brooks, and the list goes on and on. Unfortunately, so justice reform was a big part of the campaign. Kamala Harris was talking about, it came up in the debates. What are you going to do? Many Americans were, this was kind of a primary issue for them, especially if you're somebody who is in a highly effected demographic, very engaged, one of the most important issues for good reason. And I'm a criminal defense attorney, criminal justice for a long time has been at the forefront of my mind. Now I've approached this from a different perspective. I have been somebody who has seen the consequences of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, their 30 years of criminal justice wreckage, as a result of all of the crime bills that they've passed throughout the years, imposing things like mandatory minimum sentences, three strike rules, a first offense, you know, there was a first offense crack cocaine, a mandate that for all first offenders , you got five years in prison automatically that was out of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris was enforcing all of that. So I've been very critical of them, but I've also been somebody who recognizes that if we can see some meaningful progress, I'm willing to let all that stuff go. And I mean that dramatically, I don't have any intention of harboring and fostering political disdain towards one segment or one population or one demographic. If that's going to cost me meaningful progress in, in an area that I think is so critically important. It's my practice is what we do here at our law firm is we help people going through the justice system. So I'd rather seeing the praises of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for reforming justice system in a way that is progressive in a way that does fix some of these problems. I would love to do that, even though I know that I've got a little bit of sort of, you know , wreckage some baggage that I'd been carrying around on these issues because I've seen what they've done. And so I'm just a little bit skeptical. You can call me a cynic that anything that comes out of this white house is going to be productive. All of that being said, I do want to give it my best attempt to sort of look at this from a level-headed framework. I understand that I am going to have some political opinions on this, but I don't want, like my point here is that it's worth it. If we can have real justice reform, if we can stop incarcerating people for massively long lengths of time, that aren't even remotely connected to the underlying criminal charge. If we can give more people more freedom and help them when they come out of the system to become better citizens, if we can make our justice system about rehabilitation and less about retribution and punishment, I'm all for that. And I don't care who does it. It can be Joe Biden, it can be Kamala Harris. It could be Donald Trump. I don't care because those policies can help people. And this is something that we have absolute control over with Corona virus. There's only so much you can do with that. Okay . It's a virus it's beyond our control. We think we know how it works. We really don't. Everybody's sort of patting themselves on the back for their science that really isn't science. And it's sort of out of our control. We can't handle a lot of that stuff. We're trying to wrap our heads around it. This is our justice system. This is just laws. This is just men and women in rooms, writing things down, right ? Putting them into practice. We have full control over our destiny in this regard. So when I see a lot of pain and I see a lot of brokenness in the system, it really, really hurts because I know that if we just have the political willpower in some momentum, there are some things that we can do to move this in the right direction. And I don't mean defunding the police, you know, or, or anything that dramatic, but it's something where I think that both sides can come together and have a reasonable conversation about meaningful reform. So when we're going to go through this story, we are going to look at it in a light, most favorable to the Biden administration. We want to give them the benefit of the doubt. There's a concept in this in law, it's sort of the moving party gets the benefit. When you read their motion, you say, well, we're going to just presume that all of this is true. And even if it was all true, then we start doing our analysis. This was all true. They still lose. Okay, well then yeah , we have to dismiss their case, right? Because we gave them the benefit of the doubt, kind of want to do that here with us nine team . We want to see what they've got. It's been five months. We have one of the biggest issues in the country. We have the department of justice that now has Merrick Garland installed, and we're starting to get a framework for what they intend to do over the next three and a half years. So let's see what we've got and hopefully it's something good. The article comes over from the first one comes over from the Washington examiner. You can see it's a big deal. This was posted today. May 27 says the DOJ unveils new anti-crime strategy. Amanda nationwide rise in violence and murders, which we talked about yesterday on the show, talking about police, leaving crime rates, going up across the , uh, across the country, all over the place. This was written by Jerry Don levy. He's a justice department reporter the justice department unveiled a new strategy on Wednesday to combat violent crime with an official arguing that Trump's DOJ operation legend approach was insufficient. So you're going to see a lot of this. Of course, every administration is going to blame the predecessor. It doesn't matter. Trump did it. Uh , Obama did it Bush. Everybody does it. So just keep that in mind, this comes as the department reports a significant nationwide increase in major violent crimes, including murders over the past year. FBI says that the estimated number of murders in the nation was 16,400 in 2019. So that's when Trump's in office with a huge jump. The following year, Trump is still in office in 2020. Of course we get the Corona virus and the summer of unrest all taking place. During that time in March, the New York times reported that quote , the big increase in the murder rate in the United States in 2020 has carried over into 2021. So that big spike is still making its way through our country. The outlet said that a sample of 37 cities with available data for the first three months of 21, 2021 shows murder up 18% relative to the same period last year. Hmm . So that sounds like a problem. 18% more people are dying. The FBI's preliminary data, which will not be finalized until September showed a major increase in murder last year with a 25% rise in agencies that reported quarterly data. If true, that's 25% increase in murders last year, that would mean that the United States surpassed 20,000 murders a year for the first time, since 1995. So the question, you know , what are we going to do about this? And I mentioned this yesterday. I said that if we actually do defund the police and we keep moving that direction, we're going to see consequences of that. And the natural momentum there is going to make the pendulum swing the other way. So we're going to go from a period of very, very minimal law enforcement. You defund the police community, supervising all of that on one end of the spectrum. And then as soon as the crime rates rise, the pendulum's going to swing back the other way. And it's going to be massive enforcement higher . The police, the police are, you know , uh , saving. We need them to save America again because of this massive crime wave. And we're going to have to be balancing this again. And we saw this already happened in our history. We saw this back in the 1990s, which really is why Joe Biden passed all of those bills and he wasn't out there alone. It wasn't like it was Joe Biden against the Republicans. The Republicans were all on board with that, but it, you know, it was something that there was a lot of political momentum during that time. And we may be causing that to happen again, we're just in the, in the early part of the cycle, we're in the defund cycle that sort of , uh , you know , allows unbridled activity out there. It doesn't really respond to criminality. Then we're going to see the pendulum swing the other way as Americans recognize that they don't want to live in a criminal in a, in a world sort of baked with criminality during a call with reporters on Wednesday, one DOJ officials said that the department's leadership quote , isn't interested in pursuing raw statistics like arrests and prosecutions as if they were the end in themselves. Rather the official noted that quote, the ultimate goal of what we're trying to do is to reduce the level of violent crime in our communities. But that may not mean the most effective enforcement plan is to just bring every single particular charge in a particular category, which I would agree with right now . There's a lot of laws on the books do all of them need to be enforced, and I'm not so sure that that makes that much sense. There's a lot of areas where I think that we are over enforcing that that are just not necessary. It's not a good use of resources because they're very minor crimes. We have a , the article continues. It says another official seem to critique the Trump's DOJs operation legend efforts. So we're going to take a quick look at this. Remember when Trump was in office, he was the law and order president, and there was a lot of, sort of even criticism about him and his administration during the summer of unrest. Remember there were people saying back when Portland was torching , their courthouses and Seattle had the Chaz, you know, they created their own autonomous zone. So people, you know, many people say that , uh , there was an insurrection at the white house, but they also forget that there were organizations creating their own autonomous territories in the United States during the summer of last year, their own countries , autonomous zones saying you don't actually govern us anymore. So that was sort of just kind of like laughed at, although that's funny and cute. So it's a little bit of a different , uh, you know, conversation happening there. But the point is, people were saying when Donald Trump was an office, why doesn't he just go clear that out? Why doesn't he just send the feds in to go , just take control of this situation. And people like me were saying, that's not, what are you talking about? That's not what he , that's a local problem. Let the local people deal with it. Why , why do you want to send the federal government in like the stormtroopers to come in and take care of these situations? You know, Donald Trump is not the chief law enforcement officer of every single society, every single town and city in the United States, they've got local law enforcement, they've got local issues. They can deal with it. They've got national guards and if they need help, they can call the feds not the other way around. So there was, there was this , this conversation was already happening. And so then we have a transition because Trump is exiting and of course, Joe Biden is coming in. They were critical of Trump and his outgoing efforts saying , uh , what we're seeing now is across the country, these preliminary statistics are suggesting that there are significant increases over the past year, throughout the country, which suggests a national level. Cause as opposed to something specific that's happening in the cities when DOJ officials said, so we need to respond to that with a national response, not a legend type response where we're picking some handful of cities to send significant resources to. So it's sort of a different approach. So it sounds like the byte administration is now saying, we're looking at a more holistic approach. We need an , this is the national problem. We need a national response, which is a little bit different than what Trump was doing saying, no, this is just like a handful of cities, which we've seen Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, and some others where there seems to be a lot of activity. I think the deaths in Chicago, or, you know, a lot, we may have some numbers here. Let's take a look. We have during his last days in office, just before Christmas, then attorney general William Barr, touted operation legend and anti-crime operation named for the four year old login to tell a Pharaoh who was shot and killed while he slept in late June. The efforts surged , DOD, DOJ resources and investigators to Kansas city, Chicago Albuquerque Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee St. Louis, Memphis, Indianapolis, beginning of July, the justice department said that operation legends start in July. They made over 6,000 arrests, including 467 for homicide. But the justice department also said on Wednesday that it strategy enhancing, included, enhancing project safe neighborhoods program. So we're going to read about this. We have the actual memo. We're going to fly through it , uh , in the next slide here. But it says that the program was quote, directing all us attorneys across the country to update their PSN programs, which is the public safety net project safe neighborhoods program to be aligned with the department's guiding principles of improving community engagement, support, proven community violence, intervention, strategic enforcement plans, tribal law enforcement partners, community measures, and collective efforts to reduce violence. So a lot of, a lot of word salad right there. Right. Don't really know what that means. Community violence engagement, the intervention enforcement plans, partners, community groups, collective efforts. Okay. Okay. So let's see if we can tease some of this out again. We're going to look at it in a light most favorable to them. Now this is the title of the document. So a couple things I wanted to point out here first and foremost , uh , interesting. You know, and I don't, I don't see a lot of these. We don't see a lot of administrations change hands where you go from a Trump administration to a Biden administration. So I don't know what proper decorum is or if this is ordinary or not. But I think that, I mean, to me feels a little bit strange because this is a big issue. So I want to show you what I'm talking about. So this is the document. First thing that I noticed, okay, this is a big document. Cause we're talking about sort of empowering all the U S attorneys across the entire country. This is a memorandum for department of justice employees, not like a division, not the civil rights division, not the criminal division and not nothing. Right. All of them like the entire stinking department. And where is this coming from? It's coming from the deputy attorney general. So why not the actual attorney general? Why not Merrick, Garland? Why is this the deputy? And so we have her name here. It says via Monaco, I think. So she didn't even put her name here. It's not from Lisa Monaco. She just sort of scribbled it on there. I don't, again , I don't know if this is standard or not just feels a little bit weird to me. You know, traditionally I'm used to seeing politicians want to spam their name all over everything. And so you would say, you know, it's from the deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco, it's from the attorney general Merrick Garland. And if it's such an important issue, why would it be the deputy, not the head attorney general and why is that can really see much from Biden either about this? You know, is this the, is this the big, is this the big justice department delivery? You know, I know we've talked about the George Floyd act and Biden . His specifically mentioned that wanted it passed so that he could sign it on May 25th, two days ago. Obviously that didn't happen. So is this plan B or what's what's the , the, the news or is this it? So that's my, we've got this sort of trickling down. We have this document, this was written may 26. It's from the deputy attorney general. Just kind of scribbles her name on there . Memorandum for everybody. This is the comprehensive strategy for reducing violent crime office of the attorney. Deputy gent , deputy attorney general, not even a name, maybe they just don't do that over there. I don't know. So let's take a look at who this person is. This is Elisa Monica . She's the 39th deputy attorney general did the department's second raking official. She's responsible for the overall supervision of the department. Deputy attorney general serves as the CEO . Oh, oh, that litigating policy advice . This is an assist the attorney general in formulating and implementing the policies and programs. She's a 15 year veteran of the DOJ. She's a career federal prosecutor, of course, several leadership positions. She was the assistant us attorney for Columbia, the district of Columbia and Ron task force , chief of staff for the FBI, then director Robert Mueller. Oh, so she's a Mueller , uh, acolyte principal associate for deputy attorney general assistant attorney general. Let's see what else. She coordinated the executive branch response to a wide range of security issues , cyber threats, terrorist incidents, natural disasters served in private practice, taught national security law, born and raised university of Chicago law school and Harvard university. So a little bit about her. Now let's take a look at the full memorandum here it is. And you're going to notice that at the top, we have sort of the standard stuff that you're going to see in a document like this. It's sort of laying out the vision, right? It's it's the vision and the, so what is the vision? It is, well, we are, are committed to addressing the epidemic of gun violence. So we're going to see, you know , what they are identifying as the causes here. They remember they said that this was a national thing happening. This wasn't individual cities. This wasn't like Portland because that was Trump's model Trump's model was to send a bunch of law enforcement into the problem areas. They're saying, this is that's, that's an ineffective strategy. So if they're identifying this as a national , no problem, then what is the problem? What is the national problem that they think that is going to fix this? So it looks like gun violence is in the first sentence and other violent crime has taken the lives of too many people in our communities. That commitment requires regular review grounded in research. Important moment for reassessment after decades of failing preliminary statistics suggest that certain categories of violent crime increased last year, we have faced the national public health emergency creative pressures at home disrupted social activity, civil unrest, as people questioned the legitimacy of our institutions and the role of law enforcement in society. So we got some other causes. So we've got gun violence, we've got questioning the legitimacy of the institutions. We have the role of law enforcement. We can not be effective in guarding the safety of our communities without their confidence. We know violent crime is not a problem that can be solved by law enforcement alone. So what else do we need that we've got sort of three causes, we've got gun violence. We have people doubting the legitimacy of government institutions and the role of law enforcement questioning that do we need law enforcement? Should they be responding? And they say that the only way that this violent crime can be whittled down is through a more global solution or a national solution. So let's take a look at how they want to do that core principles. First, we must foster trust and have legitimacy in the communities we serve, which I totally agree with, right? I'd say I say this all the time. We see meaningful law enforcement engagement with and accountability to the community are essential. Underpinnings don't think anybody would disagree with that. We want to build the culture of respect for the law. I think that's also great work collaborative with those collaboratively, with those affected by crime. Culture of respect, I think is very important, meaningful partners with community leaders, right? Department's effort to tackle crime, depend on having trust and legitimacy. It's critical that we treat people with dignity and respect, establish a culture of transparency and accountability and underscore our broader commitment to procedural justice and community policing. So I don't know what that necessarily means, right? Community policing. We'll see where that goes, but largely not nothing to scoff at. Right. That's all pretty good. I think we can all agree with that. And it's sort of both sided, right? It's law enforcement needs to engage with community leaders and we also need to have a culture of respect for the law. So it's the other end when, when law, when the law shows up, how about a culture of respect for those law enforcement officials, right? How about not treating everybody like that ? They're racist, white murderers or, you know , whatever the , the counter narrative is. It's, it's, it's a mutual respect and it's w for the cops to , okay, not every single person you , you pull over is a murdering maniac, right ? You don't have to , to , to beat up and tase every single person you pull over. So if we're sort of taking those very far out examples on both ends of the spectrum, and we're going to use that as our jumping off points, right? We can. I think, I think this document is sort of shattering both of those myths. Neither one of those things is true. Neither one of those things is in reality and both sides can sort of improve and work towards the middle. I'm happy with that. We see second, we must invest in community-based prevention and intervention programs . So we're getting a little bit more specific here. This is page two. In recent years, community organizations have developed innovative approaches to engaging with people or becoming victims of violence. We've got experience. They say intervention can be helpful. Government partners can play a significant role. There are important, important investments that will promote safety in places we call home. So not much there, right community-based prevention and intervention programs . So I guess I, you know, not much specific there , maybe they're gonna throw some money at it and create some commissions don't really know, set set . Third number three, set, strategic enforcement priorities. So in many communities, violent criminal activity is concentrated in limited areas and committed by a small number of people who are often interconnected, the great gangs and other criminal networks. Many of them are violent, repeat offenders in other locations, intimate partner violence, and other factors are the most significant concern. So what are we going to do? They are going to focus our limited resources on identifying, investigating, prosecuting the most significant drivers of violent crime. What are those? What are they? That's very important. It could be a couple of things. They've identified them, whether it is gun violence, domestic violence, criminal organizations, Newark narcotics trafficking, or other forces. So, right. That's, that's the, that's the focus they've given us an outline, gun violence, domestic violence, criminal organizations, narcotics trafficking, and other forces, nothing out there sounds too out of anything. That's unreasonable. I think this strategic enforcement approach may not result in an increase in the raw number of cases, but it's going to be consistent with their other measures of success. We must measure the results of our success. So we've got to Anil , which is interesting because they just sort of said that they're not going to focus on the raw numbers. Right ? See this contradiction here in this little interesting, the strategic enforcement approach may not result in an increase in the raw number of arrests or prosecuted cases or convictions, but we must measure the results of our efforts. So it's going to be difficult to assess that if you're not measuring those things, but we're going to take steps to reduce violent crime and to make meaningful adjustments over time without collecting and analyzing data on the incidents of violent crime. Yeah . It's going to be hard to do that. If you're right, it is going to be difficult. At the end of the day, our primary goal is to reduce the level of violent crime. Something that can be done by measured by the number of murders, attempted homicides, aggravated assault and other crimes, and then want to reduce, all right . So implementation now, how are they going to do this? Number one, establish a standing violent crime reduction steering committee. So we're going to get another committee. That's going to throw a bunch of people on a board, us attorney's office. They're going to ensure coordination in between components, budget, prioritization research. So you're going to throw a bunch of people on a board, which I can't stand. I've. I've said this for a long time on this channel, we have enough data folks. We have enough information. We've been studying all this crap for 30 years. They know what the problem is. They just, they want it . It's death by commissions. All right, put a commission next up. She's going to be directly the following strengthened the PSN , the public safety network. So in the past 20 years, the department has launched several nationwide programs to address violent crime. The PSN is the leading initiative brings together everybody like state and community, the stakeholders and all this stuff. They want to strengthen the work of all of this. What does it involve? Community engagement. So they want reduce violent crime by taking more proactive steps to meaningfully engage with the community. As the chief federal law enforcement officer, they must convene stakeholders discuss ongoing work. They must listen, learn, gain perspective, increase mutual, understanding, and collaborate around our shared value of justice and improve public safety. Each of us attorney's office is encouraged to consider hiring a community outreach specialist. So look, I don't have any real , uh, hopes that that's going to do much of anything. I mean, I don't know what they're intending this to , to do , uh , open to it. I'm open to the idea. I mean, they're just going to send a bunch of cops into a community and say, Hey, we're going to , we're here to listen to you today. We're here to talk to the stakeholders about your thoughts on police. And they say, well, we don't like you. They say, well, we know that we're here to fix that. What can we do to help you? And they say , well, don't come into our neighborhoods and arrest us. Well, we can't do that. We have to come in and arrest you. So, all right . I guess more conversations are better than no conversations, but sounds like, sort of a , like a feel good response. We're going to talk a lot more. I know, I know we're not happy with each other. We're going to talk about it. That's a good start, I guess, prevention and intervention. So number two, effective us attorneys are problem solvers. They're going to be addressing violent crime, using all the tools at their disposal. Hm . Clues to the extent, practicable, to use intervention programs, maintaining relationships, organizations, working to connect people with social services, economic collaborative, alright. U S attorney should identify violent crime prevention, increase awareness. So again , I don't all right . Prevention and intervention. Then we have focused on strategic enforcement. So working collaborative with federal state, local law enforcement partners, they're gonna assess violent crime challenges. Us attorneys in their law enforcement partners must then determine effective short and long-term strategies. All right . So not a lot of specifics here. Then we go down the executive office for the us attorney's office is going to provide information. They're encouraged to partner. All right , accountability. This is something I scream about every day on this channel. We must maintain mechanisms for regularly reassessing the plant . We must also recognize that the fundamental goal is to reduce the level of violence. Yes, we got that. The U S attorney should assess steps. They can gather about incidents of violence. All right, foundations remain the same. There's nothing really in here. Review grant making support. So by funding research, investing in prevention, we've got training and technical assistance. We got the violence against women program. As soon as practicable, these components must identify the appropriate ways to incorporate the core principles above into their program. Create an online resources for highlighting funding opportunities related to violent crime reduction, enhance a protocol for alerting a us attorney that a grant has , uh , okay. They want to align activity of law. Okay. So look , folks, I don't even know what this is, to be honest. Let's, let's close this out . We are charged with the responsibility of seeking justice under law. One of the most important components of that responsibility is doing all. We can consistent with our values to reduce violent crime in our communities. It is a mission that affects not only the people. Alright , thank you for your continued work to achieve these goals. All right. So , uh, I'm a lawyer. I've never been a us attorney, but if I got a document like that and I was prosecuting crimes, I wouldn't know what the hell that meant. Honestly, don't even know what this even means. Uh , PSN a, we've got all of these things that we're supposed to be doing, but it doesn't give us any specifics about it. We encourage our state local and tribal counterparts to collect and share relevant crime data. Well, what if they don't do that? Okay . The foundations are the same. We've got comprehensive analysis, reduce gun violence, violent crime, separate initiative. It's, it's a , it's just a word salad document. There's nothing meaningful in this at all, which is why nobody wanted their name on it. That's the entire point at the end of the day, isn't Camila. Just another one of those career hungry prosecutors that you battle against every day. So , uh, no, I don't think so. I think Camila is kind of her own special breed. You know, she's kind of got this real, real sort of callousness about her that I don't think most prosecutors have. Actually, I think the most prosecutors are , uh, not quite like her, you know , she's very calloused . She was really joking about sort of prisoners like begging for food. And I think she, there was a program where they were, they were trying to , uh, I think release a certain number of people from incarceration in California. And when she was attorney general, she opposed it because they actually needed the cheap labor still in California. So it kind of like slave labor. You know, she sort of wanted that to maintain that because she, in her motion opposing the release, she said, no, we need that labor here in California. We rely on that, judge. You can't let those people out. It's cheap labor. We need it. So honestly, most prosecutors that I deal with are not like that. I mean, that's like a whole different level, unfortunately. And she's our vice president . [inaudible] says, meanwhile, the guy who set fire to the justice center was let out on bail the next day. No bail. Yeah. We have farm . Good to see you LT 13. And it just, it just is , uh , frustrating farmer's daughter says, and everyone 17 Walgreens in California had to close because the da, the da isn't prosecuting theft under $900. So people are helping themselves. Who does that? All I can do is pray . And remember Jesus is still on the throne and to try to be the best person I can, I'm working on my existence systems worksheet. Love it. Thank you. That's awesome. Farmer's daughter. That's very cool. And of course, that is available for local supporters over@locals.com on our watching Watchers community. Thank you for that. Farmer's daughter. I know that, I know that the last time I was in San Francisco was a couple of years ago and it was a weird experience. I was going in there and , uh, there, there, there were people just walking in and out with stuff and I was going, what is happening right now? And , uh, they just didn't do anything about it. I paid for my stuff though. Don't know why what's the problem. You could have just taken it. We got, oh, SOC 71 says Rob , big fan of the show. So do you think all this talk about defund the police gun violence and so on as part of a bigger plan to do away with local law enforcement and bring about a federal police force? You know, I, I know that that is a concern. I don't know that there's a, that there's a way that they can, well, let me, let me, let me back up. Here's what I would hope. I would hope that our system of federalism that we have currently, where we have a know kind of a system of , uh , two , two systems dualism, we got the federal government and local governments. And I would hope that our current framework would sort of preclude that from happening. In other words, the feds don't have jurisdiction to come in and sort of act like local police forces and that's sort of by design. So if that, you know, if, if that were to happen, I think that there would be a lot of stuff that would need to change in terms of laws to facilitate that. But the crazier things have happened. So I don't think it's necessarily about a federal police force, but I do think that what you're probably going to be seeing is a lot of gun violence talk. We see the ATF , uh , nominee is now sort of somebody who wants to make the headlines say ban AR fifteens. He was somebody who I think was at Waco, you know, sort of an anti-government , he's an anti anti-government person. He doesn't like people who question the government. Doesn't like people who, who sort of connect with their second amendment. So if we talk about this new crime wave as coming through, and we have guns that are responsible for the crime wave, well , what do we do? We got to pass some second amendment restrictions so that we can eliminate the real problem, which is the guns on a national level. It's not a local thing. It's nationally we have Besame Anto says, is this deputy attorney general going to fire herself or her whole department when crime keeps increasing, she did say, we need accountability. Yeah, she did. But she doesn't really want to measure it all that much. She just wants the outcomes, not the measurement portion of it. All right. So not, not, not much there, you know, look good effort. I guess maybe it's supposed to be that suppose it's a memo to a bunch, every single employee there. So see if anything changes, I'm hoping for more, I'm hoping that the Biden people come out because the George Floyd bill, isn't going to pass in its current form. You know, maybe something we'll see, not holding my breath though. Thank you for those questions. They came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. All right , we're going to change gears. We're talking about justice reform. We talk a lot about bad Popo on this channel. We talk about bad police, bad prosecutors, bad judges. But today we're going to be talking about bad FBI and bad prison guards in New York city. There were nine, nine prison guards, prison officials, people who were employees of the prison or the jail facility. And they were just indicted. They were caught for taking bribes and smuggling contraband into the prisons, kind of like an HBO special or something. We have this tweet coming over from the us attorney's office, out of the Southern district of New York. They say nine department of correction officers and employees charged with taking bribes to smuggle, contraband, to inmates at New York city jails. So not like one or two people. This is like the entire like night shift, like the entire night shift. They all come in. They're all just Tony soprano, the whole, the whole facility. So here is what the announcement looks like. We're going to go through this. There's some interesting things in here. This is the U S Southern district of New York. You can see nine department of correction officers and employees were charged. This was released yesterday, may 26 out of the us attorney's office. Audrey Stross is the U S attorney who's acting on this case. She worked with the FBI and the New York city department of investigation. They're unsealing the indictments of nine current and former employees and officers of the New York city department of corrections. They were taking cash bribes in return for smuggling contraband. And it wasn't even all that interesting. It was scalpels, razorblades, drugs, alcohol and cell phones to inmates in New York city jails nine defendants were arrested today. They're going to be presented before the judge seven defendants in New York, one in Pennsylvania, one in Virginia. So they just sort of went around and rounded everybody up. The U S attorney said that they are responsible. They were responsible for maintaining the safe and orderly environment in the New York city jails, but they abused their positions to enrich themselves by smuggling weapons, drugs, and other dangerous contraband. This alleged activity violated the defendant's duties and endangered the inmates they were charged to supervise and guard. So, you know, these are, these are interesting crimes, prosecutors and judges, they get super angry with when these things happen , uh, like angry. And , uh, it's, it's very interesting. And the reason being, I think it's actually for good reason is because we are trusting these people. We say, Hey, you are given very important responsibilities here. And there's like a couple of things that you absolutely cannot do no matter what do you understand? Yes, I do. Okay. Can't do that. And so you've got not only sort of a , a direct dereliction of duty, there absolutely breaching protocols and committing a crime, but they're also doing it for a very ulterior, for a very selfish motive. It's it's for money. It's just, it's sort of enrich themselves, you know, some crimes we sort of we'll , we'll give people a little bit of a pass on, right. You know, like let's say, you're , you're getting into an argument and you just punch somebody in the face. You got angry, you got emotional, you know, sometimes you just kind of can't control yourself and we go, look, I get it. He called your mother a w uh , what? I probably would've hit him too. It was illegal. You shouldn't have hit him for that, but he, he kinda deserved it. So, you know, the emotions just caught the better of you. And we sort of, you know, minimize that. But if you do something intentionally selfish, like for a financial motive, if you say, yeah, I know this is wrong, like really wrong, and it's a crime, but I want that money anyways. And I'm going to do it anyways. You're sort of, we give you a little bit more , uh , processing , uh , credit for that. You sat there and you thought about it. You knew it was wrong, and you did it anyways, versus just acting irrationally based on emotion. So when this comes through, when this comes down, judges and prosecutors, they get angry. As we see, they went around New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia rounded up all nine of them. And here they are FBI assistant director Sweeney said the nine defendant starts at a risk, the safety and security of their colleagues and others within the department of correction. When they carelessly decided to smuggle contraband, we shouldn't have to remind public servants that accepting bribes while conducting illegal activity would constitute a federal crime. But when it's necessary, that's exactly what we'll do like that guy. It reminds you knocking on your door. Hey, FBI, here, should it be? And smuggling that alcohol in there, we have DOI commissioner, Margaret Garnette said these charged crimes involving contraband reflect a pernicious and damaging impact of corruption. Yeah, get it, Margaret. I like it. Correction officers and staff should protect the integrity of the jails, not promote lawlessness and violence by accepting bribes in return for trafficking, drugs, scalpels, razorblades, cell phones, and other contraband, all highly valued, illegal items that undermine order in the jails and compromise the safety of other correction officers and inmates. Thanks, FBI and us attorney for doing your work, which is right. You know, if we want, look, it depends on what kind of version of justice you think is appropriate. If you're somebody that just doesn't care about defendants and many people don't many people say, no, you broke the law. I don't care. Do whatever you want, throw him away. That's , that's a legitimate thing. A lot of people think that way and it's unfortunate, but they do. So if that is your perspective here, then maybe you don't care about drugs or whatever. You know, people joke about prison, rape and stuff. Like it's a hilarious thing. And you go, wait a minute. You know, that person was convicted of a, of an alcohol crime , uh, not. And he was sentenced to like five years in prison, not rape. Okay. We weren't sentencing him to rape . That's not appropriate, but it's still kind of a jokey thing you see about in the movies and stuff like, oh, they're just, you know , dead pieces of meat. These are just farm animals. We're just throwing into the prison system and we just forget about them. So some people will take a look at, you know, oh, drugs and scalpels and razorblades and just say, well, that's just how prison is, isn't it kind of, yeah, there are a lot of drugs in there. There are a lot of problems. There are things like rape and , and horrendous things that go on, but that's not how it should be because that's how it is. Doesn't mean it's how it should be. How about we give people an opportunity to educate themselves and learn things about, you know, discipline and , uh, you know, faith and religion and , and all sorts of, you know, reading, writing, and thinking and learning skill sets so that when they come out, they're in a better position. They're not in their trafficking, drugs, stabbing each other with razorblades, conducting drug trafficking through their cell phones, drinking alcohol. If we're going to want a system of rehabilitation and not retro [inaudible] , we got to make sure this kind of garbage doesn't happen. So when the law enforcement people step up and they punish their own and they root out this corruption and this malfeasance inside the jails, I am all for it. Hats off. Well done everybody over there. Now let's take a look. What is going on with the different indictments? We have Miguel compress of New York. What did he do? He's a correction officer. He smuggled scalpels, synthetic cannabinoids, cannabinoids, and often referred to as K2 or spice. Oh man. That's, that's some gnarly stuff. There was that guy who ate somebody's face off taking that. Like literally don't look at that picture on Google. Don't sell phones and large quantities of cigarettes. He , uh , got $6,000 for that. So it's not that much money. Not that much money for a federal charges. We charged with one count of conspiracy to commit federal crimes, a bribery maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, 10 years for six grand, six grand. All right , well, so that was Miguel compress. Let's take a look at Tamika Lewis. She's 41. She comes from Brooklyn. What a did sheep, Joe . She also brought some spice. She got wow, 40,000 in bribes. So that is significantly more. Miguel got a raw deal. Tamika must've had that good K2. Now from at least in or about June, 2019, up through and including September, 2020. So over a year charged with one count conspiracy to commit federal crimes, maximum sentence, 10 years, 20 years and another 20 years. But at least she got 40 grand out of it that that's more significant. We got Dariel Diaz who was 33. He got eight grand, large quantities of cigarettes into the Rikers island prison. He's got another conspiracy count , uh, honest services, wire fraud, maximum 20 years in prison for him. We got Jasmine Reed. She's 34. She comes from Virginia. So they went and got her there , abuse her position. Also smuggled, a razor, K2, marijuana cigarettes, a cell phone, other contraband cash bribes. She went from September, 2019 to December, 2019. So you know what probably happened? Somebody inside the prison just turned, they just turned everybody. And then just, we're just kind of watching it going on. They probably have so much evidence on all nine of these people. It's not even going to be, not even going to be fair for him . She is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit federal crimes, five years in prison, up to 20 years, up to 20 years on another one. Then we get over to , to Maine Pelzer 45 correction officer. He got another 8,000. He went from August, 2019 to February. So not that long for him charged with one counts, you know, 10 years in prison. And we got Brian Horrell 60, you got 6,500. He was smuggling stuff through the Manhattan detention complex. So what does he have? A May, 2020 to June. Oh man. Just one month. So that's a good month. I would say 6,500 for that month is a good month, but no , not work . 10 years in prison or 20 years over here, we got three more. We've got Rashaun , a sauna , 25 out in New York. He got 7,500 contraband, a cigarette cell phone, same stuff. Robert Balducci 33. He got 5,000. Did he bring anything else? Interesting now razorblades, marijuana, 10 years looking for him. And then Jonathan Garretts , our last he's 32 also brought in the K2. Ooh . He brought in methamphetamine. Yeah. That's that's the hard stuff there . Methamphetamine. He got 5,000 for that federal crimes, again, another 10 to 20 years. So we have this all being prescribed by Congress, the penalties, Mr. Strauss , pate praise , the outstanding work of the FBI and the DOI. They're going through the public corruption units. And that's it merely accusations. Remember the defendants are presumed innocent unless, and until proven guilty, which as I said is probably going to be quite easy in this case. I'm going to guess they have a lot of evidence probably because people inside the prison just turned on them and just said, yeah, this is what's going on. Yeah, come watch. Watch. Here. Here comes. Jonathan Garrett here comes Rachana sauna, watch what's happening marijuana. And they just watched the whole video, audio cash exchanges, the whole thing. So they're probably going to take plea deals and they'll close those out relatively quickly. We have though. So the FBI did a nice job on that one. But on this one, something's going on here, the FBI went through a woman's safety deposit box without a warrant. It's kind of questionable. What's going on here. Let's take a look@thisstoryoverfromreason.com. We're going to look at some photos. In fact of the FBI digging through this woman's box it's box eight. Oh my gosh. That was boxed eight three oh nine was just one of the hundreds of safety deposit boxes that ended up in the government's possession. When federal agents raided a private vault in Beverly Hills, federal agents took those boxes. As reason previously reported, even though they did not have a warrant for them or their contents. So how did they get them? Then the business that housed them is called us private vaults. They are suspected of conspiracy to distribute the drugs and launder money and avoid mandatory re reporting requirements. But the unsealed warrant that authorize the raid, granted FBI permission to seize only the businesses, [inaudible] money, counters, security cameras, and large steel frames that effectively act as bookshelves. So that's it. Right? And when we talk about warrants, we have specificity in there. It's not like, Hey judge, I want to just go see what Robert Mueller's doing. Judge goes, yeah, whatever you need office home mom's house, brother, whatever you need. Cell phone emails go, huh ? Wild have a field day. Sometimes they will. We'll we'll we'll grant enough permission and enough specificity to do that. But traditionally it's it's specificity. It's this, this hour, you know , these hours, these locations and things like that. So we saw in the warrant that they are defining those things for us, computers, money, counters, security cameras, steel frames, et cetera, per FBI rules. However, the boxes could not be left unsecured in the vault after the raid had been completed. Right? So the agents had to take them into custody too . So here is what happened. They get a warrant go in and sees this one safety deposit box. Judge has no problem at all. Now the judge knows how this works. FBI knows how this works. Everybody knows how this works. So of course they're not going to call us private vaults and say, listen, we just got a warrant to go and seize box , uh , let's say 83 then in your facility. So we're going to come and do that right now. Right? Cause they would go, oh perfect. 83, 10. Well , that's empty now. Like, like right now, like I just sent somebody down there to throw that out and remove that. So they would never do that. So what do they have to do? They have to do the surprise rate. They have to show up guns and guns blazing. Hey, we're the FBI. We have access to all this inflation . So typically they break open everything right. They got a break in there because it's an unannounced visit when they do that. Now they've compromised. The security of the vault. They've compromised. All of the other safety deposit boxes, everything has been jeopardized. So now what do they do? They do it called an inventory search or an inventory, sort of a analysis. It's , it's a summation of everything that's in there because they don't want to be responsible if they leave. If they just jeopardize , they broke the security of this facility and then they leave and somebody comes in there and steals everything. Well, is the FBI on the hook for leaving it open? So know that they need to sort of take everything and they inventory it. And an analogy here would be like, if, if you're doing driving a car and you get stopped and you get pulled over for a DUI, they can pull you out of the car. They can sort of search your, you know , your wingspan, your area around you. But let's say for example, they can't get into the trunk because it's, it's, it's locked or whatever. And you give them no permission to search your trunk. So then what do they do? They impound your car. Well, how do they search your truck? Then if it's been inventoried, they couldn't search it because you couldn't touch it because it's not necessary. It's not in your wingspan. But when they, when they arrest you and impound your car, now they do, what's called an inventory search because they got to inventory the car so that when you get out of custody, you don't go back to the police and say, you stole all my stuff in my car. So they open everything up and they do an inventory of it. And they write it all out on a list and say, Hey, this is everything that we had here. Here it is. We have it safe and sound. If you want to come get it, it's available for you. But the problem is what happens when the list doesn't match? What was, what was there ? What happens when they, when they say, oh, no, that wasn't there. And we say, oh, it sure as heck was, it's a big problem. And they've sort of caused this on their own. They know that the warrant didn't give them access into that box, but they know by breaking into the other box that they've broken the security of the entire facility. And so they're responsible for the contents of the other boxes, which then will lead them to the, to the, to the belief that they can open these up and rummage through them, which is exactly what they did. So per the FBI rules, they could not leave them unsecured. So the agents had to take them into custody. In the days, following the raid, the agents were tasked with identifying the boxes, innocent owners. So their valuables could be returned, should have been a relatively straightforward process, but it was nuts more than two months. The raid box, 83 oh nine. And its contents is one of hundreds of safe deposit boxes that remain in FBI custody. Even though the owners have been charged with no crimes. The box is now at the center of a lawsuit filed last month in us district court. The story of what happened after it entered FBI custody. A story told through screenshots from a video now entered as evidence should infuriate anyone who believes in constitutional limits on law enforcement. We're going to go through them. The screenshots , some of which are presented below show what attorneys representing box eight, three oh nine, and its owners say is quote, an illegal search falling outside of what was authorized by the warrant against us private volts . There are a few things to keep in mind before we go through these first and foremost, according to this article is the fact that the FBI's warrant for the vaults explicitly said, quote, does not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the content contents of the safe deposit boxes. Okay. Second recall, the FBI did have a good reason for opening box 83 oh nine and the rest is agents needed to find a way to identify the owners. All right. So that's why they say they opened them. The question then is whether agents went beyond what is necessary to identify the owner in the case of box 8,309 . It certainly appears that they did all right . So they break in the warrant, says you cannot do a search or seizure of the contents of the safety deposit, boxes, search or seizure . It's right there in quotes, no authorize a search or seizure. Okay. But it sounds like they have to open the boxes so they can see who it belongs to because it's just box 83 oh nine. They don't know who it belongs to. So as long as they can, can identify it, that should be the end of the inquiry. Open it, identify it. End of the inquiry. Right? Let's take a look at what happened in the first screenshot. An FBI agent is tasked with identifying box 83 oh nine is owner. They can be seen removing the box from the nest to open it. Notice the paper taped to the lid of the box, which will become significant in a moment. So you can see, this is sort of the, the, the nest. This is the box that we're talking about. Box 83 oh nine. And at the , uh , right on top of it, we see this white envelope here, right? Very, very prevalent. Let's take a look at what that says next. The agent opens the letter, taped to the top of the box, which contains all the necessary information to identify the owner identified in legal filings as Linda R she's an 80 year old woman. She stored a significant portion of her retirement and her savings in box 83 oh nine. It's also going to be significant too . We can see over here, we just opened up the letter, right? So this is coming from body camera footage on one of the FBI agents opens the letter. C's right here. It's got a lot of dock and a lot of written text here, identifying who this belongs to. Here's the person's name? There's a copy of the driver's license name, address. 80 year old woman named Linda. All right . So that should be the end of the inquiry, right? You're not allowed to search warrants said that no searching. You said that you got to open this puppy up so you can identify who it belongs to. You just did it right on the outside of it. You , it came out of the nest. Okay? Which you have to open. So no security questions there opens it up. Knows exactly who it belongs to. End of inquiry. No searches, no seizures. Return it to Linda art . Let's see the documents taped to the lid. Even include a copy of her driver's license that can no longer be any doubt about the owner of the contents of the box, right? Letter driver's license. So what happens? The agent, he just decides to open the lid and take a look inside. So that's what he does. Set. Pulls it right out. Sets it right here. Cracks. Open. The lid starts ripping open sealed envelopes inside the box. 83 oh nine starts ripping them open. Looks like a us postal service box. Rips that open again. Keep in mind that the warrant allowed the FBI to seize these boxes explicitly for bade federal agents from searching or seizing the contents. Okay. It allowed them to seize. These boxes said you can not search or seize the contents of the safe, the agents they keep digging anyways. All right . So it sounds like they're allowed to take the boxes so they can return them, but they can't open them up. So he opens it up. Agents keep digging anyways, eventually tearing open a heavy duty envelope that contains an unknown number of what appeared to be gold coins. See this here. Gold coins. Nice hedge against inflation. Not as convenient as cryptocurrency though, but as the ransacking, a box 83 oh nine continues. The video appears to show at least one of Linda's coins falling to the ground. Oh no. Look at that guy. According to an amended complaint filed last week, the search of the box was conducted in a shambolic and disorganized manner. No surprise that items were misplaced, lost or worse. Look at that. A very valuable gold coin falling to the ground. Oh no. The agents, they continue digging through the box. They open more unsealed, more sealed envelopes. They're photographing the contents. Here's some more opening up this one. Here's another one taking photographs or uncovering more stashes of valuable coins, right? These are kids in a candy shop having a lot of fun with this. Then we see here at some points , it's not really clear what they're doing because they're out of frame of the video. So they set up a camera. They're processing all of these boxes. We've got a number of people moving stuff around, down here, down here, his back's turned , who knows what's going on on the other side of their torsos, when it's all finished, the FBI's official documentation detailing. The contents of the box makes note of only miscellaneous coins. Okay. Now you're going to see what I'm talking about here. We're going to look at the inventory list that they write and watch what they put on here. We're talking about very valuable gold coins. Okay. We're not talking about change dish in your car. He just writes miscellaneous coins. Okay. Like, like you just went through the drive-through at McDonald's and you just throw your change in your coin dish. No, these are valuable gold bullion. What are you talking about without any specific amounts or other identification of the coins? Okay. With, you know, serial numbers or whatever's on there, do identify them in the lawsuit. Linda's attorneys argue that the FBI's search of the box resulted in up to $75,000 of valuable coins being misplaced , though. It is difficult to know for sure, due to what Linda's attorneys call the chaotic and slapdash manner in which the box was examined in separate legal filings attorneys representing Linda and others caught up in the raid, argue that the FBI rifled through hundreds of safety deposit boxes, so they could quote, use any information gleaned in the claims process in order to conduct criminal investigations. These pieces of garbage recent developments seem to suggest that's true. As the DOJ has filed forfeiture motions against more than 400 of the safe deposit boxes, it sees from us private vaults . In some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars are being seized by the government, despite his no criminal charges being filed against the owners of the boxes. They are just robbing people. I mean, actually robbing people, you know, when you watch those old shows or those shows that are set sort of in the middle ages. And, you know, the, the, the corrupt sheriff comes in and steals everything from the poor shop owner that's what's happening. Right? And I don't know who these, I don't know if these are poor shop owners or rich shop owners or whatever, but this is the government coming in, taking private property, not charging anybody with crimes, doing it in violation of a federal warrant and getting away scot-free with it. We now know , I know that this happened after the warrant for the raid explicit recently exempted the contents of the safety deposit boxes. So they're investigating for crimes that they had no authority to investigate, which would this , this would be , uh , uh , you know, if they charged somebody on this is going to be a catastrophic problem, this would be a suppression motion all day. I think you'd win it all day because in a, they actually violated a federal warrant. So if they actually move forward with criminal charges, hopefully those people get good attorneys in their own filings. Prosecutors alleged that only some of the company's customers or honest citizens. Okay. I contend that the majority of the box holders are criminals that use their anonymity to hide their ill-gotten gotten wealth. That's that's not your decision to make, you got to have some evidence before you make those allegations. You can't just go in and seize a bunch of stuff and then rummage through it and say, oh well that we found that's a problem. And that's a problem too . You gotta have the evidence before you sees the stuff. Okay. Not the other way around. Oh my gosh. These are folks. These are prosecutors. Prosecutors are putting that in their own documents box 83 oh nine is not one of the boxes that the feds are now seeking to seize being an extremely circumspect forfeiture process. They're not alleging that the box is owner was suspected of committing a crime or that her gold coins are somehow evidence of ill-gotten wealth. According to legal filings attorneys representing her say that the government has promised to return her money, but they note it has refused to say how much it took, how much it will return exactly how long it will take. The government's apparent, inability to locate and return. The coins at seas does not inspire confidence in the smooth return of her money. Uh , you know, I wonder if they're investigating that. I wonder if they're getting warrants for any of those agents who were there , counting those coins, dropping them all over the place. Maybe they're going to go raid their houses and see if they've got some gold bullion in there that they may be transferred to somebody else. Do you think they're going to do that? Or are they going to be spending all of their time on Twitter, trying to find grandma who was wandering around the Capitol building? I think we know the answer to that. Let's take a look at the complaint that was filed here. It's us here. You can see search and seizure of box is the claims is a forfeiture type of a claim against the United States of America. Here's the complaint filed out of California. Western district. Here are the attorneys look like they're coming out of Los Angeles. We've got Benjamin Gluck, van and Solomon and Bowman over there at affirm out in California. So we say here, it says, please take notice. We have the matter we're going to be filing this search and seizure chain of custody claim. The motion is based on the notice. Okay? Nothing much. Their introduction. Dr. Linda L R is a doctor 80 years old. About one month ago, the government sees her retirement savings from her box at us private volts counsel demand that it's returned. Government agents met with council and returned some of it, but the government failed to account for the return of 41 ounce. Gold coins. 40 not two . Oh, oh, it's not. Oh, we dropped one and it rolled under the couch. Let me go get it . 40 of them gone. $75,000. The agents told Dr. R that they did not know anything about the missing coins. No, of course not. When counsel asked the agents for a copy of their inventory of Dr. R's box , uh , the agents provided a property receipt based on their inventory for Dr. R's box that describes the property as only miscellaneous coins with no indication of types or quantities. I'm going to show you this here. Soon counsel immediately contacted the lead attorney, advise him of the missing items. Counsel also asked the attorney for a proper inventory of what you got the U S attorney represented that no ma to the magistrate judge and the court that this matter was required pursuant to the policies that in other words, they had to seize that to protect the agency from claims of theft, right? We talked about that government has not responded to any of these communications. The government's seizure of her savings has already caused her more stress and anxiety, right? She's 80. She needs that the missing coins and lack of any kind of inventory, indeed, any lack of response at all from the government only adds to her injury. And this happens a lot. Folks happens all the time. They seize guns, they seize cars, they seize houses, and it's really difficult to communicate with them because it's a , it's a kind of a different type of a claim. It's a S it's a forfeiture claim versus a criminal claim. And it's a whole different convoluted area of law that the government has really sort of written for themselves. They've give , gave they've written rules that make it easy for them to win, which is why people talk about this all the time forfeiture reform we see here, the missing coins , uh, for now, Dr . R seeks an order that the government provide her with all records reflecting how box 83 oh nine and its contents were searched, seasoned, handled, including all inventories, all videos, all rec , uh, recordings of these processes, all chain of custody, documentation, and all written protocols. And so chain custody is the idea that you're connecting the chain one link to the other. So a person, a FBI agent, a took the coins, gave him the FBI agent. The FBI agent B took them and transported them back to the crime lab, gave them the FBI agency who put them in the evidence locker. FBI agent D came back out and took them. And , and you sort of connect that what's the log. And there should be a connection at every single one of those points. Uh, you know, John gave it to Billy. Billy gave it to mark. Mark gave it to John and you connect them all. What is that chain? What does it look like? Dr. R submits that this material will prove that the government took over $70,000 from her without probable cause is yet to give it back with these records in hand, Dr. R will be at least able to know that she will ultimately be able to obtain relief either through the return of the missing coins or through compensation. Here's the list. Okay. So this is why , this is what she got. The us department of justice, the FBI, they came in, sees all of her stuff, put her name on here, Linda, our , give her, give her her address. Here's a receipt for your property. Grandma, take a look. Here's what we got for you. We took , uh , uh , one item of what miscellaneous coins. Okay. We got another item of miscellaneous coins, times nine, and then we have miscellaneous packaging materials, miscellaneous packaging materials. And then we have a Shakespeare down here writing us a really, really solid inventory, says something, a star claim of two to 20 tubes of one ounce, $50 gold American Eagle coins with red tops on them. Uh, April 1st, 2021 , 1:52 AM signed off by Cody by script the FBI. Right? So plus a chain of two 22 coins, $50 coin American Eagle coins, these coins, which are very important, right? The one house gold coins, $70,000, just miscellaneous coins. Like you got a bunch of pennies and nickels and dimes. All right. Conclusion says that the government concedes that must return retirement savings, but it has yet to account for approximately 75,000 of that savings and has not provided any proper receipts . So the government says, yeah, you're getting your money back, but you're getting a 75,000 less of it back. They have an inventory or anything for now. She's not seeking damages for their loss and even, or an order for the return. She wants an order requiring that the government give her what she asked for specifically the material, okay . Inventory, material, and all of the information. So this is great. They're not even really asking for, for the money at this time. They're saying, ah , we we're , we're good on the money. Give me the materials. I want to see what happened here, which is great. And I would love for them to get it. Let's take a look@somequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com . First up is boxy punk chick in the house. What's up. Boxy says, isn't it just the common thing to expect the FBI to be corrupt. They claim they are not government employees. When reality they claim they are government employees. When in reality, they are not. They're an organization that gets paid by funding. How does that not allow for corruption? Well, I think, I think you're right. I mean, I think it's extremely corrupt. I mean, we've seen this, we've seen this. It doesn't really matter what direction you go. You know, we've seen it both directions. We've seen an inquisition into Donald Trump that I didn't think have any basis we saw covering for Hillary Clinton where James Comey came out and said, well, you know, the , the statute, the criminal statute for that says something like , uh , you know, gross negligence. If , if you do something that's grossly negligent, we can charge you with a crime. And so the question was, did Hillary Clinton with her emails reach that threshold? And so in one memo, the story goes, he said, yeah, she did. Then in a different memo, he changed the gross negligence to something like extreme carelessness. And guess what? If you change those words, it doesn't fit the statute anymore. So you can't charge her with a crime. So it's now not just gross. Negligence is it's extremely careless. Which to me, if you do something that's extremely careless, kind of sounds like gross negligence, but we're mincing words. We're splitting hairs because she is part of that established power structure. And when somebody like Donald Trump threatened that power structure, well, they circled the wagons to make sure that that didn't happen. We saw this , we saw all of this happening with the , the two FBI agents, the two lovebirds who were texting, we're going to keep him out of power. And you know, what's the guy's name. I can't remember right now, but , um, he's that sort of devilish look, you know, that he gave when he was called in front of Congress to testify. And so they they've got a political agenda, just like any other government organization does. And when you have somebody that goes in there and rocks the boat, they're not going to let that happen. And they're very powerful. They're going to effectuate what they can to achieve their ends . We have Nadar, bla Sierra says, I wonder if any of these corrections officers worked where Epstein suicided himself . That's a good question. Now, those two . Yeah , we have not talked about that here yet. That's in my queue. We've got, I'm waiting on a Maxwell update because there's a lot of activity going on on the Glen Maxwell case a lot. And it's like, I have to pace myself on the updates because we could talk about her case every day for three hours. I mean, there's stuff going on every day . It's crazy. But so we're , we're sort of pacing ourselves, but yeah, to have her guard, two of the guards who were involved in the Epstein case, the , the , the two guards who were supposed to be making sure that nothing happened to him have pled guilty to crimes for their negligence in that case. So we're going to cover that at some point, it's just in the cube , boxy punk, punk , punk. I'm sorry. Let's do that again. Boxy punk chick says, I think there is missing information. They , how, how were they to know what was supposed to be in the box in order to say what people say what's missing? There would have to be logs of everything in there for to say yes, it was missing or it is. He said, she said, yeah. So I, I think you're right. And we don't know that you're you're correct. We don't know what Dr. L has. Okay. We don't know she has an inventory of her own. I would presume that she does because that's a lot of money. I would guess that she has her own list somewhere. She , she knows what's in there. And so she's able to compare and contrast. Now the problem here is that she can't contrast anything with what the government gave her because their receipt list says nothing on there. It just says miscellaneous coins. It doesn't even tell us how many of them, not 20, not 12, not 40, not fifth, nothing. It's just miscellaneous coins. Times nine . So if they went missing, how would they, how would they even know? They wouldn't because they did an incompetent job here, but you're right. We don't know. Right. We don't know the dark . So why were they in this room? Searching all the safes in the first place that I missed. That part they did . Did they not give a reason? They got it ? I think I kind of glossed over that, but they got a warrant for one particular box. So the judge actually said, yep, you've investigated this person. You know, you sort of, you you've gone through a traceability. You can connect the funds to this person. You know, where they are. You've got access to the bank account. And he does business here, whatever they got access to an email, they know his safety deposit box has some illegal contraband. So they do get permission for that one. Then when they get access in there now, since they've wrecked the security of the facility, they gotta be responsible for all of the other materials there. The warrant said, that's fine. You can take those. You can take those with you, but you can't look inside. You can't search inside. They have done that anyways. And now they're using the contents. What they found too . It sounds like investigate other criminal charges. And so what, you know , this is really, really pernicious because what happens here? What happens if they find, let's say, oh, we w we got Robert griller safety deposit box. Oh, there's something interesting in there. And now let's say I never was on their radar. So there , they weren't looking at me in the first place. And they know that they can't use anything that they found in that safety deposit box to come after me because they got it as the fruit of a poisonous tree. They got it basically illegally. They're in violation of a federal warrant to search the boxes. They searched it anyways. If they were to charge me with a crime based on what they found in that safety deposit box, my response would be, Hey, you should have never opened that up in the first place. That was illegal. That's going to be my defense. That's a motion to suppress. We're going to throw that out. And I think a judge would find in my favor on that. So what did you say? Okay, well, no harm, no foul. First of all, a lot of harm. I got charged with a crime. I got to hire an attorney. I got to go through all of this process in order to clear my name, which is a lot of work, a lot of effort, but number two, what happens if they don't charge me with a crime for that safety deposit box, but they just say, oh, well, now we know, because we looked in your box that we've got some questionable , uh, evidence here. So we're just going to start kind of monitoring. Now, you now, now we're going to just start, you know , sending an agent out to kind of sit outside your house, or we're going to follow you to your office, or we're going to follow you into that bank or follow you into that store, to that private lunch, and then gather evidence about you in that manner. Now that evidence is not be tainted by the illegality of the , the unlawful search. So they could still justify criminal charges in a roundabout way to incriminate. Now they would have never even heard about you had they not seen what was in your safety deposit box illegally, but because you can't make the connection. And because they found independent basis for investigating you later down the line, they can go that route without any repercussions or any concerns about a motion to suppress or anything like that, which is why this is problematic. And they know that they want to get all the names. And then they're going to go launch separate, independent investigations and say, oh yeah, we screwed up. Here's all your stuff back. Meanwhile, they've got mountains of evidence from their unlawful search. Very, very corrupt. We have Joe Snow says, how is this government who sees all these safety deposit boxes, keeping you, or me safe? Why do we need them serious question ? I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I really, I guess for national security, I mean, what , what does the government do on a regular basis for you? I mean, you wake up every day , you do most everything yourself and most everything that you do. And it has done for you is through private business and private enterprise and the government just kind of, grifts off the top of everything. And they say, no, we're solving all of these things for you. Are they? Or are they taking credit for the solutions that other people and other businesses and things put into society? I think it's strongly the latter . I'm not real sure what we need to government for in, in, in, in many aspects, we have Jeremy MITRE to says, in my opinion, if you store valuables in a safety deposit box, you should ensure it. The bank does not ensure your box. You can get a rider policy on your homeowners insurance and will be required to take an inventory with pictures is highly recommended. Anything that is out of your immediate control is not 100% safe. Yeah . That's a good point. It's a good advice on that. Yeah. I mean , I don't have a safety deposit box. I got to acquire some more assets, but I'm working on that right now. So we're, we're, I'll , I'll, I'll, I'll dictate my safety, the deposit box policy later in life. I think we have Sharon Quinn . He says, if they manage to do this enough people, they might be able to put a dent in the national debt . Oh, I know. Right. They good. You know, it's sort of like a seizure. It doesn't, Mark's talk about that sort of a seizure of , um, uh, the booze , woah . The proletariat sees the , the means of power. Oh gosh. Mark's Thorst we have, see the veil says the lawsuit really needs to focus on forcing the agents to buy from their savings and their yearly salary, these gold coins at current value and give them to her in person and offer an apology. Then force those agents to go after the real murderers of Indians in the USA. All right . So you got , uh , I like it. You know , give him , give him the money back and go after the real bad guys. I like that. I think that's a good policy. We have high desert says , Rob, does the bank have any duty to protect the other boxes that the warrant didn't include any exposure for liability? It's a good question. High desert. I don't, I don't think so. I mean, there's sort of, it sounds like they may be the subject of the entire investigation. So it sounds like that that organization was, you know, safety deposit volts , USA, or whatever the name of it was. And it was actually that organization in its entirety, that was the subject of the investigation. So it wasn't like they went into a Wells Fargo or a bank of America and just needed one safety deposit box. Like they went over the whole. So I would guess that they, you know, liability from only half of the bank is the, the least of their concern. Because I think that the entire infrastructure is part of the investigation. This is a big deal . This is a big deal, right? This was a big investigation, span, many agencies, FBI, and many others. And so I think that they're the bigger issue of the exposure is not civil liability relative to the property rights of the other owners of the boxes. It's more about criminal exposure. It's a good question though. All right. So we've got one great questions . Those all came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you for your support over there. It means the world to us. I really do appreciate it. And we're having fun. Building that community up. We have a, a workshop coming up on June 12th called law enforcement interaction, training. Hope to see you there. It's free and available to all of you who are subscribers over at locals. So thank you for that. All right . Last segment for the day, we're going to be talking about Gavin Newsome and Calvin fornia . COVID lockdowns let a lot of things fall through the cracks. We saw a lot of liberties, sort of water away, kind of whittle away down to almost nothing. We saw a lot of this out of California, massive lockdowns , harder than other lockdowns throughout the country. And one of the really problematic limitations that governor Gavin Newsome imposed was limitations on the free exercise of religion. Specifically, we're talking about a lawsuit involving a church called harvest rock church that sued Gavin Newsome and California for violating their right their right to practice their religion. This is a very interesting lawsuit. Now, there was a ruling that came out today. Gavin Newsome lost the lawsuit. Big win for religious Liberty. Good news free exercise. Now Gavin Newsome and California, they got to pay 1.3, $5 million back for church discrimination. So California people should be very happy about that. More of your money is just being thrown away by stupid political policy additions . We've got California's in battled. Governor Newsome, Gavin Newsome has been dealt a fresh blow after a federal judge ordered him to pay 1.3, 5 million over the state's draconian lockdown of 3000 churches over the coronavirus. Now this was written by Tori Richards a couple of days ago, over from the Washington examiner. If you want to go check them out in his capacity, as governor Newsome was ordered to pay the costs and attorney's fees, which means the judge was not happy about this. You know, typically if it's sort of a , a middle, you have a reasonable debates, you know, I'm unhappy. You did this. I'm unhappy you to this judge says, all right, you guys both pay for your attorneys . This was reasonable. You cover your own costs here. No judge says , Nope , California. You're paying for that. You're covering costs and attorney's fees. Cause this is so insane. You're paying their attorney's fees, which is warranted my opinion in his capacity. Okay? The May 14th order told Newsome and all state officials to stop regulating church. Wait , let me back up. The lawsuit was brought by a Pasadena church. It went on all the way up to the United States Supreme court. There was a May 14th order that told Newsome and all state officials to stop regulating church attendance, unless a specific set of infections , statistics occur. He is the worst governor in America for religious freedom said Matt Staver founder of Liberty council, a nonprofit law firm that is representing harvest rock church. The church stayed open during the lockdown. The pastor and parishioners were threatened with daily criminal charges that were up to a year in prison for going to church for going to church. This is the nation's first statewide, permanent injunction against COVID-19 restrictions on churches and places of worship. Newsome is facing a recall from governors who are angry over his COVID policies. So the nation's first statewide, permanent injunction against COVID restrictions. What that means is that the court came down and said, you are not allowed to do this again, permanently across the state. Big win . We see here along the way, what did Newsome do? What did he impose? What , what was the problem? Well, he said that, no, you can't go to church, but you also, you can't sing no singing, no outdoor churches on top of it. And you can't even have Bible studies. All right. So these are all very, of course, focused on religion. These are directly impacting religion, religion, sing religions, do church outdoors, religions do Bible studies and theology studies. So it's different. It's not a content neutral application. It's not saying that everybody can't sing outside. Everybody can't study. It's saying no, it's like, you can't go to your Bible study. You said, well, what, well, what if I want to study geometry? Stop me from studying geometry while they're not talking about banning geometry studies. They're talking about banning Bible studies and you say, well, I have a first amendment, right? That says that you can't infringe on that Newsome did it. Anyways. The restrictions were only lifted when a series of reprimands came down from the Supreme court, but harvest rock saw itself as an essential business has stayed fully open since may 13, May 31st, 2020. Good for them. The ministry also has South Carolina satellite churches in downtown LA, Santa Ana , Corona nuisance COVID restrictions, intentionally discriminated against churches while providing preferential treatment to many secular businesses and gathering Staver said what's important is this ruling is permanent. He can not ever do this again. Good. Good, good, good, good us district court judge. Hey, Zeus, Bernal ruled that restrictions would only be allowed on church gatherings. If child's infections raised arise , 100% statewide statewide cases are 26 per 100,000 or the ICU hospital bed cath capacity falls below 20%. So they set some standards and they said at that point, the state may only impose restrictions identical to other gatherings. So you can start imposing draconian laws that infringe on a fundamental constitutional, right. If it reaches a third, a certain threshold, and we've, we've sort of talked about this framework about analyzing what the government can do when it infringes on your constitutional rights, you've got different levels of scrutiny. And we have what's called a rational basis scrutiny, which is basically saying that the government can impose a law against you. If it doesn't infringe on a fundamental constitutional right, and to have a rational basis for doing it. So if it's like, well, the government, you know, th th this doesn't really impact you at all. And this is kind of a thing that government does. We say, normally there there's a brash legal basis for this. They want to increase that tax, or they want to pass this law that says you can't do that. That's rational. It doesn't infringe on your right to free speech or your right to religion. So we let them do that. But when we start talking about the more important rights like religion, we have to raise that standard of scrutiny up . We have an intermediate level of scrutiny. And when we talk about the most important rights , we have strict scrutiny. That means we are looking at the government and we're saying, Hey, you can not impact this, right? Unless you go through a very rigorous analysis and this needs to be the least restrict the least restrictive rule or law or regulation that you can possibly muster. If we're going to allow this to happen. And it has to be absolutely necessary, meaning there's no, there's nothing else you can do to solve this problem except passing this law. So it's a different standard than just, well, do whatever you want. Government whatever's rational. It's very strict. And so what we're talking about here about these numbers is sort of, kind of cobbling together that standard saying you can only impose these draconian anti-religion rules if it's absolutely really necessary. I mean, if the, if the numbers just get to the point where there's nothing else we can do that you have to do only, then maybe we can consider it well, nuisance . It didn't really abide by that any new public health precautions on religious worship services and gatherings at places of worship, not in the guidance are included. So the state, the state updated its COVID-19 policy. Then on May 4th, after one of the Supreme court rulings, they said effective immediately location and capacity limits on places of worship are not mandatory, but strongly recommended. Additionally, the restrictions on indoor singing and chanting are recommended only, right? So he just changes it Gavin and has always put the health and wellbeing of Californians first resulting in the lowest positivity rates in the country. And over 35 million shots in the arm, more than any others , they said, nuisance settlement solves the case while providing clarity and certainty to the public. He says, so he's he, he lost big time and he's trying to make up for it. Uh, this , uh, this, this is a settlement. This resolves the case while providing clarity and certainty to the public around public health standards that are applicable to places of worship, following recent rulings by the U S Supreme court. Like, like he's just following guidance, you know? Oh, well, I mean, I was just trying to follow the rules and now that I know what they are, thanks to the United States Supreme court. Now I just , um, we're just gonna follow the rules. And I'm glad that we have clarity and certainty. Now, you know exactly what you were doing. You were punishing religious organizations, you were slapping them in the face. Single-handedly talking specifically about banging , banning singing, outdoor worship and Bible studies specifically. It was directed at the religious. You had a vendetta against it. And the Supreme court said you can't do that. So now you're trying to rewrite history, not going to allow it here. My friend, we have, this was the original , uh , this is the final judgment and the permanent injunction. So it is hereby ordered. This is off by the judge , uh , written off by the judge harvest rock church versus Newsome says that the governor of California and all others, inactive concert or participation with him are hereby permanently enjoined statewide from issuing or enforcing regulations issued in connection with the COVID-19 state of emergency that impose any of these restrictions on places of worship cannot do that anymore. Right? And define what those numbers are. We already talked about those, any new public health precautions on religious wars of services and places of worship, not in the current guidance, unless those are identified, cannot be allowed and any restrictions on any religious exercise of singing and chanting also not allowed anymore. So basically everything he imposed, it's all being undone, which is great news. It is further ordered that the plaintiff are declared the prevailing parties. Big win for the church. Defendant is going to pay the plaintiffs 1.3, 5 million for reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The interest is going to accrue in 60 days from the date that this is signed . So Mr. Gavin, Newson my friend, you better cut that check quick. Otherwise you're going to be paying interest. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Can't be retained. Gotta pay that money. End of the deal signed off bond by the honorable very honorable Hazel spur now. Good outcome on that. Some good news, right? Some good news from time to time from the justice system. Well done, judge burnout . Good outcome. Finally, some pushback from our judges. Let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. We have our first one from Sharon Quinney says Newsome is the worst governor period. I couldn't agree more. I mean, I don't live there, but everything I see out of that guy, it's just like, wow. And talk about a fall. I mean, he was, he was, I think getting primed up for president . Not anymore. We have see the veil that says, yeah, those funds should be coming out of nuisance, personal bank account, not the taxpayers. Well, I don't think California even cares about taxes. So do they care? Let me do. Is anybody over there care? I mean, there are people that care, but they all left. They all left . They're gone. They're moving out. So everybody else there can just pay these bills. All they want and just whatever pay for everything we have. Chasse gal says, who does Gavin think he is prime minister of Canada? He's look, Gavin Newsome is like different league. I think, I think what they're doing in Canada is like a whole different ball game. I mean, Gavin Newsome is bad, but what we're seeing out of Canada's like you can't, I don't , I don't think you can leave your house. There's a car . You can't leave your house. And if you traveled to Canada, you have to, I think sit there for 14 days. Oh , I listened to Viva Viva fry over at , uh , uh , uh , uh, on locals at Viva Barnes law. Oh my God . Gosh. That's crazy. All right . We've got, oh, Sox . 71 says more lawsuits were filed. This nightmare would have ended sooner. I don't unfortunately Osaka . I don't think so. I think that our courts and our judges were just as freaked out as everybody else. And they were going to be defaulting with government. Look, remember we have justice. Yes. We have a justice system and we have a legal, you know , system of courts. We have the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch, but they are all part of the same government. Okay. So when they are, we structured it this way. So we have a separation of powers and checks and balances between these three different branches. And we made it three so that you could have two against one and to solve any disputes, kind of a beautiful system , except when all of them are in alignment against the citizenry, which is exactly what happened with COVID. All of the legislators were freaked out. So, you know , they were all, you know , buckling to pressure everywhere, just passing whatever laws they could. Same with governors, even conservative governors. Most of them, they were all playing ball for a long period of time. Only kind of now are we starting to see some real significant pushback? And most everybody was playing ball probably for good reason, because we just didn't know a lot in the early days. But there were situations where we had Tom Hatton here. There was a guy here in Arizona who was the CEO of mountain side fitness hero, filed a lawsuit against the governor here and said, Hey, you are discriminating against us on the same basis here that harvest church said our governor and other people shut gyms down on the basis that there was a lot of people. I don't know , I don't know basis. I guess a lot of people are breathing in there and moving and touching things, which I guess is the same thing that happens anywhere else that you go like a grocery store fruit. I'll pick it up this, putting that down and squeezing that, you know, pop in that whatever. So it's the same concept, but they singled out Jim's well, why was that? And so Tom Hatton from mountainside fitness filed a equal protection claim saying you are treating our business differently than the grocery store right there. Or then the hairstylist, or then that golf course, they're all still open, but you're singling us out. That's not allowed. Well, he lost his lawsuit. Why? Because the gyms are not a fundamental, right? They're not like a place of war , but even, you know, even the places of worship were being sort of nudge decide for the time being due to the courts. So when the government, when we asked the government to sort of correct governmental problems, it's kind of like asking the police to investigate themselves and then find that they did something wrong. The government is going to support itself. If you file a lawsuit against the governor, against the state legislature and you have a good basis for it, and you're in the middle of a crisis, the courts are going to come back and say, listen, I'm sorry, it's a good claim, but I've got a default with the governor. I got a default with the legislature because they're going to set a precedent now that has to affect everybody in society. So, you know, they're all walking a tight rope. I don't envy them in that position. I was very upset with a lot of what I saw a lot of poor leadership, I thought during the COVID era. But you know, we give a little piece , we get people a little bit of leeway on that. And I made a post in locals today about that this morning, you know, we want to give our leaders some, some leeway when they act in good faith and they make honest mistakes. It's when they act in bad faith and when they make mistakes and they don't own it or acknowledge it, or they're outright deceptive about it when it becomes a problem. And when I blow a gasket, so, you know, the , the lawsuits could have continued, but I'm not sure that they would have done much. We have Nadar, bla sear says we got to put something in place. So government neglect and corruption, isn't paid with tax dollars. It needs to hurt whoever committed the act and hurt their own pocket. That's when big pharma gets $1 million fine, but made 500 billion non-profits for the year. It doesn't matter to them. If it isn't proportion to them, it's their pockets. Yeah. This is a great point. You know, and we talked about this , uh , previous, I forget , I forgot what the context was, but there was a , you know, like Purdue pharma and a lot of these big pharmaceutical companies, the people who were pushing and peddling the opioids all over the place that killed my brother and many, many other people in this country, you know, they got sort of investigated and they got penalized and they got charged with crimes and they got convicted and all sorts of stuff. And it's like nothing. It's like a couple million dollars here and there it's tip money for these people. It's the cost of doing business. And it's very unfortunate, but it's all part of the S it's all part of the system, right? These, these big corporations, they just funneled the money right back to the politicians who keep the Griff going. We have Sharon Quinney says, don't forget that one of the principle aims of Marxism is the elimination of religion and the replacement of worship and of, and loyalty to God with worship of and loyalty to the states . Yep. Is the red godlessness of Marxism. It's the worst we have want to know, says Rob in Oregon, curfew is still on. We have a strain of COVID that comes out after 10 or 12, depending on the business. Yeah. That's a , that's an interesting new strain, you know, it's, it's, it's weird. It's like only certain areas like churches, it really affects you in churches, really affects you in gymnasiums. Also just gets like crazy wild after about 10 o'clock at nights . COVID COVID time. COVID wants to party there nine hours out there and they're going hog-wild so you have to be safe in your home. Like a good little peasant sheep. Thank you for that. So I'm sorry to hear that and want to know, I can't believe that Oregon is still on curfew curfew right now. It's May, 2021 wild stuff. All right. All of those great questions came over from watching the watchers.locals.com . As you know, we are totally demonetized here on YouTube. So if you want to support the show, the place to do that is@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com . I appreciate it. I try to add more value over there by posting stuff. And I'm trying to sort of increase that a little bit, but I'm also really excited about some of my other projects, like the crypto channel and some of the other things that we're working on. So if you want to support the show, that's the place to do that. Watching the watchers.locals.com really means the world to me. I want to welcome two new people who are in the process of doing that or have already done it. We have rock steady is in the house. Welcome rock steady, grateful for your support. And I'm glad that you joined us. Same with you there F Nick AAF. Whew . It's not like a little Nick, like in a medium Nick it's Nick AAF Hart . So welcome Nick, glad that you're here with us. Great questions from those of you who are on the board. You know who you are, you keep the show lively and well, and I really appreciate it. If you want to sign up at locals, you can get a lot of good stuff, including a copy of my book, which is down there at the bottom left. It is called beginning to winning how to fight your case and succeed in the criminal justice system. You can download a copy of the slides that we went through. You can download a copy of my impeachment party document, as well as my existence system document that we heard somebody working on today. It's available for you for free. If you support us over there at locals, we share links throughout the day. I posted a nice , uh , what did I post today? I don't know that it was nice, but I did post something today about COVID. Okay . Because we can talk about some things over there that we can't talk about on this channel. So I wrote a little text thing, so go check that out. If you're interested in that, we also have a monthly meetup coming up. We had our last one May 22nd last weekend, but we have our next one coming up June 26. This is available for anybody who is supporting us over@locals.com. Totally free. A lot of fun. We had a good time and we have another event coming up Saturday, June 12th. This is also for free for local subscribers. It's called law enforcement interaction training. We're going to be talking about how to deal with the police. So I'm still putting the finishing touches on this, but I think it should be fun. Hopefully I have my technology figured out, but I want you to come and join it. Cause I want to start doing more of these things. We were talking about locals, like a community. We should sort of be acting like it from time to time. And so , uh , I appreciate all of those of you who are helping us to build that every single time that we sort of move somebody off of, you know , maybe sort of relying on the big tech off of YouTube, off of Facebook, off of Twitter, we're kind of nudging everybody to migrate to different platforms. And every time you do, it's like one new brick in the nice structure of , uh , a better place, a better community. And we , we really do mean that , uh , appreciate it. So , uh , that is it for me. Quick reminder, couple other new channels down below got a new crypto channel that we just talked about yesterday. The IRS is trying to hack into your wallets. So they actually put out a request for information. They're looking for security experts so that the IRS can build a sort of a crypto hacking team that they can crack into your wallets and steal all your cryptocurrency. So that video came out yesterday. If you want to check that out, a lot of fun going on over there. Also a lot of new videos are coming out on our Arizona law channel. So I know most of you of course are not charged with crimes in Arizona. But if you happen to know somebody that first and foremost, we would love it. If you send them our way so that we can have the opportunity to help, but they may also be interested in that channel where they can learn about Arizona criminal cases. We have a whole great team of people here at the RNR law group. We're located in Scottsdale. We offer free case evaluations. We can help with any type of criminal charge in Arizona. Things like DUIs, misdemeanors, drug offenses, felonies, traffic offenses, old criminal records clearing up mugshots, restoring rights, right? To vote, possess a firearm. There's a whole list of things that we can do. We're super passionate about it, and we would love the opportunity to help. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who does need some help, we would be honored and humbled. If you sent them our way, it would really mean the world to us and my friends. That is it from me for the day we are going to be right back here. Same time, same place. Tomorrow is going to be at 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM for that one Florida man out there and all of the rest of you on the east coast. Thank you so much for being with us today. Have a tremendous evening. Eat well, sleep well, I'll see you back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.