Supreme Court Orders, Miami Concert Shooting Updates, FBI Agent Eduardo Valdivia Murder Charges​

The United States Supreme Court issued two new opinions today and set the stage for future rulings – we review. We learn more about the shooting that took place at a rap concert in Miami last week, including updates from law enforcement regarding the investigation. An FBI Special Agent is charged with murder and a Pentagon police officer is indicted. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

🔵 The Supreme Court issues new unanimous (9-0) opinions in cases involving tribal police and the credibility of immigrants – we review.​
🔵 In Garland v. Dai, the Court held that the presumption about credibility in immigration proceedings created by the Ninth Circuit is invalid.​
🔵 In United States v. Cooley, the Court finds that the tribal police have authority to detain and search non-Native individuals passing through a reservation.​
🔵 Jonathan Turley recaps the political landscape with court packing being openly discussed amongst democratic politicians.​
🔵 Democratic Senator Blumenthal (D-Conn) warns the court against ruling on Roe v. Wade.​
🔵 Updates in the Miami-Dade mass shooting as police release new information, including surveillance footage of the shooters.​
🔵 Miami-Dade police find 100s of casings in the shooting that left 2 dead and 21 injured.​
🔵 Police Director Alfredo “Freddy” Ramirez was speaking when a grieving father interrupts to address the crowd.​
🔵 Review of the surveillance footage outside El Mula, located at 7600 Block of Northwest 186th Street was hosting a performance with local rappers.​
🔵 Three individuals in masks and firearms jump out of a vehicle, open fire, and leave in a matter of seconds.​
🔵 Last week, FBI Special Agent Valdivia was indicted by a grand jury and a warrant was issued for his arrest.​
🔵 The FBI says they are aware of the matter and are cooperating but that they “do not believe there is evidence to support these charges.”​
🔵 Another grand jury indicted David Hall Dixon, a Pentagon Police officer, for an incident last year where he allegedly pointed a shotgun and discharged pepper spray at a homeless woman.​
🔵 Pentagon Force Protection Agency spokeswoman Jacqueline Yost said they are reopening their investigation into the case.​
🔵 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 to schedule a free case evaluation!​

Otherwise, don't forget to join

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers alive. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. 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, hope everybody had a

Speaker 2: 0:58

Nice, lovely long weekend. Spend a little

Speaker 1: 1:00

Bit of time reflecting on some of the things that are important to us and our country really. And, uh, got, got a little bit of time away from politics in there as well. I know that I did. And we're back though. We're ready to rock and roll. We've got a lot to get into the Supreme court came out today. We've got two new opinions that we're going to go through. And in fact, they're not even contentious, not even something that we have to even fight about. They they're unanimous. That means every single judge voted in favor of the final disposition. We have two of those, which sort of reminds me of something that Joe Biden was talking about. My friends called unity. Are we there while we're going to find out we've got two nine to zero opinions that came out from the Supreme court, one involving immigration, one involving native tribal police that we're going to talk about. And we're going to check in with Jonathan Turley, Jonathan Turley, as we, you may or may not know, is a constitutional scholar, somebody with a lot of brilliance when it comes to these issues. And he's noticing a very interesting trend happening here with the Supreme court, with these nine zero opinions. We want to see what he has to say about it. And then we've got some warnings from the Democrats out there. If this Supreme court touches even thinks about touching Roe vs. Wade, there will be repercussions coming. We were going to hear from Senator Blumenthal over from Connecticut, who is laying down what this battle may look like here in the near future. Then we're going to change gears. We're going to talk about that mass shooting that happened last week. Remember this one coming out of Miami, very incidents, very interesting, tragic unfolding. We saw that there was a rap concert that was taking place late last week in Miami. And there was a group of, I think guys could be individuals could be females in there that came upon the concert, jumped out of a vehicle, fired off a bunch of rounds into the crowd. As people were leaving the venue and something like 21, people were injured, two people are dead. Then they just hop back in their car and left. So the Miami Dade is out. Now they're offering tens of thousands of dollars for information about this case. They released some footage of these perpetrators, alleged perpetrators jumping out of the car, rushing towards the scene and the very little that we can gather from that they found the vehicle. It sounds like a throne, I think in a river. And, uh, the guys who, who did this, who were responsible for it were completely covered up. So they had masks on. You could only, they look like they were very COVID ready. Actually can't even see anything through there. And, uh, you know, hopefully they find those guys cause something happened here that was tragic. You want to make sure that there is justice. So we're going to talk about that story and see what is going on. And then we're going to talk about what's happening with the FBI because we have a special agent. Somebody with the last name valve Divia is now being charged with murder, an FBI agent, a special agent, not just a regular agent, you know, a regular FBI agent as special agent is now being charged with murder. So we're going to go through that story. Doesn't happen, happen all that. Often, apparently this involved, uh, shooting somebody in a, in transportation, on a, on a, uh, subway or something like that. So we're going to take a look at what's going on with that story. And then we're going to talk about a Pentagon police officer who also got indicted for using a shotgun in a pepper spray against a homeless woman. So we've got a lot to get into today. Want you to be a part of the show, if you're interested, you can do so by going over to watching the watchers.locals.com, which is our separate little platform there where we share content and we connect with other people and we say this a lot, but you know, every single time that we have somebody sort of leaving the big tech platforms and helping these other newer platforms build, you're helping literally put a brick in the, the, the new structure that is going to wash away big tech. Hopefully now let's get into the news one more time watching the watchers.locals.com. We also have some links to some other channels down below. I started talking crypto having a lot of fun with that on a separate channel down. We've got a lot more, a lot of Arizona content coming out on our RNR law group channel. Then we have some lives, a non-life stuff on my second channel. So go check all of those out, down below, and now let's get into the news. All right, enough, Rob. Let's get to it. All right. Get to it. All right. I'm going all right. Supreme court out today with two new opinions, we're going to talk about those. Everybody's sort of scratching their heads a little bit with the current Supreme court, because we were expecting a lot of volatility. We were expecting sort of a bloodbath. We had Amy Coney Barrett. That's on there. We have Gorsuch. We have Kavanaugh. We've got all these conservatives. And as we know now, the, the balance of power on the Supreme court has tipped a little bit from a sick from, from a more even balanced. When we had Ruth Bader Ginsburg on there where it was five for now, because Ginsburg has been replaced with Amy Coney Barrett, the balance is six three. So we've got six conservatives. Supposedly it depends where you want to throw judge Roberts on there. And then we've got three liberal judges, but today we got two nine to zero opinions. It was supposed to be like this conservative wrecking ball going out there and just enacting their patriarchal, you know, heavy hand across the entire country. But that really happened. And I want to start off, we're going to go through these two opinions, nothing really groundbreaking in these two opinions. You know, these aren't anything that, that we're all gonna sort of, you know, fight over. And they're pretty even not controversial as we can gather from the nine to zero opinion, right? It's kind of obvious that these are the outcomes that they should be. But I do want to go through them quickly just to kind of show you how this works, because we're going to get into a situation very soon where it's not going to be nine to zero anymore. Okay. These are sort of the warmup cases. Supreme court, okay. Nine and oh nine and oh nine and oh, look, America. We can work together. Okay. You don't need to pack the court. We're getting along here. We're moving justice along quite nicely. Then we're going to see, oh, we've got Roe vs. Wade coming up on the docket. And so when there is a division there, you're going to hear both sides, screaming from the fences that America is crumbling, that justice doesn't work anymore. And that the United States needs to suddenly reform the court by packing the court and what they're trying to do now, I think both sides, the conservatives and the liberals to say, Hey, listen, uh, we, we can, we can sort of make this thing work just a watch. So we're going to go through both cases that came out quickly. And then we're going to take a look at what some of the Democrats are saying about packing the court, because they're sort of the prime movers here. The conservatives, they kind of have control of the court. They have six judges up there relative to the Democrats three or the liberals three. So the Democrats really here have a lot of Mo motivation, a lot of enthusiasm about reforming the court. They've already got the white house. They've got the Senate, they've got the house of representatives. That's not enough though. So they want the Supreme court like any good political party would, and I'm not faulting the Democrats for that. The Republicans would be doing the same thing if they were in the same position. So what we're trying to do now is just kind of flush out what the Supreme court is doing. It's sort of the last battleground state or battleground constituency, or the last battleground area of our government that we're going to be focused on until the 20, 22 elections. And so let's go in and start by taking a look at what Jonathan Turley has to say. Here he is. He says here on his blog, which I would definitely recommend adding to your must read list. He says today, the Supreme court issued two more unanimous decisions in Garland versus dye and United States versus Cooley. He says, this follow, this follows two unanimous decisions last week. And this is the weekly, I'm sorry, what did I just do here? Let's see here. The weekly decision last week, the display of unanimity is notable given the calls of democratic leaders to pack the court. Yesterday, I wrote about the heavy handed campaigns that might backfire with the justices. He says, as we await important and likely divided decisions on issues like abortion, chief justice, John Roberts, and his colleagues seem to be sending a message that the court is not so rigidly ideological as democratic members and activists suggests. So he said, what Turley is saying here is that the court can play nice. Okay. Traditionally, we're used to this, you know, bloodsport in court and in our, in our judicial system where sides are killing each other, but here it's unanimous. And he says it was, we had to unanimous today, but there were two unanimous last week too. So what the heck is going on here? And he's saying, it sounds like the court is sort of showing their cards. It's just flushing out that we can work together, that we don't need any dramatic court reform here. And just, you know, let us do our job and things will continue to work as they should in the Garland case. So here, Jonathan Turley gives us a little bit of framing of what we're about to go through with these two cases. He said in the Garland case, the court ruled again unanimously to reverse the ninth circuit in an opinion, written by Gorsuch on the rule that the immigration in, in immigration disputes regarding credibility of non-citizens testimony, they're sort of talking about this presumption of credibility. So when you're going through the immigration process, there is there, there is a well, we're going to get there. We're going to go through the, through the case itself. Let me show you what's happening in Cooley, in Cooley the court unanimously ruled in an opinion by Brier that a tribal police officer has the authority to detain temporarily and to search a non native American traveling on a public right of way. So we've got two cases, one involving immigration. First one that we're going to talk about is the Garland case. And we're going to talk about the, yeah, we're going to talk about Garland first Garlin is the immigration case. And in this one, we have Merritt Garland who is representing the department of justice. He's the attorney general. You can see here versus dye, right? Which is this person with this last name here. And so this is being filed out of the Supreme court of the United States. You have a notice here that says, this opinion is subject to formal revision. And so here we have just the basic sort of intro paragraph says the ninth circuit has long applied a special rule in immigration disputes. The rule says that in the absence of an explicit adverse credibility, determination by an immigration judge, a reviewing court must treat the petitioning aliens testimony as credible and true. So we're talking about when you have an immigrant, who's coming into this country and coming through the process, we don't know anything about that person. And so when they start telling us stuff, the question becomes from our perspective, as, as you know, let's say Americans who are running a country that wanted to run properly. We have people that we don't know where they're coming from, who are trying to either immigrate illegally or legally into the country. They're going through immigration proceedings. We don't know who this person is. And so we got questions about it. You know, who is this individual? Where are they coming from? Do they have a job? Do they, you know, they have kids, do they have any needs? Are they going to be a, a net benefit to the country or a net drain on the country? And if so, how do we distinguish what to do with that person? Right. We have a lot of people right now coming across the border and causing a lot of problems for the country. And I want to discuss this with as much humanity as possible. I have a lot of heart for those people. I think that anybody willing to sort of pick up their kids and their family and Trek, thousands of miles to be here obviously has a lot of love and a lot of intention to be something, you know, be a part of something. That's pretty amazing in my opinion. But w w what we're talking about is once they're in the justice system, what happens, they're going to be telling us a lot of things. And as a judge, as somebody who's helping them through the system, we have to ask ourselves, how do we know what they say is true? Are they telling the truth? Is this honest or dishonest, or what are we supposed to do with this information? Because we know that people have a tendency to bend the truth, or to communicate in a way that is not honest. And so what they're talking about is the presumption. When somebody comes into the United States and tells us something, what do we do? Do we say, well, we're going to presume that everything that you say is a lie, or we presume that everything you say is going to be true. So what we're talking about here is the ninth circuit said that there was a sort of a rule that everything must be interpreted as being credible and true. We can see here, at least 12 members of the ninth circuit have objected to this judge-made rule. And we granted certiorari to decide whether it can be squared with the terms of the immigration and nationality act. So we have this sort of rule that says, well, unless we have something that says explicitly that what this person is telling us is not true. Then we're going to treat this as credible and true, which was sort of the, the rule sounds like that the ninth circuit set up, they said, if they come and they tell you something we're going to the default here is that we're going to believe them. We're going to deem that to be credible and true. Unless we hear something contrary to that. And the Supreme court came out in an unanimous fashion, as we can see here, decided, Nope, that's, that's not actually how we're going to do it at all. And we've got all of them, all nine voting against that. So voting to overturn the ninth circuit. So you can see here, right? I don't even need to go through the list because it's everybody and we've got, you know, ordered by seniority. So of course we have the chief justice and then it work. It works its way down to our two new additions in Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett down here, judge Gorsuch wrote this opinion. Of course, Gorsuch was a Trump appointee. And so let's take a quick look at what is happening in this opinion. So in each of these cases, we have a foreign national who appeared before an immigration judge said that he does not want to be returned to his country. We have, this person has had to determine whether he committed a disqualifying, particularly serious crime based on his prior conviction. So we have the immigration court. It says it considered both the probation report that was issued at the time of the conviction, as well as his own testimony. There was a serious domestic violence type of proceeding that happened, which included an ed admission that he hit his girlfriend, but allegedly did so in defense of his daughter. So relying on, in part, on the version of events in the probation report, the court held that Enrique is, was ineligible for relief. So he appealed the bureau of immigration affirmed in it being DI's case. He testified that he and his family had suffered past persecution by the Chinese and expected future persecution upon return. Uh, Mr. Dye initially failed to disclose it. His wife and daughter had both returned voluntarily to China since a company to him, to the United States when confronted dye told the real story of why he remained in the U S the court found that his testimony undermine his claims and denied his relief. So on appeal, the court affirmed Mr. Allen Rica's each sought judicial review. In each case, the ninth circuit noted that neither one of them made explicitly adverse credibility determinations under the immigration and nationality act. So we've got two people who are here in the United States. They want to stay here. We've got one guy who is, uh, Al Al Korez and recast. And so he is sort of being questioned. They're, they're trying to send him back to where he came from. They don't tell us where that was from, but I would guess just based on, on the name that is probably somewhere in south America, so QI or north America, that sort of in Mexico and the Southern, uh, central American states. So if he, he was here, he's involved in a domestic violence incident. He's also got an admission that he's, he said that he did in fact engage in this and he was doing so in defensive his daughter. So he makes these claims, the court says, oh, it's the domestic violence offense. Can't keep you here for that. That's a disqualifying offense. And so we gotta, we gotta send you back. Same thing happens here with Mr. Dye, Mr. Dias is a Chinese national says, Hey, I'm in the United States. I'm telling you, I am giving you the statement that if you send me back to China, I'm going to be persecuted. I'm telling you that, that, that is my honest statement. And the immigration court says, yeah, but you said that also applied to your wife and daughter, and you sent your wife and daughter back to China. And if you were so concerned about persecution, then, well, why'd, you send them back. So we don't buy your persecution story either. And Mr. Dye comes back and he says, well, Hey, what does that have to do with? I told you that I would be persecuted the fact that I sent my wife and daughter over to China. That is not anything that, that would go against my credibility. That's not anything that would undermine what I already told you. And based on what the ninth circuit court of appeals has said, you have to give me the most credibility. You have to say that at absent, any adverse, explicit, contrary information that you have to believe me, that's what the rule. And so now we're taking this up to the Supreme court. And these two people are saying, they're trying to throw us out of this country without following the rule that says that they should believe us first and foremost. So what does the court say? Let's continue on with this analysis. It says, held the ninth circuit deemed true or credible rule cannot be reconciled with the immigration statute. Ninth circuit rule has no proper place in reviewing the court's analysis. They say that the ina provide, which is the immigration naturalization act. It says that it provides a reviewing court must accept administrative findings as conclusive, unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. So there's sort of weaving in here. What it looks like is another area of law. So they're referring back to this quote administrative findings, which they're pulling from this case here, Vermont Yankee nuclear power versus the defense council. They say judicial proceedings in cases like these do not constitute appeals in which the rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal applies here. There was only one appeal from the IGA to the BIA. Alright, so this continues on. This makes sense. So here they give us some analysis for Mr.[inaudible] and Mr. Di, they offer an alternative theory for affirming the ninth circuit. They say they were entitled to the presumption of credibility because of their appeal. They, uh, in their appeals, they are entitled to relief because no reasonable adjudicator is obliged to assume their credibility could have been found against them. In other words, they're saying the rule says that we should be afforded the, the, the presumption that we're being honest and credible and truthful. That's what the rule says. They're saying here, that they told their stories and that they listened to them. And that sort of what they told about the domestic violence offense or about the persecution in China. That's not a new enough to overcome that presumption. The law says, we give them a strong presumption. When he told us a little bit, the court said, well, in this case, then you, you told us something that means we can't give you relief, but they're saying, well, that's not enough. It shouldn't be strong enough to overcome the presumption. We got one more slide on this. The presumption of credibility on appeal under the ina is rebuttable. Okay? And the ina contains no parallel requirement of explicitness. When it comes to rebutting, the presumption review in the courts, they say the circuit court considered the possibility that it was rebutted. The BIA expressly adopted the decision. Let's see the presumption of credibility applies with respect to credibility. But the ina express[inaudible] found that the presumption express, he requires the non-citizen to satisfy the trier of fact on credibility persuasiveness and the burden of proof proof. Even if the BIA treats a non-citizens testimony as credible, the agency need not find such evidence persuasive or sufficient to meet the burden of proof here, the ninth circuit erred by treating credibility as disparate, positive of both persuasiveness and legal sufficiency. This was signed off by Gorsuch and delivered for eight unanimous court. Right? And so, you know, when you have a nine oh verdict like this, and it sort of goes against immigrants, right. To immigrants who wanted to be here. And they had what they thought was a pretty good claim. We had the ninth circuit court of appeals that said specifically, Hey, this is the rule. As long as there's nothing to contradict what they say, we got to believe him. They followed that rule, goes up to the Supreme court and it goes nine zero. Nope. It's not what it says. In fact, you're allowed to go and, and rebut that presumption. You're allowed to say, yeah, I mean, we can have a conversation about it and we were butted it and they they're allowed to talk about which they, and now the whole, now the whole cases is sort of resolved. This whole thing is result. We don't even have to talk about it anymore. And it was nine to zero. What happened if this would have been a six to three ruling? I wonder if there would have been more, you know, more people upset about this. Maybe this would have been framed as an anti-immigrant racist, whatever, because it goes against immigrants. But now it's nine zero. So we have a lot of cohesion. Okay. Which is back to my point about the court. Immigration's a big issue. We've got a lot of cohesion around this issue. Let's go to the next case we have us versus right. We're going to go through this quickly again. I know this is heavy lifting, kind of reading through some of this, not my favorite thing to do, but it is, I think, important to what we're talking about here. So let's take a look here at the October term from 2020, this is a slip opinion, which means this could be updated as you'll note here. The syllabus says, when it's feasible, we're going to give you this stuff. But keep in mind, this could be subject to change later on. So this is from the Supreme court of the United States. This is Cooley versus the United States. And this is a little bit more of an interesting case. This involves some criminal law. So let's talk about this. It says late one night we have officer James Saylor, he's of the Crow police department. He approaches a truck parked on the highway. It's a public right of way in the Crow reservation in the state of Montana. So we have an officer, we have somebody who has his truck parked on a highway. It's on us highway two, one, two United States highway, going through the Crow reservation out in Montana. And so, uh, you know, the reservation is its own land. And we have a third road going through the reservation. We have officer James Saylor now go in and approach the vehicle, the car that is parked there. Okay. Just framing that out. Sailor spoke to the driver driver is named Cooley. He observed the Cooley appeared to be a non native and had watery, bloodshot eyes, sailor notice two semi-automatic rifles laying on his front seat, fearing violence, sailor ordered Cooley out of the truck and conducted a pat down search sailor also saw in the truck, a glass pipe and a plastic bag that contained methamphetamines, additional officers, including an officer from the federal bureau of Indian affairs arrived on the scene in response to sailors, call for assistance. Sailor was directed to seize all the contraband leading sailor to discover more meth. Sailor took Cooley to the CRO police department where federal local officials further questioned him, subsequently federal grand jury indicted, Cooley on drug and gun offenses district court. Granted Cooley's motion to suppress the drug evidence ninth circuit court affirm. They said that a tribal police officer could stop and hold for a reasonable time. A non-Indian suspect if the first, if the officer first tries to determine whether the suspect is non-Indian and of course, of doing so finds an apparent violation of state or federal law ninth circuit concluded that sailor had failed to make that initial determination here. All right. So let's frame this and then let's see what the court has to say about this. So first and foremost, we go back to the, to the scene. And what we're talking about here is really a jurisdictional issue. We have the, the Indian reservation. We have the bureau of Indian affairs officer who shows up on scene. We have a number of other officers. We have this gentlemen Cooley who is not a native American, and he is traveling through land that is with, in the jurisdiction of that reservation. So we've got a question. Well, what, how, how does this, how does this all work? Can the reservation law enforcement agency, exercise, jurisdiction and authority and control over that individual? The district court said, no, they can't. And they actually did the motion to throw out all of the drug evidence that was seized by those police. So they filed, what's called a motion to suppress the evidence. They said, okay, they charged him. They're moving forward in court. They got some good defense attorneys who said, we're going to file a motion to throw out that evidence. Why? Because that evidence came from an unlawful seizure. It came from an illegal search. The, the, the officers who showed up at the scene didn't have jurisdiction over Cooley because he's not, uh, native American. They have jurisdiction over native Americans there, their reservation police officers, and he is not a native person. So what the district court in the ninth circuit said is what the police should have done is made the stop, held him for a reasonable amount of time to, to determine and whether or not he also, you know, bring somebody else in to determine whether or not he also violated some other laws and then prosecute him accordingly because they didn't do that. Right. They're saying they broke the law and everything that came as a result of that, that violation of the law should be suppressed. It should be thrown out. We call this fruit of the poisonous tree. You can't have that. So as a penalty to the government, because they violated his constitutional rights and prosecuted him outside of their lawful authority to do so because they were in breach of jurisdiction and the penalty goes against the government to make sure that they don't do that again. The penalty for them is, you know, we can't show what are we going to charge them a fine for violating your constitutional rights? No. So we say you can't use that evidence. We know that you're not gonna be able to prosecute him. That's too bad. That is your penalty for violating his constitutional rights. And so that's, this was standing, the ninth circuit court of appeals agreed, said, yep, throw that evidence out should have done it differently. What does this court say? And again, this is a big, a criminal law case, right? This is a criminal law issue. The court says held unanimously. April lease officer has the authority to detain temporarily and to search non-Indian persons, traveling on public rights of way, running through a reservation for potential violations of state or federal law, right? So they are reversing again, the ninth circuit and the lower level district court. And once again, this was unanimous. They say a general proposition, the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of non-members of the tribe. As a general proposition here is how they voted. Once again, nine to zero, we got judge Briar over here who is typically on the left, as you can see from seniority, we've got, this is sort of, uh, liberal. This is right. Sort of conservative. And that's interesting how they have this ordered. Yeah, this, this is accurate. I would say, I would say certainly I think this is, I think this whole thing is accurate. We have Briar here who is the author of the opinion. We have a, it looks like no dissenting opinions because this was of course unanimous. Let's go in and see what's happening here. The court identified in Montana, another Supreme case, two exceptions to the general rule. And remember the general rule here is that sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to non tribe members. They said, but there are two exceptions to that rule. The court identified to the second, which almost fits like a glove here. They say a tribe retains inherent authority over the conduct of non-Indians on a reservation when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the health or welfare of the tribe. Right? So they're pulling that directly from another case us versus Montana. And they say it, if it's going to potentially impact the health or welfare of the tribe, you're allowed to exercise your authority. The conclusion that sail is sailor's actions here fall within the second exception is consistent with our cases. Similarly, the court has held that when jurisdictions try and punish an offender outside of the tribe, tribal officers may exercise their power to detain the offender and transport them to the proper authorities. This looks like they're sort of buttressing that claim the court doubts the workability of the ninth circuit court standards, which would require tribal officers first to determine whether a suspect is non-Indian. And if so, to temporarily detain a non-Indian only for quote, unapparent legal violation, which would be a problem, right? Because that would be an unlawful seizure. So they're saying, all right, so let's, let's go ahead and just say, we just applied what the ninth circuit said. Let's just say that that was the rule we say, yep. We're going to adopt that rule. And their rule says, well, you're supposed to detain that person. And wait until some other officers who, who is, who is non-native can come in. Somebody who's certified, let's say on, you know, us law to, to then make a determination about whether or not that person was in violation of us law. And so now you got to sort of hold that person there. And if that person's not in violation of the law, is that a breach of that person's, you know, due process, right? Is that an unlawful seizure, a violation of his constitutional rights? So the court is flushing some of this out Cooley's arguments against recognition of inherent tribal power. Here are unpersuasive. They said that this case does not raise that concern, that due to a close fit between Montana second exception and the facts here, the court sees nothing in existing federal cross deputization statutes that suggest that Congress wanted to deny tribes that authority. And they say here is it's a real short, short intro here, syllabus to the contrary existing legislation and executive action appear to operate on the assumption that tribes have retained this authority. Here's justice Brier, delivering a Lido, wrote a concurring opinion, but it was unanimous across the board. And so when the judge writes a concurring opinion, usually what that means. I mean, they agree with the holding. They agree with the final outcome, but they may disagree with the Mecca, how they got there, right? So we all want to go to Disneyland, but some of us are going to go through San Diego. Some of us are going to take the[inaudible]. Some of us are going to come from Seattle down to Disneyland. And it's just about how we get there. So we now know we've got two, nine to zero opinions from the Supreme court. And this, this last one, I think actually it kind of makes sense, instinctually. I mean, think about it this way. If you are driving through, you know, in Arizona, we're very spread out municipality here in Phoenix, we've got Scottsdale, we've got Mesa, Gilbert, Glendale, Peoria. We're spread out massively here. And so when we drive from one end of our city to another, we're going through like three or four different cities. So what w th the analogy would be that only Scottsdale police don't have the authority to only stop you and prosecute you in Scottsdale. They do this all the time. They actually do these probably in your cities. Do they call them task forces where they'll have these, uh, these big conglomerates of a lot of different agencies all work together. We have these DUI task force all the time, and you'll get Chandler Gilbert, you know, uh, Phoenix, all of them all work. One area in Arizona. They call it the east valley taskforce. So they'll go out there and just all band together and patrol the east valley. But what ends up happening is you may have a Gilbert cop who stops somebody in Scottsdale, or a Scottsdale cop who stopped somebody in Gilbert, and they still have authority to prosecute those cases. Now, the difference here being that they're both in the United States, they're both us citizens, and we sort of give, or, or, you know, have agreed that there are, uh, you know, sovereignty for, for native Americans on tribal lands that are a little bit, you know, sort of, uh, protected from our overlapping laws. And so it's, it's a little bit different, but it makes sense. You know, you, you, you sort of wouldn't want a situation where you have people going on to Indian reservations and committing crimes, knowing that they might be outside the purview of tribal law, right? Like you have to think about some of these perverse incentives that would be created if you said, yeah, that's fine. You can do that. Then you'd have a bunch of people going onto the tribal lands and committing a bunch of crimes, knowing that their law enforcement would not be able to necessarily prosecute them until they brought in somebody else who was another officer. So you have these overlapping layers of, uh, of law enforcement. And it just makes sense. You want law enforcement, I think, to be able to not be so geographically locked. So the point here, less about the holdings, more about the fact that we've got four unanimous opinions from the Supreme court that came out very recently. Let's check back in with Jonathan Turley and see where he wants to go with this. He says, this is an extraordinary litany of unanimous decisions and could in part reflect an implied message from the justices that this is a court that is not nearly as rigid and divided as suggested recently, Briar who just authored that last opinion, warned against any move to expand the Supreme court. He also rejected the characterization of the current court as conservative or ideologically rigid Brier, who is on the left. We thought we saw him. This is Briar right here. He wrote this opinion. Briar was swiftly denounced by figures like cable news hosts, Medhi Hassan, never heard of him who called him naive called for his early retirement. That didn't work out with judge Ginsburg, folks, judge Ginsburg. Remember they were, there were people screaming at her. You got to retire. Get off the bench. She didn't go anywhere. Didn't work out well for him. Maybe they should change their tune with a Briar here, demand justice, a liberal group calling for court packing had a billboard truck in Washington the next day in the streets of Washington warning. Briar retired. Don't risk your legacy. No. Do not like that at all. Briar retired. Don't risk your legacy. Oh, no. I mean, that guy might stick on for another 20 years. Demand justice once employed white house, press secretary, Jen Saki as a communications consultant and Sakhi was on the advisory board on one of its voting projects. Oh, that's good stuff. All right. We're going to wrap up with Turley. He says other justices have announced such court packing scheme shortly before she died. Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly warned against the move. She said, quote, if anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that one side saying when we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges. So we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to Ginsburg spoke out against it. Nevertheless, democratic members have continued to call the court to use Joe Biden's words out of whack, due to the conservative majority Senate, majority leader, Chuck Schumer, and more recently Blumenthal have warned conservative judges of dire consequences for the court. If they do not rule with their liberal colleagues on high profile cases expected in the next two weeks. And we're going to be talking about all of this, of course, but they're really, really concerned about Roe vs. Wade. And we're going to talk about the language that Blumenthal uses. He's from Connecticut in the next slide. Let's see what AOC has to say though. She says that she not only endorsed the court packing scheme, but when, even further to question why we should listen to just nine people, such important questions, she appeared to question the very basis of Marbury versus Madison, which, uh, which is the, uh, the Seminole case, the most important case in our, uh, constitutional jurisprudence, this case laid the foundation for the Supreme court in our constitutional system, AOC challenge. Well, but she's yeah. AOC challenged the role of the court in overturning the laws she questioned, uh, just functionally the idea that nine people that a nine person court can overturn laws, that thousands, hundreds, and thousands of legislators, activists, activists, and policymakers drew consensus on how does the current structure benefit us? I don't think that it does because it's a court because the court has to gauge the constitutionality of what you do. Miss AOC, you're the legislature. And you're a legislator in that division of our country. So what you need to do is pass the laws that you think are lawful and that follow the rules of the constitution. And we don't have to take your stinkin word for it. That's what the judge in the court is for you pass the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws. The judicial branch tells us whether the laws or constitutional or not. We need that as a proper check and balance on our constitutional system here. And it's really annoying to me that somebody who is one of the most loud, let's say congresspeople in the United States with the most followers, the most other people who don't know how any of this works of all of the elected people out there belittling the court calling for dramatic overturning of the, the, the current structure of jurisprudence. Apparently she's talking about Marbury versus Madison not, oh my gosh, it's so painful. All right, let's take a look at what Blumenthal here has to say. Blumenthal now is getting in on this mix. This story comes over from the hill Roe versus Wade blow would fuel expanding the Supreme court. So Blumenthal here says that, uh, the Supreme court's conservative majority this week agreed to hear a Mississippi case, which would dramatically narrow abortion rights by allowing states to make it illegal, to get an abortion. After 15 weeks of pregnancy, Blumenthal comes out, he's on the Senate judiciary committee. He says it will inevitably fuel and drive an effort to expand the Supreme court if this, and listen to his language, if this activist majority betrays the fundamental constitutional principles. All right. So let's just break down that statement right there. Right? Fundamental, constitutional principles. So, as he's talking about Roe vs. Wade, because if he's ever read Roe vs. Wade you'll know that the court really didn't concoct that case by looking at the constitution or pulling anything out of the constitution. Do you know how we know this? Because if you can read it, you could, if you'd like, you can go take a look at the constitution. Doesn't mention anything about abortion anywhere. And it also doesn't grant the court, the authority, or the ability to just go and concoct entirely new statutory schemes, and then cram them down the throats of the rest of the country. There is a government body that's supposed to do that. And that's okay. It's called the legislature. They're allowed to do that all the time. They can take whatever garbage they want and cram it down our throats all day. And we have to sit here and like it, okay. We have to. Okay, fine. Cause we vote for those people. There's a check and balance on that. We get to vote them in and vote them out. And that's part of the system by design. So if we don't like the garbage, they're feeding us that day, we just say, all right, well, we're not going to be net again. Next, next cycle. That's for sure. Thanks for playing. You're gone. We don't have the ability to do that with the Supreme court or with our judiciary. So when our Supreme court now comes in and does what the legislature does, like for example, telling us that we have a new structure for how abortion works in this country, in the first trimester, can't touch it. Second trimester. You can sort of regulate abortion. Then in the third trimester, you can actually regulate it, right? You can actually do some things in that third trimester. And many scholars are going constitutionalist for saying, Hey, where did this third, this, this, this sort of this three trimester or this, uh, this, this, this three phase abortion approach come into play Supreme court because that sounds, it's like a legislative bill that the legislature should have passed. Not you guys, but for some reason did that anyways. So I don't know where they got the authority to do that because the constitution says that that should be done by the legislation, uh, legislature. And here Blumenthal is saying that the court somehow was training fundamental constitutional principles. I guess if they're trying to address this in any way, shape or form that they are violating the constitutional principles, but I don't know where, what, what he's talking about because they're not in there. It says it's already driving that movement. He said it doesn't mean that a Congress led by Democrats would immediately be able to add justices to the court, but he suggested would add momentum to reform efforts at a minimum quote, chipping away at Roe vs. Wade will precipitate a seismic movement to reform the Supreme court may not be expanding the Supreme court. It may be making changes to jurisdiction or requiring a certain number of votes to strike down certain past precedents. Oh, no one knows for sure. When the Supreme court will hand down its decision in the Ms Mrs. Case, but it's widely expected to hear arguments after it convenes in October, that could set up a decision next year. You know what also happens next year? The midterms, oh, isn't that convenient? Wonder if this will get pushed out beyond that, or if this will be a new issue that we're going to kill each other over near the end of next year, let's take a look@somequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. If you want to be a part of the show, that's the place to do that. First up in the house is software nugget. What's up. Software says Roberts is not really that conservative. Yeah, that's true. That's why I kind of needle Roberts all the time because of that. Love the avatar there. Einstein is in the house. We got an, a dog and a doorbell. A Sears is here says, so what do you, I think it says about our lower courts that the Supreme court has had these unanimous decisions. I feel like the lower courts think they're allowed to rule based on politics rather than actual law, because what's the disincentive. How would you feel about a three strikes you're out for a judge. If a judge gets three of her cases, his or hers overturned, they get fired for not following the law because that's basically what an overturning the decision is. Right. You know? Yeah. Judges do not like to be overturned. Uh, they, they, it's not a, not a feather in their cap. Okay. This is not, it's not a something that they appreciate at all. So when you take a case up on a appeal and it comes back down, if the judge gets a little bit, uh, you know, get slapped a little bit, you kind of learn a little bit more, I would say, gravitas in that courtroom. And, uh, it, it carries weight. So, you know, three strikes and you're out. I'm not real sure how you would gauge that. I would say that rule probably already kind of applies. I mean, honestly in practice where if a judge has, let's say three ethical problems or two or even one ethical problem, oftentimes that's enough to get a judge. Booted standards are pretty high for four judges. But I think, I think the more interesting part of your question in Nadar is about just ruling. However they want. I mean, the Supreme, the ninth circuit, as we saw from today's two opinions got overturned twice today, two times. So you go, all right, maybe that court needs a, you know, a little, you know, SCOTUS, backhand over there and say, Hey, get it in order. What do you guys do? But we'll see where it goes. Uh, there was another point I had on this lower courts. Yeah. So my, my other question on the immigration case was did they not read the Montana versus us case? Because the Supreme court said, Hey, yeah, we know that's the general rule knuckleheads, but there are two exceptions to that. Here's the case. We, we ruled on this case in us versus Montana many years ago. So there's two exceptions that one fits do your research better. Before you write opinions, we have seen an unseen says, can we take a moment to enjoy the slow clap for the fact that people from both sides came to a unanimous decision? We can't even all agree that it's okay to like beer. I know, I know it's a, it's a momentous day. You know who I credit for this moment of unity, Joe Biden, that was in his inaugural address. My friends here, we are six months out halfway through the year and we have unity. It lasts. Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Joe Biden. We've got. Courtney says these unanimous decisions are a little troubling to me. It's a signal of unity, but the only kind of unity possible in this ideologically, radically divided country would be for what I call traditional Americans to capitulate completely to the communist element who have taken over all of the institutions of power. What do you think? Well, you know, I, you know, I'm not S I'm not, first of all, Sharon, I love that. That's beautiful. It's, it's very dystopian and I love it. I love that. Uh, I was watching some dystopian. I was trying to find a good dystopian, uh, TV series this weekend. I just couldn't do it, but you know, I'm not. So, so sort of fatalistic about that. I think that there are a lot of very interesting things happening. I think that there are, are a lot of, to my audio just cut out test. Okay. So that, uh, they're sort of bending the knee to a lot of the things that we talk about here on this channel, woke culture. We see, you know, we see sort of CRT coming around. We see a lot of talk from our government about, you know, investigating domestic people, whatever, whatever side of the aisle you're on, they're calling them domestic violent extremists. I don't like that for, uh, the theory that they're going after the Trumpers or anybody really. I mean, anybody on either side, if, if they're going to just say that, oh, you're all extremists now because you questioning the government. That's a problem. Now, if you're a, you know, a somebody who's throwing Molotov cocktails at court buildings, we already have crimes for that. But we're seeing where this is going. We're seeing how, you know, using the political behavior with all of the bureaucracy to achieve their political ends, which is a scary, scary thing. Fortunately, like I said, I think there are some interesting things happening with technology in other spaces that are going to facilitate more of these slow is[inaudible] of American institutions, which is a good thing. Okay. What's been happening really here for the last, most of my lifetime has been the consolidation of a lot of the institutions of power. We've seen it most thoroughly in my lifetime with the big tech companies where it went from, you know, uh, a lot of different competing entities to kind of the big three. Now you've got sort of, you know, Facebook, Google, and Twitter, and they kind of control everything. And it took a lot of time, years, almost my entire life for that consolidation to happen for Amazon to go from a company that was losing millions to a company that is billions and billions and billions, it takes, it takes a lot of effort to get there. And so to see a transition sort of have to unring that bell a little bit. It's sort of like when you, when you twist your back or you have a sore muscle, it kind of feels like that muscle gets really knotted up and it happens quickly, right? Just grip. There it is. And what we need to do is unwind that sort of work that out a little bit and with technology and with a lot of the, the pendulum swing the other way as a result of what we just went through in 2020, I think there, I think there is still a little bit of room for optimism and I'm going to keep, I'm going to keep it, uh, that glass half full for a little while longer. We have Zuck is in the house as Indian tribal law. It seems like a crazy, crazy sliver of law. I imagine there's a fair bit of historical precedent. Most people don't know about it, strange that the U S recognizes another government within the border. Do you know about the origin of why this was allowed or to have another government authority in the U S or do you know what the nature of the first few cases are the legal history there? So I don't, you know, not enough that I would feel comfortable sort of opining about it. I did take a class in college when I was a political science, uh, undergraduate. That was all about, uh, Southeastern Southwestern United States. And obviously I grew up in Arizona and I love it here. And I've got a lot of history here. And so I know a little bit about, I would say some of the historical tribes and a lot of the development of Southwestern United States from that, from that perspective. But I will grant you that tribal law is an entirely different wheelhouse. Uh, we had a lawyer at our firm, uh, who, who actually was licensed in that court, but didn't spend much time over there and they have their own unique process for all of that. And so I, I really can't speak too intelligently about it. Uh, but of course, you know, the, the original, uh, divergence there was, they are, you know, they've been recognized to be sovereigns okay by our government. And so we've granted them that sovereign authority. Now, you know, many people, uh, have a lot of criticisms about how that all unfolded. And I have no love for the, the lack of humanity that has existed throughout American culture, American history, but, you know, that's a topic for another day. It is, it is very fascinating. And it is, it is interesting to see how these things interplay with one another and how we're sort of, uh, w w we have a lot of reservation land here in Arizona, a lot, you know, it kind of surrounds us, uh, especially here in the valley. And so there's a, there's a lot of things, interesting things that happen there with that interface that sometimes I forget that the other parts of the country may not have. All right. So good questions. All of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you so much for your support over there really does mean the world to us. And so we're going to change[inaudible], we're going to talk about this shooting that happened. And in Miami last week, we didn't talk about this last week because it was all happening quickly, but we're going to talk about it. Now, Miami, the police now have some information about the shooting that took place at the rap concert that was taking place last week in Miami, this was posted by WP LG, local, 10 news. They say that two people were killed and at least 20 others were injured. After police said that three people opened fire on a crowd outside a county banquet hall. So we're going to go through this story a little bit. This story is still unfolding. It's kind of surprising at just how much information we don't have yet, but this was a situation where there were a number of people attending a rap concert. There was in Miami, and as they were leaving the scene, there was a, uh, vehicle that pulled up upon them. The, the, the crowd and three people jumped out of the vehicle, opened fire into the crowd. As we know, from this new story, two people dead. Now, I think the number is 21 total were injured. The people responsible for the shooting jump right back in the car and took off. Police ha almost have zero information about them at this moment in time. Let's see what we do know, because it has been a couple of days from local 10, little bit of backstory here. You can see that this was published originally on May 30th. So a couple of days ago, and then it was updated yesterday on May 31st at 2:48 PM. And we still have some more updates. I think that came out today. So we're going to get to those first and foremost, Miami-Dade police, they're investigating a deadly mass shooting. Two people dead, 21 injured. They are describing this as a targeted act silence. Hmm. And you're going to see what I mean when we get to the video. So quick content warning on this. We're not going to show any footage of anybody dying or being shot, but we are going to see the scene of the three people jumping out of the vehicle and then sort of running before opening fire. We don't see any of the gunshots, but we do see them get back into the car and then take off. And the reason I want to play that is because of course they are looking for information about this to piece together. What, and here they say that this is a despicable act of gun violence said Miami-Dade police director, Freddy Ramirez, a cowardly act. According to police, the shooting took place after a birthday party for a local rapper is a, B, M G a B M G spitter, whose real name is Courtney. Paul Wilson police confirmed that shots were fired back at the three shooters. And about 100 shell casings were found at the scene. Well, we know now from the evidence that's coming out, that there was a return fire from the patrons. When these subjects began firing, there was returned fire. There's multiple casings throughout the scene that establishes that. However, we don't know at this time, who were the, that were returning the fire. We don't know that yet. So it sounds like total madness. We have this, this birthday party for a rapper, a BMG spitter. Who's there. We have these three people who hop out of the vehicle, shoot shoot towards the crowd at this party, at this concert event. And then we have people there just firing back also. So it's just a shoot out. It's a shootout is what it is here. We can see from law and crime. This was posted yesterday, yesterday afternoon, Memorial day, it says Miami police released a video of the banquet hall, mass shooting, suspects, distraught father tells son's killer. They will burn. So we've got two clips that we're going to go through here. We've got one from the officer who is the Freddy, uh, person. Who's telling us a little bit more about what they have uncovered. And then we see this grieving father sort of come into the scene and start yelling at the cameras before police sort of escort him out away from the press conference. So we got that video. Then we have the other video that I described previously about the, the individuals jumping out of the car and then firing and then running back into the car. So let's take a look at some more background here. The Miami police, there we go. The Miami police department released a video on Monday, which is, uh, which was yesterday showing the suspects in early Sunday, shooting the left two dead and more than 20 people injured. That video shows three mass suspects exiting a white Nissan Pathfinder and running towards El Moola bank at home where they allegedly fired indiscriminately into a crowd and murdered two people gathered for a rap concert, according to law and crime. According to investigators, the establishment was hosting a scheduled event and several patrons were standing outside. The subject's SUV approached the front of the business. Three suspects exited the vehicle and began shooting indiscriminately into the crowd. Suspects entered the SUV and fled the scene judging by the timestamp on the video shooting took place in a matter of seconds. And you're going to see what I mean. It goes very quickly. Here is what was posted on Twitter today. I think today or yesterday, Miami-Dade police release of the video surveillance. We are releasing video footage of the vehicle. Some subjects involved in the shooting that occurred in Northwest Miami date on May 30th, 2021 left two deceased and 21 others injured. Anyone with information is urged to contact at crime stopper three oh five immediately. And so, uh, I'm, I'm, uh, we're going to play this year here. This is Miami Dade police department. And again, you know, quick content warning, cause we know what happens after that, but there's nothing really, uh, gruesome or too violent about this. You just see three people jump out of a car, then jump back into a car. But I want you to just think about the callousness of this. Think about what, what you have to sort of be doing as a human to think that this is okay to just get out of a car, just start shooting people. Okay. You know, not even somebody that you're mad at, just everybody. Well I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm mad at that guy. I don't like him. He's having a birthday party. I wasn't invited. So just gonna shoot everybody who's there, right? It is. So cold-blooded that it makes your skin crawl, but this is what, this is the reality of our world. So let's take a watch of what is happening here. All right. That's it. So from about five 30, five to five 42, they're out of the vehicle, right? So there's the car and let's take a look at. So we've got three people, right? Obviously we've got a getaway driver. So we've got, I mean, it's you can't, you can't even hardly tell almost anything about the, now this person looks smaller relative to the other two. So maybe a child or female. This person's also smaller. This person's obviously bigger, but he's also in the forefront of the shot. Here's the vehicle. Now my understanding is that vehicle was just torched. Let's see if we can watch this one more time, just so we can get a better glimpse of what happened here. All right. So 29 they're out at 29, 30, 33 34. So back in the car in 11 seconds and then they're off, right? So about 11 seconds, probably two, three of actual gunfire, a lot of people dead or two people dead. A lot of people injured. The video shows two suspects exiting the vehicle from the back seat. One more from the passenger side, front door, after the shooting, each suspect enters through the same door that they intentionally left open. It could be the case that a fourth person was the getaway driver though. Police did not said as much the shooting suspects or believed to be males victim's ages are from 17 to 32 17. We have Clayton Diller, 26 reportedly. One of the two people who was killed his distraught father, Clayton Dillard, C Dillard, Sr condemned the killers on Monday during a press briefing said, you all killed my kid. The grieving father cell said, yelled, you must burn. You're going to burn. You hear me? Y'all took something that was given to me as a gift. Whoever did this will burn Miami-Dade police director, Alfredo Freddie Ramirez was speaking at the time that Dillard cried out for justice. Ramirez had just slammed the killers for quote targeting individuals. And at the same time, hitting innocent people that have nothing to do with their beef ruining families, harming mothers who were here today. Yeah, it's terrible. So here is stop the violence. This comes from WSB and news. The MP MDPD director says that is the pain that affects our community right there before you victim's father breaks down during the briefing. Here's some more information if you know anything about it. So here it is. I know this volume is a little low individuals

Speaker 3: 56:06

And at the same time, hitting innocent people that have nothing to do with their beef, ruining families, harming mothers who are here today. And that's the pain that you see that is the pain that affects our community right there, right before you. That's why together all of us, we must work harder to bring justice to these families who are crying. As you hear right now know that the Miami-Dade police department will not stop. We will bring justice. Our community is United[inaudible][inaudible]

Speaker 1: 56:44

All right. So obviously a grieving father, a lot of heartache there, you know, the community, it's a frustrating situation because there's sounds like zero leads. Let's take a look and finish the article. Families of the two other victims were speaking, Angela Gelica green said her son had been shot in the stomach. She was one of the loved ones waiting outside the emergency room. He called us frantic saying he had been shot, that it hurts. And that he loves us. My husband was like, no, stay with us. Her son described the shooters as guys wearing ski masks and hoodies. You never know what it's like until you have something jerked away from, you said, Chad Harris, father of a 19 year old girl she's in surgery right now. We're just praying, praying for all the victims, praying for all the families. I am at the scene of another targeted and cowardly act of gun violence said MP. The director, Ramirez, where over 20 victims were shot and two have died. These are cold blooded murderers that shot indiscriminately into a crowd. We will seek justice. My deepest condolences Ramirez said that the$100,000 reward was offered by Marcus Limonus host of CNBC series, the profit. So take a look here. What's going on. This is Alfredo Freddy Ramirez. Number three on Twitter. This is the director of the police as grateful for this contribution. This is our community. We are struggled to get stronger together. We need our country to step up with information. If you know something you can remain anonymous, just call us. So Marcus Limonus, he's offering a hundred thousand dollars reward to help authorities in my hometown, Miami Dade arrest and convict the suspects, pass it on. He also says, thank you, ATF, Miami for adding another 25,000 to the reward where so many victims and families were sadly affected by the senseless gun violence, your support is genuinely embraced. So they are now out there and I'm asking for help in the community. So that is good news. All right. Let's see if we have any questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com does not look like we do. For some reason, my technology does not look like it is sinking up right now. So that is okay. We're going to just continue on and move forward with the next segment. All right. So last segment of the day we've got, we're going to be talking about the FBI. Oh gosh. We haven't talked about the FBI in a while. Have we? So let's take a quick look at what is going on here. An FBI agent, a special FBI agent has just been charged with murder. Very interesting story. This case has been being kicked around now for some months, happened back in December of last year. And there is a new evidence now that is going to be going forward in a court of law. Let's take a look at this story over from CNN. Here is the picture of the FBI agent charged with the attempted murder of a man onboard in Washington, uh, Washington DC area subway system. This was posted over at CNN written by Chris Gina Karega and Whitney wild posted the day June. So this is the FBI agent, a weird case, right? This guy has been around here for a long time. They say he's an FBI agent. He served his community in dangerous and sensitive, sensitive assignments for the last 10 years. We do not believe there is evidence to support these charges. We believe that once we get the opportunity to have a fair evaluation, he's going to be acquitted. So we know that the Metro transit police, they completed an investigation last year, December 21, they turned over all of the evidence to Montgomery county state attorney for review. Then a grand jury indicted him on Thursday. Warrant was issued on Friday. FBI said in the statement that the bureau is aware of the recent charges brought by Montgomery county, which is the Maryland state attorney's office. They're fully cooperating. They're going to be following this up with an internal review. If he's convicted, he faces up to 30 years in prison for the top charge. So let's take a look at, figure out what is happening here. So this is why he was charged. He was, she shot another passenger during a confrontation aboard a moving subway train just outside of Washington. He was indicted on attempted murder and other counts, big charge, right? Attempted murder is not something to scoff at. And his name is Eduardo Valdivia, 37. He was also charged with first degree assault, reckless endangerment, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony stemming from the early morning encounter. Six months ago, aboard a Metro red line train passenger who was struck, was hospitalized with gunshot wounds, but survived. So it's an attempted murder charge. Val diva was booked into Montgomery county detention center on Tuesday morning. That's this morning, according to online records in a jail official after turning himself in, he's expected to appear in court later in the day, no trial date has been set. Law enforcement officials they've described his actions as an extreme overreaction to a stranger with a history of aggressive panhandling who confronted the agent, but did not physically assault him. There's been no indication that the man was armed. The criminal case against Valdivia is the second in recent months involving a federal law enforcement officer in Montgomery, a jurisdiction that's just north of Washington with about 1 million people. We have this other guy now. So the first, the first FBI agent sounds like something that you probably have seen often when you go and use transportation, you hop on a subway, hop on a city bus driving around. And I used to ride the light rail here in Arizona all the time. I used to ride it to law school. And I used to take the city bus when I was in high school, all, all over the place. And you start to see the same people on there. A lot, a lot of the time, the same people asking for money, same people kind of just hanging out on the system, just doing laps around the city. So it sounds like this special FBI agent went in there and saw this person, some sort of altercation happened and he pulled out a file your arm and shot him and charged with attempted murder assault, a reckless use of a firearm, reckless endangerment, and some others. Now what's interesting is this came out. So this came out of a grand jury proceedings where another officer was indicted out of the same county for a separate case, a whole separate set of circumstances, but out of the same county, same prosecutor's office. And so whoever the reporter was here that said, you know, we're covering this case. They just got a second one, buy one, get one free kind of we have on April 29th, we have an off duty Pentagon police officer. This guy's name is David Dixon. He's indicted on two counts of murder. And one count of attempted murder. What prosecutors say, Dixon shot at three men in Tacoma parking lot as they drove away and pose no danger to him. So this guy is a police officer at the Pentagon. Okay. The Pentagon is obviously an important place. Dixon's lawyers at a bail review hearing on Thursday. He said, the officer acted in self-defense after the car had driven him and schedule he's had driven toward him. He's scheduled to be on trial on September 27th. So they drove away and pose no danger. They're saying, he's saying that the car had driven towards him. And so he had to shoot in order to, uh, defend himself. Allegedly both incidents were captured by security cameras in the parking lot in the Dickson case and inside the train in the Val Divia case. So wouldn't it be nice to see those two videos. We've got full footage of the FBI agents shooting that guy, and then we have the homeless person. And then we have Dixon here shooting the people in the vehicle, apparently driving away, away from him. He says differently since launching their investigation of the agent after the December 15 shooting, the FBI and Montgomery county state attorney's office have said little about how and why the shooting transpired other than indicating it was a verbal exchange and confrontation preceded. The gunfire most comprehensive account was recorded a nine one one call that was released by the county officials after a public record. So you have two police officers, two law enforcement officials that are being charged with some pretty serious crimes murder and attempted murder. And we want to get some information about what happened here in the Montgomery county state attorney's office, being a little bit quiet about this, not telling us really what happened here. Why is it important that we know what happened here so that we can make sure that they are being accountable for their actions? Because what oftentimes happens here, as we know the details are kept behind closed doors. We don't learn about these things until many months after they've happened and as happened here. And then when the formal inquiry starts there's investigation, that takes place. Officers go through their formal reprimand or whatever procedure. Everything gets swept under the rug. Nobody knows about it right back to business. Well, now these are in the news. These are serious charges. These are attempted murder charges. And when journalists and people want to get more information about what happened here, they got to go and get it through a public records request. And they're being very quiet about everything that happened. According to a nine 11 call placed by another passenger who saw the encounter. The agent was confronted by a man and warned him to back away. The man instead prepared to fight him. According to the call, the FBI agent said, move away. I'm an FBI agent back away. The caller said the other gentleman didn't drop his bag, approached him to fight him. The agent fired two or three rounds. According to the witness who called nine one one, the account did not disclose what was said before the shooting. This is what happened with the Pentagon officer. So this was back April, 2021. So just about a month ago, Pentagon police officer accused of shooting three men now in a Maryland parking lot, they drove away. He's indicted on two counts of murder, single kind of attempted murder grand jury also indicted Dickson hall on assault counts for an unrelated incident last year where he allegedly pointed a shotgun and discharged pepper sprayed a homeless woman. Okay? So, uh, this guy got indicted on two different counts, one for an incident last and then one for more recently taken together all of the charges on Thursday exposed Dixon who was off duty at the time of the incidents to a possible sentence topping 200 years for one police officer an attorney said, he's yeah, plead not guilty to all of them. Mr. Dixon said his, his attorney has been honorably serving the public for 20 years, including eight years in the military with tours overseas, he will vigorously contest these charges. The main case against him stands stems from an encounter at 5:00 AM. On April 7th, he was leaving his seventh floor residence at the Tacoma overlook condominiums in his civilian clothes, headed for work at the Pentagon, according to police and the dark dark parking lot. He knows the car with no headlights on. He went to check it out. Of course he did. As he drove up, police said he saw a man, one man outside the car, trying to break into another car and confronted them video surveillance. According to the documents captured what happened next with all three men now inside their car, they drove off and Dixon filed fired several rounds from behind the fleeing car. According to the documents, quote, no longer presented an immediate threat that would have justified the use of deadly force. One of his rounds entered the upper back of Dominic Williams, 32, who was in the backseat, according to police and other rounds entered the upper back of James Lionel Johnson, 38 he's in the front passenger seat driver. Michael Thomas drove them to prince George hospital center as they lost consciousness. So, uh, this guy over here, David Hall, Dixon just starts, you know, blessed, um, through the, through the back of a car that's driving away. So this him right here, uh, facing multiple charges, several different incidents in the documents released in April. The Tacoma overlook condominium board of directors said it sent a copy to the Pentagon new charges filed in the lobby case, prompted the Pentagon to take a look at it. We have Jacqueline Yost over here, who is their spokeswoman. She declined to say whether the agency had indeed received and reviewed the video. First indictment on Thursday, charged Dixon seven counts, two counts of murder counts of attempted murder. First degree assault in the shooting of Thomas three counts of the use of a handgun during the commission of a felony for counsel related to Thomas, those charges could be merged. He could be sentenced, could not be sentenced for both counts. So we got some, uh, I've got some, uh, law enforcement officials going through that, the justice system themselves. Isn't that interesting. Let's take a look@somequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. First up is best. Amy Anto says very first thing a new president should do in 2024 is fire the top 25 FBI officials corruption. They will never change unless until all the agents are scared. Yeah. I mean, honestly, I don't even. Yeah. You know, I don't want to anger the FBI or anything like that, but they're basically, I don't know what they're doing, uh, uh, w go on their Twitter and you can see what their efforts are focused on. Grandma who went in through the Capitol building. And that's about it as far as I can tell. Last question of the day comes in from Jeremy.[inaudible] says aren't the laws for the use of deadly force based on officer's perceived threat. How is it possible for anyone to argue against another person's perception in the heat of the moment? Yeah, it's a great question. Right. And so, uh, Jeremy, what we're talking about here is sort of the difference between a subjective interpretation of events and an objective interpretation of these events. We spent a lot of time in this Shovan trial talking about this and sort of trying to flush out the difference between the two, if you are a, an officer at the scene, right? You've got a lot of abilities to perceive other things that people who are watching through a cell phone, don't see, and can't interpret. And so what we do is as, as, as the law is we identify what we call the reasonable person, a reasonable officer, a reasonable lawyer, a reasonable doctor. And it's sort of supposed to be the objective version of that. We said, okay, if we just took a reasonable person and shoved them in that position, what would they have done? And then we measure their conduct against that conduct versus, and, and yet you sort of have to do that, right? Because how would it be? How could we possibly prosecute people if we applied their subjective interpretation to everything. So like, let let's, let's use a self-defense case. What happens if you are somebody who is very, very concerned about being attacked late at night in a grocery store. And so you're walking your groceries out to your car, you get in the car and somebody says, excuse me. And they're standing right next to you and you go, oh my gosh, they're going to attack me. And you pull out your gun and you shoot them dead. Right? And we said, and we say, well, that's not, that's not reasonable at all. No objective person would do that. Right? There's nobody in this world, no reasonable person in that person's position will pull out their gun and shoot them. And so that person would be charged with manslaughter or attempted murder murder or whatever. Now let's say that we don't use that objective standard anymore. We say that whatever you were feeling, your subjective interpretation of the events is the law that we're going to use. And so that person, man, or woman, whatever gender you want to ascribe that person, if they say I was scared for my life, I thought that that person was attacking me. It was 9:00 PM. Okay. It was dark out. I couldn't see anything. I'm scared to death out here. He came up. I, you know, I didn't know who he was and I thought he was going to kill me. And he said something scary. I couldn't hear it quite. So I shot him. And what if we, as a society said, well, you heard her, you heard from the, from the lady or from the guy scared to death. So they thought she just did what she thought was right. Had to shoot him. And so, you know, then kind of legal system would that, that would that be, everybody would just go around shooting each other and saying, well, I thought he was going to kill me. Sorry, sorry. You know, he cut me off. He deserved it. So we, we, we ascribe this or apply this objective standard so that we have some more concrete rules when it comes to fleshing out these legal issues. And so when it comes to the police, it's gotta be a reasonable standard. Right. They can't just say, well, I was just personally scared. I thought that that bomb was going to kill me. Well, was it reasonable? I mean, was it reasonable for you to think that or not? Cause if it's not, then your use of force is not going to be justified. So good questions. Thank you for all of those that came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Quick reminder. If you want to sign up to be a part of the show you can do. So Angie underscore has done it and want to welcome Angie to the community. The place where you can sign up is down here watching the watchers.locals.com and hello, Angie, thank you so much for joining up and being a part of the crew. Thank you to everybody who asked questions today. Once again, these came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. If you want to join us over there, you can a lot of good things to download things like a copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning can download a PDF version for free, or you can buy it on Amazon. If you go over there, you can download a copy of all the slides that we went through. We'll share the impeachment party documents that's available. You can download a copy of my existence systems, productivity template, share links throughout the day and meet great people. There's a lot of good stuff going on, including our next monthly locals meetup coming up on June 26. We just had one on May 22nd. So our next one is June 26. It's free to all of our local supporters. If you want to join in on that, it's going to be a lot of fun. Also free Saturday, June 12th. So a couple of weeks out, we have our law enforcement interaction training, which is going to be Saturday, June 12th, from 12 to 2:00 PM Eastern time. We're going to do this on zoom and it's going to be fun. I'm actually excited about this. So it'd be a fun thing to do in this format. And I'm looking forward to it. I hope you can join us. And of course, that is for free. Again, if you're at watching the watchers.locals.com. And then lastly, before we wrap up, I've got a couple other channels. I would love it. If you supported us over there down below, we've got links to our R and R law group, Arizona channel. We have a crypto channel. We're talking about some of the watching the Watchers components towards cryptography. So we talked about what the they're doing with regulation and a lot of the interesting things that are happening with decentralization, having fun on that channel. So I would encourage you to go support us there. Couple others down there, if you want non live recorded content and other great links down there. So thank you for supporting us. Lastly, before we wrap up, I am a criminal defense lawyer in Arizona. We offer free case evaluations. If you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who has been charged with a crime, we would love the opportunity to help. We can help with things like DUI, drug offenses, domestic violence, anything, and everything in between any offense. You know, if anybody's been in trouble with the law before we can help, we can clear up old records. We can remove mugshots off the internet, quash, old warrants. There's just a lot of work that we can do to help kind of move things back in the right direction. And so if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who needs a little bit of help and support in this space, we would love the opportunity to speak with them. Make sure that they leave our office better than they found us. And that my friends is it for me for the day. We're going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow for yet another show. And it's going to be at 4:00 PM Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida, man, everybody thank you so much for being here. And I want to wish you a tremendous evening, a lovely restful night's sleep. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye bye.