SCOTUS Saves Obamacare, Garland DOJ Warns Missouri Gun Law, Minneapolis Civil Unrest Winston Smith

The Supreme Court issues new opinions and we review how the Judges ruled in cases involving Obamacare and religious freedom. Missouri gets pushback from the Department of Justice over their new Second Amendment Preservation law. Minneapolis braces for impact as two new deaths occur leading to a potential for more civil unrest.​

And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

🔵 The Supreme Court of the United States issues new rulings today addressing Obamacare and free exercise of religion.​
🔵 Obamacare survives a third showing at the U.S. Supreme court, after Judges vote 7-2 to reverse an appeals court ruling that struck down the individual mandate.​
🔵 Joe Biden and Barak Obama celebrate the ruling, which was reverse based on standing, finding that the states who brought the lawsuit had no legal ability to do so.​
🔵 The Supreme Court sides with Catholic adoption agency in a case involving LGBT couples and the city of Philadelphia.​
🔵 Chief Justice Roberts writes the opinion, finding that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment rights of Catholic Social Services by refusing to contract with the organization.​
🔵 Reporter from CBS News asks Nancy Pelosi about another upcoming hot button issue – abortion.​
🔵 Remember Federalism from 8th Grade? We review a lesson from Mr. Tinkman’s class.​
🔵 Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed a law defending Second Amendment rights against federal incursion.​
🔵 U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice sends a letter to Missouri outlining the feds’ position on their new law.​
🔵 Reason.com reminds us about enforceability of federal laws and how states enable their own governance against federal overreach.​
🔵 Minneapolis has 100 National Guard on standby as new gun evidence emerges in Winston Smith shooting.​
🔵 U.S. Marshals shot and killed Winston Boogie Smith Jr. several weeks ago while conducting a task force.​
🔵 Another woman, Deona Marie Knajdek Erickson, was killed after a man rammed his SUV into a group of protestors.​
🔵 Driver, Nicholas D. Kraus, was charged with second-degree unpremeditated murder.​
🔵 Pictures of the scene as Minneapolis braces for more civil unrest.​
🔵 Your questions from WatchingTheWatchers.Locals.com after each segment!​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

💎 CRYPTO LATEST: https://youtu.be/rjs128IlTHA​

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: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

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

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers alive. My name is Robert Mueller. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. 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 I have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today because we've got a lot to get into. We're going to start off by talking about the Supreme court of the United States SCOTUS, because today they came out with two opinions. We want to get into those. We're going to be talking about Obamacare. So Obamacare, this is the third time that it's been up in front of the Supreme court and it is sticking around. So if you were waiting for the Supreme court to do something useful, well, today is not there. So keep holding tight. So we're going to be talking about that. It was a seven to two ruling, and of course it's going to be based on standing. We talked a lot about that during the election litigation. And so here we are revisiting standing. We also have another case where the Supreme court sided with a Catholic adoption agency. When the city of Philadelphia said, we're not going to contract with you anymore because of your religious stance. As it relates to LGBT adoptions, Supreme court came out and said, no, you know, you got to actually contract with them because they were just exercising their religious freedom. So another interesting case, we got some SCOTUS news that we're going to get to. Then we're going to change gears and talk about federalism. Remember federalism from eighth grade, I kind of did. And I went and I found somebody named Mr. Tillman, who teaches an eighth grade class. And we're going to do a quick lesson on federalism because we got to get back up to speed with this Missouri second amendment preservation case. If you recall, earlier in the week, we talked about governor Mike Parson from Missouri, who actually signed into law, a new bill that basically says if the federal government wants to come out here and interfere with our second amendment rights, we're not going to allow that to happen here in Missouri. And so they sign that into law. Well, what do you know happens after that happens? The federal government doesn't like that. When you tell them that, Hey, maybe you should stay out of our business. So right away, the us attorney's office being spearheaded by Merrick, Garland, we all know him fired off a letter through his acting assistant. Deputy attorney, whomever sent a letter back over to Missouri and said, oh, we're the federal government. You don't don't, you dare talk back to us. So we're going to go through their letter and how they're responding to this. We've got a situation here where it's sort of a states' rights versus federal government rights, uh, or federal government non rights. Remember what the constitution tells us about things that are not dedicated or reserved back to the states. So we're going to have this battle. We're already seeing it go on elsewhere around the country. We're seeing states just sort of periodically just sort of, you know, thumb their noses at the federal government saying, Hey, you're not going to build a border wall. We're going to do it ourselves out there in Texas and so on. So we're going to get into that. And then we're going to talk about what's going on in Minneapolis, because you may not have, uh, heard about this story, but there is a lot of civil, civil unrest that is taking place. Now in Minneapolis, we all thought that after the George Floyd, Derek Shovan a year long, you know, a spectacle, catastrophe, tragedy, whatever you want to call it, it was going to be gone, right? We're going to be done with this. We're going to move past Minneapolis, but that is not the case. There was another shooting that involved the us marshals involving a gentleman named Winston boogie Smith Jr. Shot and killed. So then there were some protests that took place there in Minneapolis. Well, guess what happened when they were congregating and protesting peacefully, somebody rammed their car into the peaceful protesters resulting in the death of another woman named Deanna Marie Nagid Erickson. So then she was killed. And many people are saying the person who was driving that car is a white supremacist, and this is another racial killing. So there's a lot of unrest it's sort of bubbling up there in Minneapolis. And it sounds like some of the officials there are city officials are calling in is the national guard. I think 100 national guard are on standby in case things get a little bit unruly. So we're going to take a look at that and more, we want you to be a part of the show. I invite you to come and do that by going over to watching the watchers.locals.com, which is our community where we do other things. We have a monthly meetup, we just did a law enforcement interaction training. We post links throughout the day. You can download a copy of these slides. You can download a copy of my book all for free, just as part of our supporting us over there. And the real kind of bread and butter is that you get to participate in the show. So there's a live chat that's happening right now. So if you want to ask a question, leave a comment, a LABA criticism, my direction, that's the place to do that over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com and there's some good deals on some other things that we offer here. So I have a gum road.com/robert ruler web address, which is where you're going to find some of my other offerings, things like a law enforcement interaction training course. I have my existence systems courses available there as well as a program for attorneys. It's a mastermind for lawyers and legal professionals that you can check out. There are also links in the description below for my crypto channel, as well as my law firm channel. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who has been charged with a crime, of course, please send them to our law firm. The RNR law group, all of our contact information is down in the description below. All right, so let's get into the news of the day. Supreme court issued two new opinions today that are worth talking about one involves Obamacare. We spent lot of time talking about Obamacare on this channel because it's kind of one of these cases that just kind of just never goes away. And I want to frame out what's happening here. But the, the, the big news is Obamacare is here to stay. This has been it's third time at the doors of the Supreme court, and it's not going anywhere. You know, this is a good example. When the powers that be want something to happen in this country, it gets done. There's nothing you can do to stop it. This was one of those situations. And I want to take you back a little bit down a history memory lane, and sort of synthesize the journey that we've been on with Obamacare. And, you know, this is, this is loose, generally speaking. So, you know, I'm, I'm playing sort of hard and loose with the facts because it's just a general summation of it. But if you recall what happened back when Obamacare was being debated back, when, when Congress was kicking this thing around, it was almost not going to pass. In fact, there was a big election that was taking place regarding a Senator named Scott Brown and the country, the Republicans, the conservatives sort of rallied around Scott Brown to elect him to the Senate so that he can go and be that final vote that sorta changes the balance of power. So that Obamacare never got passed. Well, what happened was it, Scott Brown got elected. Didn't stay there long, but they actually changed the balance of power essentially in the Senate so that Obamacare could not be passed. But what happened was they had already passed a version of that bill previously in the Senate when the bat, before the balance of power had shifted. And so they had a Senate version of Obamacare, they had a house version of Obamacare, and so they didn't actually need to pass it again. So the whole election for Scott Brown was kind of just something that everybody was, you know, excited about for nothing. What they used was the process of reconciliation, which is a budgetary measure where they take a Senate bill, that's a little bit different from the house bill and they just kind of mash them together. And so they can pass that with just a simple majority vote, which is essentially what happened with Obamacare. So then we're called, we're calling it a big deal. This was okay. This is the first time I know many people in America are now sort of okay with the government, telling them what to do. You have to do this. And you have to do that. Many people, you know, sort of remember an era I do when that wasn't the case so much, but now it is you gotta stay home, gotta put a mask on, you know, we're really encouraging you to go get this vaccine. Cause if you don't, you're, you, you may not be able to go do these other things. You know, we're going to see where that goes. And so you've been sort of ordered to do a bunch of stuff. Now, many people when Obamacare passed, we're making this claim, that Obamacare was the precursor to all of these governmental mandates. Why? Because this was the first incident where the government could mandate that you do something in this case, it was to go and buy healthcare. And the rationale there was that if you do not have healthcare and you get sick, you become a burden to society. So now what we're going to do is mandate that everybody buys it. Therefore you have to have insurance, you're going to get medical care and you don't become a burden to society. Well, I remember when Obamacare came out, I was in college and I had to go and try to sign up for it. The whole website was broken. Expenses were very high. The whole thing was a mess, right? It was a broken system. And if you sort of, you know, study the, the origin story of the bill, I think that's kind of the point they wanted to force you to buy a product. Then they knew that these, the, the offerings would consolidate. So if you had 50 healthcare providers, then the next year, you know, a large portion of those couldn't compete, they would have[inaudible] and the co uh, companies would consolidate and you see exactly what you see today, right? You've got, you know, increased premiums. We're still talking about healthcare. You know, how, how many years is it? 15 years later, we're still talking about it. It hasn't been solved. And so the whole system was broken. Now, it got passed. And it got challenged because like I said, this was the first time in the country. That the time, at least something like this, this happened where the government could tell you, come into your home, come into your life and say, you have to buy something. You have to go buy healthcare, right. We've had other sort of, you know, encouragements from the government, but this is something personal that you just have to go do. It's like the first time a government could order you to do something. And so several, you know, libertarians and people who say, well, that doesn't sound right. We're up in arms about this, took it up to the Supreme court and said, can the government actually mandate that you do something one way or the other? And they made all of these arguments, these in these really sort of convoluted arguments, if you're in favor of it. And some, I think very compelling arguments, if you're against a government mandate. And what happened was the Supreme court kind of just came out in a five to four ruling and chief justice Roberts, who was a supposedly conservative judge actually joined in the majority ruling sided with the left wing of the court and passed Obamacare. It said that it, he recategorized, it cakes essentially took this issue that nobody was really making an argument about. Anyways, this mandate portion of the bill, can the government mandate tell you, order you to do something. We all know that now they can, they can tell you to stay home and do whatever they want. Really, you know, previously, this was a novel thing. So that was the big question. And what John Roberts did, chief justice Roberts is he came down and he said, well, we're going to consider this to be attack. So we're not going to say, we're going to say that this is it. It's not necessarily like you have to go buy a product, right? You don't have to go buy something that we're just going to reframe this and just categorize it as a tax. And we know that the TAC would get taxed everywhere. And there's nothing you can do to contest that. So they just took this mandate to go buy a physical product, a service insurance from their marketplace. It's sort of like, Hey, we're mandating you go buy a car. Well, I don't need a car. That's too bad. We think you do. So you have to go get it. Well, what if I don't want to get it while you're going to be a burden on society? Because you can't transport yourself? Well, I don't need transportation. Well, we think you do. And there's gonna be a big problem. If you don't get it, we're going to tax you. And so the government then funnels you into their little marketplace where they've got the control of the marketplace and they can sort of, you know, regulate that to their heart's desire. And, and they, they, they can break the healthcare system. Essentially healthcare system is kind of a disaster. We saw how good it was the last year. In fact, they had, they told us we had to lock you down because of the problems with our healthcare system, that overcapacity, we can't deal with this. We're not properly prepared. We don't have enough PPE and the list goes on and on. So they say that they know what they're doing. They have no idea what they're doing as is plainly evident by the last 12, 14, 16, ongoing months that many of us are living through. So let's go back to now the journey. So the Supreme court comes back out. It says, you are now now mandated to buy this stuff and you have to do that because it's just a tax. And we know there's a long precedent for taxation in this country. Every single tax is justified for whatever reason, because the government, you know, that's basically what they do. So that happens. And then the balance of power starts to shift a little bit. So we see that the Republicans take control of Congress. And so they don't want Obamacare in place. So they start to unring that bell, this happened during the Trump administration and essentially what they did is that mandate that John Roberts said that we all have to endure is now there's a penalty. If you don't comply with the mandate, you, they don't round you up and throw you into jail, but they'll start to assess a penalty. And that penalty will get worse as the years go. By the more and more out of compliance, you are loosely speaking, the worst, the penalty you get. So I said, you know, we're gonna we're w because that is the penalty, the Republican, we're going to just get rid of the penalty. So what good is a mandate. If there's no penalty, it's sort of an enforcement enforceability issue. So you can pass all the laws in the world you want, but we're just not going to enforce them. Okay? It's still, it's sort of like how the marijuana statutes exist right now. It's still illegal federally, but there are many states across the country that are just saying, well, we're legal here. We're not going to enforce your federal laws. If you want to come in and enforce them, you can, the government is not doing that. So it's an enforceability thing. So the government, the federal government says here, you've got to get a mandate. You have to buy this health insurance. If you don't buy the health insurance, we're going to penalize you. The Republicans come in and say, well, we're just going to gut the penalty. There is no penalty anymore. And so then the next question, logically, of course, is if there's no penalty, then what good is the mandate? And if the mandate fails, well, it doesn't the entire bill essentially fail the nuts and bolts argument. If the mandate fails and it should, because there isn't a tax anymore, right? Because there is no penalty. It's a zero penalty. So if it's a zero penalty, then how can that still be a tax? It's not a tax anymore. Then the rest of the bill has to fail. That's the argument it's gone up about three times now and the court, every single time has knocked it down. Okay. And that whole spectacle was for, for this, this bill. Okay. A lot, a lot of effort went into this. So they are not going to allow that to go anywhere. All right. CNBC gives us some background here. Obamacare survives the latest challenge. Supreme court ruled against Texas and other Republican led states seeking strike down the affordable care act in the latest test before the nation's highest court, top court voted seven to two to reverse the appeals court ruling struck down the laws, individual mandate provision. Okay. So there was a lower court. We're going to go into this a little bit in more detail. These are just the highlights. The two of the former president Donald Trump's court picks. We got Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. They joined the majority in rejecting the Republican effort. And again, this is we're going to see, this is not about the underlying tax issue. This is not about whether it's a good idea or bad idea, a good system, broken system. Anything. This is about whether these Republican states like Texas and some of these other entities have what's called standing. So do you have the authority to even bring a claim into our court? Supreme court St. Is going to tell us here in a minute. No, we don't. We don't want to hear from you. You have no ability to file a claim and pin this for a minute. The basis being there is no tax, okay. There is no penalty because it's been reduced to zero. So the pin in that, we're going to come back to that. So what happened today at the end of the ruling, of course, president Joe Biden and, uh, uh, rural, uh, cited this as a major victory, of course. So let's go over to the SCOTUS blog. And Amy, I was going to give us a little bit of a breakdown here, much anticipated decision. She says the Supreme court rejected. Another effort. Justices did not reach the main issue in the case, right? Which is whether the entirety of the affordable care act was in fact rendered unconstitutional. When Congress eliminated the penalty for failing to obtain health care. As I explained, if this is not a penalty, then how is it attacks? Therefore, how could it be constitutional? So they didn't answer that. They just said instead, well, we just gonna vote seven to two. They said that neither the states, nor the individuals that are challenging, the law have a legal right to suit. This is known as standing. Okay. We talked about this back during the election litigation, the courts were saying, well, I mean, you, you can Sue us if you want, but you're not, you're not Donald Trump. So you don't get to file a lawsuit. He can file a lawsuit. Then when Donald Trump filed the lawsuit, then they found a bunch of other garbage reasons why, you know, why his lawsuits should be thrown out for whatever. You know, we, we talked about all the justice, uh, justice[inaudible], uh, uh, elements when we were going through all of that, not going to rehash that here, but justice, Stephen Brier here wrote the opinion to other liberal judges. So to my, your Kagan for conservatives Roberts, Thomas Cavanaugh Barrett Alito wrote a dissent and was joined by Gorsuch. So how does this break down? Let's take a look over here. SCOTUS always does this and they do a nice job. So you're going to see here, we have the left side of the court, which of course we've got, we've got, uh, Sotomayor, Kagan, Briar, and then we've got Roberts over here. So he voted with the left and then we've got, Trump's two most recent appointees here. We've got Kavanaugh member Kavanaugh. And then we had Amy Coney Barrett who basically, you know, flew through confirmation. Cavanaugh's was a little bit more, uh, you know, Rocky, but they're here. And again, they're not joining on the underlying issue. They're just saying standing, there's no standing here. So, and, and, uh, uh, judge Roberts also joined in, we've got Alito and Gorsuch bailing out. So if you look at, by, you know, by seniority, doesn't really tell you much there, but it kind of shows you how the, how the, the breakup of the court is. So let's go through and see what exactly happened here, because I want to explain the standing portion of this. And let's recall again, what the argument is. The argument is that there is no constitutionality of Obamacare. Why? Because it originally the, it was, it was constitutional because it was categorized as attacks. We know the government has the ability to tax. Now that the government has basically wiped out the tax portion of the bill. How can it be still categorized as something that's constitutional if it's plainly not attacks? Okay. So watch what happens because the fact that Congress reduced the tax to zero, as we're going to see is, is the very thing that gives them no standing. This is when you're going to see what I'm saying here, but watch this all right. Unlike the tense, five to four ruling that was issued in a prior case, the court's decision on Thursday was not closed. Six justices joined briars opinion that neither the state, nor the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the mandate. The individual plaintiffs Briar explained. They said that they are harmed, okay, we're sitting there saying, Hey, we're harmed. We have a right to Sue here because they have to pay each month for health insurance to comply with the mandate. Briar says, well, the problem with that argument is that even though the affordable care act tells them to obtain health insurance, the IRS, it really can't impose a penalty anymore. If you don't get insurance. So there's no other government action connected to the harm. So there's no standing. So you see what happens. So, because Congress reduced the penalty to zero, the court is now saying there is no harm to you people. So you can't Sue us. What are you complaining about? Well, we say the affordable care act says that we have to go get health insurance. And they say, yeah. So what if you don't go? What if, what if you don't go get it? They say, well, nothing. The IRS can't impose a penalty on me because the Republican Congress gutted the law. So the court says, okay, well then what are you suing for? You can't come. You can't come in here and Sue, you haven't been harmed yet. So, so, you know, th th th the, the next of course question would have been, well, why didn't the Supreme court take the case? Or maybe, maybe they're are, they're going to argue that they did when there, when there would have been standing. So they accepted the case to hear it. And then, and then throw it back out and say, there's no standing, all right, let's put, let's finish this. And then we'll do a little bit of analysis on it. Briar continued nor did it. The states have standing to challenge the mandate. So if you're, if you're an individual person, you can't Sue anymore because you don't have standing because the penalty is zero. Also, if you're a state, you also can't Sue. Although they alleged that they are injured because they're residents, they say in an effort to comply with the mandate, they enroll in state sponsored programs like Medicaid. It costs the state money. Briar emphasized that the states have not shown a link between the mandate, which is unenforceable and the decision to enroll. So he says no standing at all. So, so my point here is that the law can just be finagled. However you want it to, you know, you can, you can call it a tax, pass it, reduce it, got the tax out, invalidate the constitutional underpinnings say, well, it's not really tax anymore. So rather than the Supreme court saying, oh, it's not a tax anymore. So we're just going to invalidate the law. Right. They can't do that. So if somebody else sues and says, okay, well, since it's no longer a tax, we're going to Sue, we've been harmed by this bill. They say, oh, no, you haven't been harmed actually, because it's not a tax anymore. So going to leave it in play. So it's just like a boxer just dodging everything right there. No, we're going to do everything humanly possible to make sure that this stays in place and there's, it's not going anywhere. So if you're betting on Obamacare, evaporating, it's, it's every single element of this Institute, power structure, Republicans, Democrat, what, doesn't matter, it's sticking here. And it's probably just going to continue to snowball. As we all know, right? In his dissent Alito described the court's ruling as the most recent chapter in our epic, affordable care act trilogy. He lamented that the ruling follows the same pattern as installments one. And two says what the affordable care act facing a serious threat. The court has pulled off an improbable rescue. Alito would have held that the states have a right to challenge. The mandate he would have then ruled that the current version of the mandate is unconstitutional. And as a result, the rest of the ACA should also be invalidated, which of course is the right legal justification, because we all know that in the current version of this, if you sort of add all of the courts positions on this together, they can't find that it is still constitutional. So they have to throw it out on standing. Cause they don't want to hear the case useless. All right, next up, we've got, now here's Barack Obama. Now he's very happy about it. He says today, the Supreme court upheld the affordable care act again, right? Third time he's right. This ruling reaffirms what we've long known to be true. It is here to stay. Barack Obama is right about that. No question about it. So Supreme court, let's see if they get, you know, another case, let's see how they do on this one. So Supreme court here sides with a Catholic adoption agency that refuses to work with LGBTQ couples. So we're going to go through this one. You know, this one is a little bit more complicated because there were two issues that were sort of intertwined in the, in this one, whether they were going to revisit a prior case called employment division versus Smith. So we're not going to really spend time on that issue. The bigger issue here is really about the relationship between a lot of different moving parts. We've got the city of Philadelphia and they are in a position where they're facilitating adoptions. And there is an adoption agency that is affiliated with the Catholic church called the Catholic social services organization. And so of course they've got a religious affiliation, but they help place children with adoption families or foster homes, or, you know, uh, uh, whatever that's called these days. I don't mean to be pejorative there, but it's, it's a complex relationship. So we have LGBT couples now who are wanting to work with the city. We have the city now who may be trying to contract with Catholic social services. And you can see where there may be a conflict of interest, maybe, uh, you know, religiously speaking or, you know, ethically or morally or whatever between all of those different parties. People have different beliefs about what's appropriate with adoption. And now you're talking about bringing the government in and helping to fill, facilitate these different relationships. So in Philadelphia, then what they said is essentially we're going to prioritize the LGBT couples and adoptions with, with them. And we're not going to contract as the city of Philadelphia with the Catholic social services because Catholic social services is discriminatory towards the LGBT couples. So basically what they're talking about is the Catholic church was not able to contract with Philadelphia because of a religious exercise because of a religious belief. Catholic church now says, Hey, that's discriminatory. We're just working in accordance with our religious beliefs. And the fact that you're essentially voiding a contract with us is problematic. You are infringing on our rights. You're giving contracts to everybody else, but not to us just because we're Catholics. So let's take a look at what's happening here. The Supreme court now is siding with the Catholic adoption agency and it's not even close. It's a unanimous opinion. If I'm not mistaken, let's take a quick look and make sure yeah, it is. So we're going to go through this Supreme court sides with the Catholic adoption agency that refuses to work with these couples. So the Supreme court on Tuesday, it was a unanimous defeat to the LGBT couples at a high profile case, overwhelmed whether Philadelphia could in fact refuse a contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says religious beliefs prevented from working with same-sex foster parents. So obviously that's a provocative thing. People have strongly held beliefs on that topic. So this is of course going up to the Supreme court, chief justice, John Roberts wrote in an opinion for the majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the first amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic social services. Once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption. So we're going to get into this in a little bit more depth, but again, we've talked about this in prior rulings. Here is another case where we have a unanimous decision unanimous by the Supreme court. And many people are started scratching their heads about this, right? It's not something that you typically see often in law school, a lot of split decisions, a lot of five fours, a lot of clothes, you know, sort of landmark yeah. Cases that that are, that are, that are close. And we've seen very consistently out of this new administration, this new term, what kind of feels like a lot of people, I haven't done any, any analysis on it, but other people, Jonathan Turley and other people are commenting that this is seeming like a lot of abnormal unanimity here, nine zeros across the board what's going on. And of course we're speculating, but the idea from the Supreme court might be that they have some pretty rock solid cases that are going to be, uh, detrimental or, or I shouldn't say detrimental. Well, let's say controversial coming soon. Right? Big one. I'm talking about abortion specifically. So we've got Nancy. Pelosi's already being asked about that. We're going to talk about that here at the end, but bracing for impact, in other words, so the Supreme court is saying, we're looking, we can get along. We can be friends nine and oh 9 0 9 and oh nine. And no, so that when it comes down in a five to four or a six to three, maybe on Roe vs. Wade, which I'm not really, I'm not really of the mindset that that's going to be overturned or anything like that, but we'll see if it is something that's close. What are you going to hear from the media and everybody on the left, if it is overturned, which I'm not particularly optimistic about, we'll see if it does get overturned. It's going to be a hyperventilating screech Fest that is going to be really, really painful to endure because they're going to say that the court was biased, that the court was overly conservative and that that's going to justify the packing of the court, right? It's going to be, it's going to justify the Democrats taking action and you know, doing something to sort of reverse that. So we'll see what ends up happening. Let's take a look at this ruling so we can get some framework for the future. So here we are, again, going to go over to Skoda. Amy, how does a nice job here says that the court holds that the city's refusal to make referrals violates the constitution? So in a clash between religious freedom and public policy, we have these two competing interests. Catholic church says, Hey, it's just free speech. Or if it's free religion and or free exercise of religion to be more specific. And the city is saying, well, we've got public policies that protect the LGBTQ community. So court ruled on Thursday that Philadelphia violated the first amendment free exercise clause. When the city stopped working with the Catholic organization, again, they were not certifying same-sex couples as foster parents. So foster parents, right? I go to the Catholic community, they would say, Hey, we want to adopt a child. Catholic organization would say, sorry, we're not going to certify you to do so. Thursday, Amy says, is, is a victory for Catholic social services. They're associated with the archdiocese of Philadelphia, the Catholic organization, and two foster parents who alleged that Philadelphia is refusal to make foster care referrals, to CSS discriminated against the group. Okay? So this is two foster parents now who actually, it sounds like they're bringing in the lawsuit, suing the city saying, Hey, you didn't give a referral over to them. Maybe these are two Catholic parents that want to go through the Catholic social services, but they are not getting an opportunity to facilitate because Philadelphia said, you're discriminatory. The decision fell short of the broad endorsement of religious freedom that the challengers had sought. But the justices unanimously agreed that the foster parents at the city's action was unconstitutional. Six justice majority left in tack the, the prior ruling. So they didn't overthrow that case. So you can see here, same type of division here, right? We've got a total, total unanimity, if that's a word, right. Absolutely unanimous and not much else to say there. Uh, we've got different opinions here on this second case, but again, that's a secondary issue. So we're not going to mention that this case as we can probably, as we sorta have deduced thus far started in 2018 Philadelphia city council, they passed a resolution. They said no discrimination. They stopped funding and making referrals over to CSS. Once they found out how they sort of refuse to certify people, CSS to foster parents, we've got the Sims Bush family. They went to federal court, they sought an order. So they were demanding that the city starts sending referrals back over to the church. They said that, you know, cutting them off as a violation of their all their rights. And the Supreme court ultimately agreed with them. Roberts began. He said it was plain that the city's actions had burdened CSS is which is the church's exercise of its religion by requiring it to choose between curtailing its mission or approving relationships inconsistent with its beliefs. The question before the courts was whether the constitution allows the city to impose that burden. And the court said, no, right? So this is a unanimous decision. So you have cases like this. It really blunts the argument. This is why I keep bringing up these nine zero decisions because you can sort of just venture out how this argument would have gone. If this was a, let's say a six, three decision, let's say six conservatives voted against the LGBTQ community. And the three liberals voted in favor of them. If this was a political case, could have easily been, what would it habit? Right? The narrative would have been, well, we've got a, we've got a bigoted court up there full of a bunch of racist conservatives who are xenophobic or whatever, whatever label you want to use that undermines the court's credibility. It sort of, it, it reduces their legitimacy. And we've said this many times here, when talking about the enforceability, how these different governmental bodies function, the Supreme court is based on legitimacy. The executive, you know, they've got the justice department and the FBI legislative branch has the power of the purse justice department. It's kind of just, or I'm sorry. The, the courts judicial department is just kind of, Hey, let's cause we're legitimate and sort of rely on, on the other two branches. So what we're seeing are a consistent showing of unanimous rulings so that it, it blunts that, that opposition, it's hard to come out now and say, it's a bunch of racist, bigoted, xenophobic, anti LGBTQ people up there. If the three liberals also agreed with them and said, Hey, yeah, it's just, it's a free speech. It's a free exercise of religion argument. And we went through the rules and this is what we say. So that the next time that it does get controversial, maybe they can point to their track record of working together. We'll see now, abortion it's next up. We all know that's coming down the pike and the media is ready to go with it. So a reporter here from CBS news said, Hey, Pelosi is an unborn baby at 15 weeks. You know, a human being. She says, well, let me just say, I'm a big supporter of Roe vs. Wade. I'm a mother of five children in six years. I think I have some standing. So she's got standings just on this issue as to respecting a woman's right to choose. So here is a representative Pelosi

Speaker 2: 34:07

Speaker. Um, I wanna see us news, the Supreme court, this fall review of Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy is an unborn baby at 15 weeks of human being.

Speaker 3: 34:20

Let me just say that I'm a big supporter of Roe V. Wade. Uh, I am a mother of five children and six years, I think have some standing on this issue as to respect a woman's right to choose. Yes. Yes. Ma'am.

Speaker 1: 34:34

And we're going to go to the next question. It doesn't not want to answer that one, right. Well, well, I'm a big supporter of Roe vs. Wade. That's a perfect political answer. She's not bad at, at just skimming right over some of that stuff. All right. So let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you so much for your support over there. And that's where the live chat happens every day. And there's a lot of good stuff happening there@watchingthewatchersaboutlocals.com. First up in the house is, want to know, says wasn't that 1000 pages of documents dumped on Congress and idiots voted for it without even reading it, our Congress at its finest. Yeah, I think this was the one where Pelosi actually speaking to her, came out and said, well, we have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it because they don't want to actually read it. That's a lot of work we've got, want to know, says Biden and Kamala looked good, giving out a new federal holiday that is a pay day off for miss faith or at least double time. Thank you. Some, just get the day off with no pay. So I don't know, then they just pass this like today. I don't know what our policy is. Uh, uh, uh, I'll have to ask Ms. Faith what, what our policy is. So I'm sure she'll give me some good guidance on that. So we have a new holiday. It's a federal holiday and it's paid off another paid off holiday. That's great. That's really good. Happy about that. We've got Kelly Stu says, so could we get a refund for previous years over there on the Obamacare Obamacare plan? If yeah. Can you get a refund on your cause it was reduced to zero. We all paid a bunch of money for, you know, sub-par healthcare and Kelly wants to know, and I get a refund back. Can we call our credit card companies and reverse the charges on, on this, on our federal government speech unleashed says, do you think maybe the SCOTUS are making deals with each other? Yes, I do. For instance, the conservative judges tell the liberal ones side with you on the Obamacare case, and then you will side with us on the Catholic adoption case. So I don't think that it's necessarily sort of like that, um, obvious, right? It's like a, like a trade-off, but I absolutely think that they're negotiating, you know, or they would never categorize it that way. So I want to be careful here. Right? I don't want to miss, uh, miss speak out of turn with the United States Supreme court, but, but certainly right. We, we, we know that legitimacy is a big concern with the courts and in particular with chief judge, uh, Roberts, somebody who's talked about it a lot and we've seen him historically sort of, kind of be the, the waffler in the middle. And I've speculated that, that I think he waffles and sort of joins one side or the other for that very purpose. I mean, just to be sort of a negotiator, he's less concerned in my opinion, right? I, I, this is just an opinion about the legitimacy and the long lasting legacy of the court under his leadership then with any particular issue. Okay. He's going to be on the bench as the chief judge for 50 years. And when we're reading in our legal books, that's kind of what we talk about. We talk about, you know, the, the, the burger court, and we talk about these different, era's kind of these epochs over the jurisprudential history of the Supreme court. And it's not, you know, when, when you review the court through that lens, it's not traditionally about any one case, unless it's something like Plessy versus Ferguson or something, but the, you know, it, it's, it's more of a tone, a legacy. And I think that that's where Roberts is more concerned about. He wants to see the tone move forward less so than any particular abortion or, uh, Obamacare, right? He definitely did not want Obamacare to be a defining case for him. We have a new president, we have a lot of energy behind Barack Obama and this thing got passed. It was sort of a weird time in the country. Everybody has this like insane euphoria for some reason change. I don't know if you remember that open chain about what, I don't know, something, everybody was hopeful and they wanted some change and they were, we're gonna get it. And they were really excited about it for some reason, but it was a weird era. And so for the court to backpedal against Obama at that time, just wasn't palatable. And I think largely, I think that's why, uh, Roberts bent himself twisted himself into a pretzel in order to make Obamacare into a tax, which, you know, I don't remember it, but I, I kind of recall thinking everybody was saying what it was a tax where the hell did that come from. It was just some argument that the court just made up. Oh, it's a text. Okay. So that's good. Maybe it was in there somewhere. It's been a long time since we talked about that, but let's take a quick look over here. We got ATB Kelly, 100 says I find myself in a strange position that I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept of abortion, but I do think Roe vs. Wade is a ridiculous opinion. That should be overturned. Is there an avenue through which the court can uphold the right to abortion, but still overturn the opinion? Or would the legislators need to do something instead your potential future associate from Chicago? What's up my future. Associates love that. Yeah, come on down, baby. We want the best here. And, and you sound like you're onto something. So here, let me, let me run you through this analysis a little bit. The, the, the Roe vs. Wade issue in popular culture. In my opinion, we've been about a woman's right to access abortion in legal communities. It's sort of viewed a little bit differently, at least from maybe those of those. So for example, I am not a fan of how, of how this issue was decided without making commentary about abortion. I do not like what the court did with the case. Okay. And the reason being is because the court acted like a legislature, they basically said, we're going to pass sort of a congressional type bill. We're going to pass a new law that we're just going to basically write, and we're going to make up out of nowhere. It doesn't come from the constitution. It doesn't come from anywhere. So the court was acting like a Congress in a sense in Roe vs. Wade. And they did so by creating this sort of three trimester or this, uh, this, this like thirds, this trimester framework, where they would say, well, in the first trimester, you can, you, you know, you can get an abortion in the second trimester. It's okay. If the government puts some restrictions on it. And then in the third trimester, there's another framework for how states can deal with somebody who's in their third trimester. And so they came up with this framework and everybody's going, what, where the hell did that come from? You know, you're supposed to be talking about constitutional provisions and you're supposed to be a sort of ruling and weighing issues that are weighed against the laws. You're not supposed to be creating the laws. So the fact that they just sort of concocted this thing out of thin air without any commentary about abortion, not one way or the other, right. That's beyond the scope of this conversation. But that issue was, was troubling because a lot of people said, well, that doesn't, that's not how the courts work. If you want to, if you want to legalize abortion and make sure that that is something that is fundamental and can't be challenged and all that stuff, the courts are not the appropriate place to do that. The, the other appropriate place to do that would be the legislature. K. Now the converse argument to that is, is sort of what you see the lineage of the Roe vs. Wade cases, which is more about this, this, this sort of separate concept going away from that three trimester framework, uh, the, you know, the, the, the first trimester, certain regulations, and they sort of get, they get the relationship there in the Roe case was more about this sort of inverse relationship as society. He started to gain more interest in the life of the fetus. Then it became more reasonable to allow the government to regulate abortion further. So as a child, or as, as a, let's say, a fetus zygote or whatever, you know, when, when it's, when it's, when it becomes a, what's the word inseminated, when it becomes a zygote, whatever it is, I was one I used to be one, I don't even know what it is, but when I was first, that little, little thing down in there, it, you know, at that moment, there's still debate about what that is and what that means. And so the framework that the court in that framework said, well, you know, the state doesn't have as much interest in that life form or that clump of cells, however you want to define it. But they said as that matures, and as it grows, it starts to resemble sort of more human and society has kind of invested in the development of that person. And so now we, we have more interest the government can, I have more interest in wanting to protect the unborn. So it's this inverse relationship. And that's why they created this 3d trimester framework that they just pulled out of their rear-ends. So in the next lineage of cases, then it went away from that. And they just started to say, it was about a constitutional type of rights about access to, right. This is where the right to choose comes in. And that anything that infringes upon that is in the Casey versus planned parenthood, lineage of cases, talking about an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. And so the framework changes a little bit and it does. So without explicitly overturning Roe vs. Wade. So, you know, I do, I do. I think that that a woman's right to abortion or anything like that is on the way out in this country. I don't think so at all. So, you know, I think your question is on the mark here, because if you're talking about, can the courts still uphold abortion or ups to uphold the provision or still sort of protect a woman's right to that acts to access those things while overturning Roe vs. Wade. And I think the answer is absolutely yes, because the progeny of the row cases has sort of gone down this undue burden trajectory where the analysis there is whether or not a, a government law is placing undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion, which you think you think about these things in terms of, uh, I am not an abortion connoisseur okay. Here with the case law, the jurisprudential stuff here, but they talk about some of these undue burdens here as delaying a woman's ability to get an abortion. If you require her to, uh, listen to a heartbeat or listen to an ultrasound prior to getting an abortion, they say that that may be as to, uh, dissuading. And so it's a very complicated situation, and it's not one that I, that, that I venture into often, but it is going to be in front of all of us here very soon. And of course, it's going to be very, very, um, volatile. And of course, I do not want to get into the volatility at all about this particular issue. It's not really my wheelhouse candidly, you know, I spent a lot of time in the justice system and that's more of a cultural issue, but I do think that it is something we're going to be talking about. We're going to be covering whatever the case looks like here. Certainly. And so just brace yourselves for that. All right. And so great questions. Thank you for that future associate from Chicago, go future associate ATB. Kelly is going to be in the house, which is great because we're going to need some help at our law firm, the RNR law group, you can see right here, we do a lot of stuff. We need some great help regularly. So we're always looking, honestly, this is, this is not a joke. We are always looking for, for good people to join our team. Yeah. If you, if you, if you're looking for something, uh, always feel free to send us a resume in an email, to employment at our law, ac.com. Those are going to go to miss Lily and she'll be able to take good care of you. Let's get back to the, uh, the plug. Here's what we can help with felonies, traffic tickets, drug charges, of course, DUIs, misdemeanors, domestic violence, all that stuff. QR code will take you to our website phone number for a free case. Evaluation is 4, 8 0 7 8 7 0 3 9 4. And I know many people say, I Rob, I will never be in trouble. I will never or ever have a need to call you. That's true. But that might be right, because you've taken a course like this called the law enforcement interaction training available now at gumroad.com/robert Gerler, which is where I have some great courses that you can buy. And you can support the show by following me here, throw that email address right in here and download the Gumroad app on any one of these app stores. But that, that th it's just really going to be something that's worthwhile as, as law enforcement, two action training course, two and a half hours of some good stuff we got into it. There is a 1, 2, 3 rule for dealing with, with law enforcement. There's only one rule two is that two questions that a police officer can ask you. Number one, three, the three responses. If they ask you a question that is not one of the other to see how that works, pretty clever. So go check that out available gumroad.com/robert ruler. And thank you for all of your support. All right, we're gonna change gears. We're gonna be talking about Missouri. We spent some time talking about Missouri earlier in on the weeds before we get into it. We've got to talk about federalism. You may recall this concept from eighth grade. I certainly do. I think about it a lot when I'm pondering, why our federal government is sort of stopping its boots on our necks on a repeated basis, day in and day out, I get kind of tired of it. And I was thinking about federalism as a concept. And I remember back when I was, I think in seventh or eighth grade learning about this concept. And when I went on to Google to try to find an image to prepare for the show today, I stumbled across Mr. Hymns, eighth grade class. In fact, he has a lot of his materials right on the internet. And so if you want to take a look at what he's got here on his, uh, it looks like he set up a little bit of a Wiki here and it's available. It's open to the public in chapters four to six, we're talking about a new constitution. This is coming out of chapters, one to three colonies. And the revolution before we get to westward as the co uh, colonials moved westbound. So all that good eight, eighth grade stuff, but something that is important here. And by the way, I don't see any critical race theory here. Pretty good job there, Mr. Tillman, but we've got here. We've got a quick one understanding of how our federal government works hearkening back to the days of eighth grade. So Americans live under a national and state government. Remember this, we talk about a dual system, federal government, state governments, and we really have kind of other systems. We've got local systems, county systems, individual cities, uh, you know, sort of different tiers and layers of government. Well, when we talk about the two big ones, our states and our federal government may recall from eighth grade that the national, no government is entitled to certain things. They do certain things. They maintain the military, they declare war. They run the postal system. They set standards, weights, and measures, and they protect copyrights and patents. It's kind of a, kind of a limited list over there right now, the states are supposed to, of course, establish local governments, set up schools, regulate state commerce, make regulations for marriage and regulate corporations. Hmm. And there are some powers that overlap so we can share things. We can collect taxes. We've got state and income tax, uh, federal and state tax established courts. We got federal courts and state courts regulate interstate commerce, right? So between states, we've got regulating banks, we can borrow money. We can provide for the general welfare, we can punish criminals. Okay. So a lot of stuff is going on here. Now, you'll know that if you're connected to American reality today, that kind of the national government kind of does all of this, right. They sort of, kind of really run the local governments by making sure that they comport with their federal regulations by promising the money or taking the money away. They set up schools, we've got the federal department of education regulate state commerce. Now it's supposed to be interstate commerce, but the Supreme court has basically expanded that commerce clause to include anything including enters in state commerce. If it goes out of state, you might be saying, well, I have a factory here in Arizona and I make a bunch of widgets. So what does the federal government have the right to tell me, you know, how I manage my widget factory? Um, and the Supreme court has said, well, if you sell your widgets interstates, we can regulate intra states. So that's nice. So that, so they sort of taken that over to, uh, make regulations for marriage. Of course, we know the Supreme court kind of came out, you know, they're, they're sort of, you know, in that space, certainly we're waiting on what the fed say about all of that. And of course they definitely regulate established corporations. We've got, you know, sec and all these different organizations. So they kind of do a lot of everything now. And the big question that often comes up is what happens when there's this interface between the two, what happens when you're over in this box here? When you're a state power, let's say like Missouri, and you say, uh, you know, this is a power that's exclusively to us. Okay. We're, we're, we're going to handle, for example, our gun rights in Missouri, without anybody interfering with our business and the national powers, they say, no, well, this is our power. And so we're going to come over here and we're just going to take that from you. And so you have this conflict, we're fighting in this area here about who can do what? And in Missouri, we're talking about gun rights. We've talked, we've heard a lot about this from the Biden administration, from Merrick Garland. We're hearing all over the place. It's like vomiting every day about domestic violent extremism and domestic terrorism. Now we talked about a 32 page report and they're talking about gun violence and all, you know, lone Wolf and individual gunmen. But then at the same time, these militia groups and these white supremacists, that apparently are the huge problem in America today that nobody ever knows what they're doing or can't infiltrate them and can't even stop. You know, a couple people, you know, orchestrating the Capitol hill stuff. We have 18 intelligence agencies. They can't even take care of something as basic as that. But I digress. So now we're having a conflict. Missouri is coming through. They're trying to establish their boundaries. It's our state. It's the second amendment we're going to enforce it. So they pass a bill. We talked about this earlier today, here, governor, I'm sorry. Earlier this week, governor Mike Parson came out and he says, he's a law enforcement guy. So it's throughout my law enforcement career. I have, and I will always stand stand for the second amendment rights signs, HB 85 into law. This is called the second amendment preservation act in Missouri. And what does this do if you talk, if we, if you recall, right, he signed this at a gun range up here, the range check-in and firearms rentals. So gets this signed into law, says HB 85 draws a line in the sand. It says we are going to reject any attempt by the federal government to circumvent our fundamental rights that the Missourians have to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their property. Right? That's a big statement. We're don't, don't even try feds. HB 85 puts those in DC on notice that here in our state, we support responsible law, abiding gun owners. We oppose government overreach and any unlawful efforts that limit our access to the firearms. So my friends, this sounds like somebody who's mouth and off to the feds. They like when you do that, in fact, they don't like it so much. They're going to write a very upset letter about it. See if it goes further than that. Oftentimes it does, but let's take a look at what's happening here. Now we have of the justice department sending a letter that says, Missouri, you cannot just disregard our federal gun law. Cause why is my camera? Why did that? Let's see what's going on here. All right. So that's good. All right. So here's sometimes the slides don't work very well. All right, I'm going to read it without switching to the slide. This is a weird thing that happens sometimes with my switcher and enforcing the second amendment. They said that they cannot disregard the gun laws. The federal act here says that, all right, there we go. The, the federal act says that infringement on a second amendment, right, shall be invalid in this state, if it is an infringement. So this is the act that was just passed. It says it shall not be recognized by this state. And it's going to be specifically rejected by this state. So in his letter, Boynton lays out five areas of concern. So this is the letter that now is coming from the justice department. Let's take a look at this. It says regarding Missouri HB 85, this is the second amendment preservation act. This letter was drafted June 16th, 2021 from the us department of justice. This is the civil division. They're sending it directly to the governor, okay. By electronic and us mail to the honorable Michael L Parson, the honorable Eric Schmidt, Missouri attorney General's office, and the Supreme court building the federal government saying we don't like that law that you just signed. They're not talking about this. This is now HB 85. It's signed into law. Governor held that up there at the gun range. He says, I write regarding Missouri HB 85 signed into law on Saturday. It says by its terms, the statute appears, he says it appears to declare numerous federal firearm laws to constitute infringements. So are you using a appear there? I'm not making a claim here. Just certainly appears that way. Okay. I'm not accusing you of saying that, but it certainly appears like you're saying that says that it is classifying these federal laws, as infringements says, all persons enforcing laws, Missouri law, okay. It says the public safety of the people, all the, of the United States is paramount. We're concerned that, you know, absent clarification, HBD five threatens to imperil a long-standing and close cooperation between the feds and law enforcement agencies in Missouri, basically saying, Hey, you know, we want to work together at a time when homicides are up in Missouri and all of these things, can't we just be friends as explained below. He says, numerous provisions raise significant federal law enforcement and legal concerns in light of significant public safety risks. We request you take action to clarify the scope of the law and respond by Friday, June 18th that's tomorrow. I think he's going to get a response. Let's see what he wants. He wants clarification about a couple of things. Let's see. He says, well, HB 85 here. It includes a number of provisions that raise concern for, for us, the federal government, not, not, not for Missouri for the federal government. So that's actually 1.4. Two says that, you know, federal acts laws, all this stuff, they are infringements. So if it's a tax, that's an infringement. If it's registration, that's an infringement. If you want to track ownership, that's an infringement. If you want to forbid possession, like, you know, like, uh, uh, federal prohibition law, which they're talking about, red flag laws, all that stuff. That's an infringement. If you want to confiscate firearms, that's an infringement. And guess what? If you do that, if you recall, we talked about this. It is$50,000 per occurrence under Missouri law. So if some federal agent comes in there or somebody does something to, you know, to infringe this then 50,000 bucks. And I asked this when we covered this story originally, what happens if it is like they come and sees five guns? Is it 50,000 bucks a pop get pretty expand, quarter million dollars like that? Bring your collection to Missouri. Just wait for it. That rate might be a little bit of a lottery day for you. So let's continue on in the letter. He says, we've got some significant law enforcement and legal concerns here raised by an HB 85. Number one, you know, the, the declaration here that certain federal firearm regulations are unlawful. So that's, that's a concern that this raises preemption concerns, okay? Preemption. And we talk about this under federal system, they say a state can not nullify a federal law. Remember we talked about this, the supremacy clause. We mentioned this when we covered the story and they go in, they actually cite the constitution. Article six clause. Two says the laws of the United States shall be the Supreme law of the land and anything in the constitution or laws of the state to the contrary standing basically saying that the us laws are superior. Our, our Supreme shall be Supreme overstate or anything contrary. Right? So the supremacy clause, we talk about it. So anything that interferes with that they're saying is unjustified. So section 1.4, two declares, five categories of valid firearm regulations that are unlawful. We just went through them. They're not happy about that. Section 1.450, the prohibition on enforcing federal law. So in the Missouri law, it says no entity or person shall have the authority to enforce any federal acts laws or executive orders. Wow. So he's saying if this were to apply to federal officers, then this section would violate the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, right? So the feds have immunity when they come in and enforce the law. So here Missouri is saying, no, you, don't not, not on this issue. You don't. And the feds are responding that yes, we do. We have immunity. If we want to come in there and enforce federal laws, we've got U S case law, which prohibits the states, prohibit the states from regulating the federal government. Okay. According to this case, Mayo versus us. Now he's saying, we assume we, we assume here in Missouri, we assume that Missouri does not intend to directly regulate federal law enforcement agencies. And instead in Penn, it means to impose limits on state law enforcement. Do you think that was Missouri's intention? I don't because you know why? Because they set it in there and he said it right here. Look, they said it here. They said nor authority to enforce any federal acts or laws or executive orders. So when they say, we assume Missouri does not intend to directly regulate federal law. Well, we know that they don't mean that, right? So he's doing the nice guy thing. Again, you certainly wouldn't try to regulate the feds. There were you, would you? Nope. All right, here we go. Section three restriction on state agencies cooperating with federal firearms, law enforcement section four limits on hiring former federal officers interferes with federal grand juries. So they say this, you know, this is going to impose another significant liability, 50 grand on any individual who worked for the feds, who acted in coordination with the feds and who is forced to fall within federal firearm regulations. They say on the, on its face, the provision therefore appears to discriminate against local federal law enforcement officials. Missouri is so unhappy with the feds, which is just a lot of fun. Okay. Let's see what else we have clarifying the effective date. So, you know, they got a lot of clarification that they need. We're going to see what Missouri has to say about this. Absolutely. Just a lot of fun. We've got HB 85 states that the law shall be in full force and effect upon its approval. So like now, but they don't know. They don't know what that means because it says we've got some other provisions that say, uh, you know, after August 28th, 2021. So clarify for us, uh, absent, clear clarity on this score. We have concerns that important law enforcement efforts could be chilled. Yeah, because if the feds are going to get popped with a$50,000, uh, uh, fee from the state of Missouri, charged with some sort of violation of this HB 85 law that can add up pretty quickly. And now ordinarily, you would say, well, you can't charge the feds. Like if the feds are coming in here and trying to regulate and enforce federal regulations, well, they they're allowed to do that. And Missouri said, no, they're we don't care. That's fine. We don't care. Let's see what else. Under the supremacy clause, Missouri lacks the authority to nullify federal law, to shield Missouri businesses or its citizens from the reach of federal law or to obstruct and prevent federal employees from doing all this stuff. Okay. Federal law, ATF, FBI, us marshals, us attorney's office. And the list goes on and on. We need to do our business right signed off on here by Brian Boyden, acting assistant attorney general to Merrick Garland. So they want an answer tomorrow by Friday, June 18th, or they can contact him if they want some further information. You know, it's always fun when they want to enforce federal law. When it sort of is their issue. Okay? In this, in this situation, for example, it's about gun control, but what happens if we're talking about maybe illegal immigration, then we hear the argument that fed should stay out of it, right? If individual cities want to be sanctuary cities, they're entitled to do that. It's their own business, let the fed stay out of it. And we have many sanctuary cities all around this country. Don't we, California has, I think a lot of them, and there may be good reason for that, or maybe a good policy decision. But in this case, they don't want you to allow your local government to run things. In other cases, they're perfectly okay with that. Very convenient. All right. So let's go over to reason.com. Oh no, let's finish this article here. It says, uh, this bill was the focus of the Republican leadership there in Missouri, in Missouri, the measure saw extensive pushback from the other side of the aisle. Democrat said it is a defund, the police measure, which would include the F encourage fringe groups. So we talked about most of this last time. So the question that I had that I wanted to sort of frame out for you here was what was this concept, right? Because the federal government, legally speaking is accurate, right? The supremacy clause exists. The constitution is pretty clear about that. And the United States Supreme court has confirmed that. And this was actually done for good reason. If you go back historically speaking about the, sort of the birth of America, you may recall that we had the articles of Confederation, and that was our first attempt at sort of organizing the 13 colonies or, you know, the, the, the founders, then we're trying to do that. And it was just a little bit too loose, right? The different states or, or colonies at the time were having trouble organizing an army in gener generating enough revenue. And it was all just sort of a little bit too discombobulated. So they sort of scrapped the articles of Confederation brought in the U S constitution revisited that constitutional conventions and sort of, you know, re rethought the whole thing with giving a little bit more power to the federal government, maintaining that duality, that system of federalism, where the feds are at the top, the states have a lot of rights and the constitution, you know, via the amendment is going to reserve them a ton of rights because there was this debate happening about, you know, whether the federal government should be more powerful or less powerful because all of these people just had just come over from the old world where they were kind of sick and tired of the bureaucratic, overly burdensome, no taxation without representation version of government that they had. So, you know, thankfully we do have a couple layers of government and we have the ability now to sort of, you know, have competing jurisdictions over things, which is a beautiful concept. The idea that maybe we have competing jurisdictions, that, that you can push back against each other. You can pick up and move. If you don't like the gun laws in California, get up and go to Missouri. They got some pretty good ones there. It sounds like. So, you know, you can actually just do that, which is a beautiful thing here. And I'd like to see actually more of that, which is why on this show regularly, I talk about local, local, local, local, okay. Who cares what they're doing in Washington, DC. If you're on your school board mandating, you know, what's happening to your kids and your community, different conversation there. So I want to show you now this interplay. So this is an article over from reason that's talking about nullification, okay? The federal government can do whatever they want, but they have an issue when it comes down to enforceability, which has sort of been the theme here, uh, of the show today. So let's go over here and let's, let me, let me show you what I'm talking about. Enforceability. We have this situation now where Merrick Garland's department of justice is sending letters over to Missouri. A state that has done something that it says is in close adherence to the federal constitution, protecting the second amendment. Merrick, Garland, not happy about that. The justice department byte administration. Okay. If they're legally rights, if the supremacy clause exists, if all of this in the court of law would actually go in their favor, the next question is, so what? And it comes to enforceability. What are they going to do about it? Let's take a look. Let's see what reason has to say. According to this article written by John Osterhout good article, I would encourage you to go read the whole thing. That's the title, plug that into Google. And you can find that it says that more than a dozen states are trying to nullify federal gun control. Now this articles actually not recent, it was back on, on what does that, uh, April and of this year. So somewhat recent conservative state legislators. This article says are taking a page from the playbook of pro immigration, activists and marijuana legalization movements. Okay. I talked about this previously marijuana legalization is another good one. Federal government says you cannot do that. It is illegal federally states around the country. Just say, well, we don't care. So what we're going to pass it. Anyways, Arizona just was one of the more recent ones to join the fray. What are the feds going to do about it? We'll see. So back here it says defying, the federal law is something that a majority of the states already do when it comes to marijuana. In terms of the method, it's identical says Sabatine and sanctuary cities, they stopped reporting or dealing with ice. It's basically what we're doing. He says that if states refused to cooperate with ATF, then federal gun control becomes difficult to enforce. ATF only has about 5,500 employees for the whole country. About a third of them are in the administration or in administration means they don't have the manpower or the resources to enforce federal gun control in their own maximum capacity. He says a year in, year out, mountain home, 8,000, 10,000 clubs cases. So if you get a combination of more than 10,000 people violating a federal act, and then on top of that, you have states and local communities refusing to participate in enforcement. No you've then opened the door to actually nullify that federal act in it. And effect states are doing it across the board. Missouri is another one. Another domino that just fell. We've got Bolden here says that the case for nullification doesn't depend on the constitutionality of a law, talking about illegal doctrine known as anti-commandeering they say it's been upheld in five Supreme court cases, 1842 to 18, 2018. So a recent case holds well, government can't require states and local to participate in the enforcement of federal laws. Okay? So the feds, in other words can pass whatever they want, but states don't have to enforce them at all. Now, Missouri goes a little bit further in that, right? Because they're saying not only are we not going to enforce that or recognize those, but if you come in federal government, we're going to ding you with a$50,000. Fine. Okay. That might be something that gets tossed out of that bill Wells or of that law. I don't know though. We'll see, talking about constitutionality does kind of get in the way of, anti-commandeering says a lot of people like to think of that as a line in the sand. I think that's a good approach, but I don't think that they should be helping enforce federal gun control. Even if a federal court says this federal gun measure is constitutional. Okay. Now there's another boldness talking about the alligator. There's an allegation here that, let me skip over that. Anti-commandeering just to give you a history on this originated back in 1842. So anti-commandeering is the idea that the government cannot mandate that states adhere to federal laws, go back to 1842 Supreme court case prig versus Pennsylvania. This upheld a state's right, not to party dissipate and enforcing the fugitive slave act of 1793. Bottom line is nullification is a tool. Banning participation in federal forcement was actually a tool of the anti-slavery abolitionists north. When South Carolina seceded, they issued a document to explain their rationale. And specifically, they said that Northern nullification of the federal fugitive slave act Tate, when South Carolina, I left the country. When they succeeded to join the Confederacy, they issued a, they said, Hey, we're leaving because the Northern states nullified the fugitive slave act. So back in the 1840s, there was a federal law said if a slave runs away, gotta return them back there. Fleas through the underground railroad, works their way north and lands in a Northern states that doesn't have slave laws. The federal law says you got to send them back. Katie, that person whose property, they belong to somebody down there, ship them back down there, give them back down south. And Northern states said, we're not doing that no way. What do you want there? We're not sending anybody anywhere. So South Carolina then says, well, we're not happy about this. Okay? The fugitive slave act, nobody's following the law here anymore. Northerners are nullifying this federal law because ads are tyrannical idiots, and we're not going to allow this to happen anymore. And that was the beginning of the civil war, which was, was needed and resulted in, you know, a lot of, a lot of pain and suffering and hardship in the country on everything, the single part of the conflict, but America got through it. And here we are today, having still difficult conversations about race in America. Isn't that great. So let's take a look at some questions over from Joe. Snow says, uh, you forgot to mention infringing on gun rights under the federal government's responsibilities. That's a good point. Yeah, I forgot. I forgot the infringement slide. I have a, let's say federal government infringements. I don't, I don't think I have enough slide. I have, I don't have enough hard drive space for a presentation that big we've got Jeremy Matree that says I watched the law enforcement interaction training last night. It was very impressed with the content says you're absolutely right in saying it's better to have and not need than to need and not have while watching. I did have some questions. I wish you could. I would have been able to attend. You never cease to amaze me in all the different content you are creating and establishing. Well, that's very nice, Jeremy. That's very nice of you. What a nice thing to say. Well, I do appreciate that. You know, I am this, sometimes it feels like I'm not doing enough, so it's hard for that to resonate. You know, I have so much that I want to get out and it just, sometimes it feels like I could be doing more. So thank you for telling me that you're pleased what the current level of production. I'm still going to try to pick it up anyways, but it was a lot of fun. We had a good time on that episode. It wasn't an episode. It was a two and a half hour workshop and we had some great questions. I think it was about an hour and a half of content, more or less again, it's the three rules. The one rule that is only this rule. Two questions, your responses to questions. Three responses, go check that out at my gum road, link down in the description below, we've got Furby slayers in the house as it's time for the states to stand up and demand the constitution be observed millions, do not agree with the current interpretation of the second amendment. I fear that SCOTUS won't stand up for us. Let's go. This is, you know, I'm not sure that gun rights are really on the ropes. I know that it's a very popular thing to talk about right now. I know the Democrats make heyday about this. You know, it was Beethoven thing for a long time after the shooting in Texas, you know, that was his whole platform, but then the pandemic happened. And then we saw social unrest in various parts of the country, even here in Arizona and many other places. And so people started to realize, oh, you know what? The government is kind of useless in many ways. And so maybe it's a good idea for me to arm myself up. Ammo has been flying off the shelves. Guns are out of stock all over the place. You know, the whole thing is not popular anymore. You might have a lot of people who say, well, I'm for gun control, but I still want a gun. And so, you know, maybe they'll tell you that publicly they'll post on the poll, that gun violence is America's biggest problem. But when it comes to protecting themselves, they'll happily go get one. All right, we got into Darby says your AIG is telling the feds to mind their business too. Isn't he dealing with the audit? That's right. He is so Merrick Garland then did his little finger wagon BS in our faces too. He said, oh, you auditor's down there. You're doing some bad stuff. You better stop that right now. And mark, Burnich it fired off back to him and said, what, buddy boy, excuse me, which is great. I would love to see more attorney generals, just thumb their noses up at the feds because what the heck, you know, it's our business. We run our elections, how we want to run them. And the Supreme court said that, do you know how we know that? Because they said that Pennsylvania can do whatever the hell they want to do to if they want to move the, the, the things or the deadlines around, if they want to, you know, waive signature verification, if they want to just, you know, do whatever truck, Chuck, their ballots around wherever they want to put them, they're free to do that. Supreme court said. So, so if Arizona wants to audit our cases, we're going to do so. And you better stay out of it. So we'll see how that works out. But I'm looking forward to a lot more of these conversations we've got eat on tests here says when it comes to abortion and when life becomes a life is an issue that is not going to be settled in law. This is an issues where humans will have to come to grips that we have the power to create life. Be that a God-given ability comes from the unknowable universe or something that comes from the process of evolution. You have the power to create life. And we have to come to grips that there is a responsibility with that ability props to Joe Snow, who is making this case on the locals group. Yep. You know, I think you're right about that. You know, there are some things that are outside of the purview of the law and you know, this is man, this is, uh, you know, this is an existential question and there's probably not going to be an answer that all of humanity is going to settle upon. So I think when it comes to these issues, you know, the idea is you create a framework that gives people the maximum amount of freedom and you give your society the maximum amount of benefit. I mean, those are sort of my, my guiding principles. And I don't really, you know, have a stake in this, in this fight, but I understand the, the, the sort of the legal framework and I have concerns that the legal framework of rovers Wade is going to be something that sort of justifies other bad law down the road. That that will go into my new to my, my professional area, right? I'm not a family law attorney or a child development person or anything like that. But this is a, this is a, this is an issue that has been at the forefront of the legal mind of the country for ever. I mean, I mean, for as long as I've been alive, since the 1970s, we've been talking about this. And so this is going to be a big, a big deal when it does come down the pike. And of course, uh, we're going to try to, you know, we're going to try to take all of the different arguments and, you know, lay them out without getting too volatile. You know, abortion is one of those issues, man. It's like people go from zero to a thousand, like instantly, gosh, you know, all right, let's all relax a little bit. Like, can we just talk about these things? Which is why I just wanna, I just wanna kinda they'll screw it on by it if we can, but we, I know we're not gonna be able to do that and I don't want to do that. Really. I'm just joking. Okay. Let's go next. We got wants to know. It says Oregon has constitutional carry counties and cities have passed laws that say you can't openly carry and allowed to do that. Yeah. Yeah. So, right. So, so you can overlap, regulate guns, but you can't sort of double down on the defense of your privilege protected under the constitution. We have, see the veil says, so if Missouri can charge the feds 50,000 per violation and the border states can charge 1.5 million per immigrant, illegally crossing the border, this will not only make the state's rich. We can finish the border wall. I think it's absolutely needed then charge each federal institution who failed to come to the border states aid. Yeah. I mean, yeah, that's look, that's what the SIS, that's what our dual system is about. You have all this, these different checks and balances and one check is that the states can just make no look, we're going to reaffirm reassert our rights in the, the face of a tyrannical federal government. It's built into the systems, why it is the way that it is. And I think that it's nice to see some states doing that. All right, we've got last up on this segment, says, how do the sanctuary cities for illegals come into play with Missouri, basically being a sanctuary state for the second opinion? Yeah. So it is this, it is a very similar argument, right? It's it again, comes down to enforceability. And then of course what happened. So enforceability being it's up to the states to inform state laws, but they have no obligation to enforce federal laws. So in the case of, of let's say the second amendment, the us justice department now, correct currently is saying, well, we were going to make some enforcement decisions as it relates to firearms. Okay. This happens all the time. Just because a law is on the books doesn't necessarily mean it is enforced, right prosecutions, uh, take place based on charging decisions. A prosecutor can look at one case and say, well, you know, that's that, that warrants criminal charges and something that's very similar. Doesn't because of certain situ situational factors that may or may not exist. So when you have an administration, a new administration come in, they adjust their prosecutorial priorities. They say, well, it's a new garden town. We suddenly don't care about those cases, but we care about these cases because it's a political maneuver. And so what's happening here, right? Is certain demographics are being, let's say favor or certain policies that favor certain demographics are not being enforced is a better way to put it. That immigration policies that are in, you know, favored cities are not, are not being enforced on a federal level. This is called sanctuary cities. And this is largely being done because the S the sanctuary cities and states are nullifying the feds. They're just saying that we're not going to, we're not going to communicate with ice. We have no, no reason to do that. So if you're going to be on, if you're on the side, that favors that, then you should also favor Missouri doing that, right? Because they're also exercising state rights. If you think that Missouri is problematic, well, then theoretically, you have an issue with nullification. You would also have an issue with sanctuary city notifications. Now people will sort of split that argument if they can. And they'll say that one is about Humana humanity, right? Being humanitarian in the case of sanctuary cities, whereas somebody who is in opposition to gun control is a gun nut monster, conspiracy theorist, white supremacist, xenophobia, whatever. So we all know how that goes. So, all right, one more plug here for the RNR law group. This is our law firm in Scottsdale. We talk, we talk a lot of stuff on this channel, but at our law firm, we have boots on the ground. We have, we have a whole team of people who are dedicated to helping good people facing criminal charges to find safety, clarity, and hope. Our phone number is right down here. 4, 8 0 7 8 7 0 3 9 4. Very much appreciate it. No anybody in our state that needs help with a criminal charge, we would love the opportunity to help. And you're looking for some information about how to deal with law enforcement, to prevent ever being charged with the crime, check out this law enforcement interaction training now available at gun, bro. gumroad.com/robert griller. And we thank you for all of your support. All right, our last segment of the day, Minneapolis, this is back in the news. Many of us thought we were kind of, kind of be done talking about Minneapolis. After we just went through the entire George Floyd, Derek Shovan trial, that lasted a long time. We spent a lot of time talking about it, and the country is just kind of exhausted. We've been dealing with a lot of justice reform issues, lot of animosity here between different demographics, different groups, law enforcement agencies. We're seeing, you know, these, these protests take place around the country. We're seeing people die on both sides, it's of the equation. And people are just, you know, kind of hopeful that maybe we can move beyond it. Derek Shovan got convicted. A lot of people feel that was a justified verdict. And now's an opportunity I need to put all this behind us. Maybe we can have a little bit of healing now. Well, of course, that's not going to happen because in Minneapolis now we've got two new dead people that unfortunately were killed. And we have to talk about what the hell happened again. So this is going to continue to happen. And it's becoming very irritating that we have to continue to talk about this. So here we have another situation. Again, developing out of Minneapolis. They have 100 national guardsmen now on standby as a new, as new gun evidence emerges in the Winston Smith shooting. Now, there is not a lot of information about this, but the Minnesota national guard activated a hundred soldiers. Now that's really not that much when you sorta think about it, but a hundred soldiers on Wednesday, they're getting prepped up and I'm sure the, you know, the, the reserves are now on standby that there civil unrest in Minneapolis, there are demonstrations that are continuing started last week involving the shooting of Winston boogie Smith, Jr. K U S marshals task force came out and there was another recent death of a woman who was killed when a man rammed his SUV into a group of the protestors, blocking an intersection. And so we've just talked about this so much, you know, it's like, it's this domino effect. Something happens. Something happens with the police, the protestors come out. Then oftentimes the government itself is sort of negligent in removing the protestors or, or they're overly aggressive in removing the protesters. And there's more unrest happens. And this has been going on in Minneapolis for well over a year. Now, you know, we're now in June and George Floyd was killed back in may of 2020. And so the protest has been happening for a full year. They're still going on again. And we have, again, two, two more dead people. Now, as a result of this unrest that continues to take place. And we've got, you know, a bunch of politicians around Minneapolis, mayor, Jacob Frey, national guard. We've got a lot of people who are trying to solve this problem, and nobody can quite figure it out. Governor Tim waltz announced on Wednesday that his office at the request of the mayor, Jacob Frey gave the national guard a warning order start preparing to assist local law enforcement. Should they need the help they send a letter. National guard has not yet been giving any operational orders. And as of this time, their assistance has not been needed. The guard tweeted a Wednesday afternoon, approximately 100 soldiers from the 257th military police academy had been activated at the request of the city for potential support to civil unrest, with it in the city, follow up tweet added while the soldiers are not currently in Minneapolis, they are standing by and prepared if they as is needed. So what happened in this case? So here we have Winston Smith Jr. Okay. Now why were the U S marshals involved? So we see here that the us marshals were executing a task force. Why were they there? Well, so they're the enforcement arm of the federal courts. We know this here, Ashley Hackett over at the Minnesota post, put this together. And so they've, you know, captured some of the America's most wanted fugitives and all of this stuff. Let's see drug possession, low-level suspects and on and on and on. According to the information currently available us marshals involved in Smith's case, he had been convicted of a violent felony in the past asked, and he had a warrant out for him, possession of a firearm. So it's a good thing. They went and got him because he was an outstanding felon and had a warrant out. Right? So it's a good thing that they, so that this all happened because of an outstanding warrant. That's great. So Smith was convicted in 2017 assault and robbery ex-girlfriend since two years in prison, sentence was stayed for three years, provided he didn't break the law. In most cases, federal law bans. Those who've been convicted of felonies from possessing firearms, right? It's called a prohibited possessor unless you're in Missouri. Apparently Smith was also charged in Ramsey county with illegally possessing a firearm in 2019, charged with fleeing the police in Hennepin county last year. So in Minnesota, us marshals then are responsible for Smith's deaths. They called the north star fugitive task force. The us attorney's office says the task force includes a number of people to arrest the state's most violent fugitives. So we're going to see what happens here, but according to a preliminary investigation, BCA, uh, probably the bureau of criminal apprehension said that one point a Hennepin county Sheriff's deputy Ramsey county Sheriff's deputy serving on the task force, discharged their weapons, striking the man, no official statements have confirmed whether the U S Marshall's officers fired shots during the attack attempted arrest, right? So, uh, basically zero information again, which is really the most frustrating part of all of these killings and, uh, and shootings that take place. So here is some information. Now this is the us marshals, right? So they're not going to tell you anything, but here is somebody posted this. I said, let me see if I can clear this up. Mayor moose, knuckle over there is catching so much heat, eight, eight, unmarked cars, boxed Winston Smith in after tracking him via Snapchat all morning. So they didn't arrest him outside his vehicle in the garage or anywhere else they waited until he was inside. And then they swarmed, right? And so this type of stuff happens frequently. You know, I don't know what happened here. So it's of course too early to be speculative here, but we'll see what ends up happening. You know, the, the, the, these situations, most times, the reason when I get agitated about these cases is because in most of the cases, I could be wrong here. If it turns out this guy, you know, was firing off an Uzi at them, I'll come here. And he, my words, I don't have a dog in the fight. I just want to see police, you know, leasing reasonably, let's say they, they are constantly conducting high risk maneuvers for low level petty stuff that I just don't think is worth it, right? The same thing that happened with Dante writes, they're conducting these, these, you know, warrant arrests and all these, these things, and people get killed as a result of it. And now somebody else is going to get killed in Minneapolis is going to be in a lot of hot water again. So crime watch Minneapolis again, over on Twitter said that the police moved in and th there were, there was some protest taking place about 15 hours ago. So the police are going in there, they're firing off projectiles, and some arrests are being executed. So law enforcement is out there now, sort of rounding people up there afterwards. You know, this is what we see. So back on Minneapolis, you know, right in Minneapolis, on, on this street, we've got new communities, sort of building up. People are moving loss of, uh, you know, Winston Smith and somebody else was killed shortly thereafter. So we're going to next up, we're going to look at Deanna Marie, right? Another woman who was killed because of this continued unrest that is taking place. We're going to talk about her here in a minute. Here's what the scene looks like. Not, not as many, as many people as maybe you would have seen for a George Floyd rally, right? I don't know if people still have the energy anymore, but of course, of course, there's a lot, you know, there's a lot of people out there now let's go back to the guardsman story. If the guardsmen are brought into Minneapolis police, chief requested that they be assigned to teams with law enforcement officers and concentrate on property protection details and static traffic posts, and a letter that was addressed earlier. State officers they've maintained communication about ongoing peaceful protest and potential civil unrest. They say it is my request that the state make Minnesota national guard assets available to ensure calm and order throughout the city without being deployed. Preparedness is essential. City asked for the national guard at least five times since the death of George Floyd, latest request comes as protesters and city officials compete for control of the intersection of lake street and Hennepin avenue in uptown city crews have repeatedly clear the area, but each time the protest was to move back in. After the police leave, they want the area to remain closed. The traffic as has occurred at the site of Floyd's death, downtown by cup foods, it's come to known as George Floyd's. So why are they setting up at that intersection? Well, because this gal now, Ben Crump is sort of just jumping at the, you know, chomping at the bit. I think he just sort of just sits around and waits for these stories and just w and just updates his Twitter all day. But he posted this. This is her, this is Deanna and magic. K. She was killed three days before her 32nd birthday. She was protesting the fatal police shooting of Winston Smith. When another driver accelerated into her and others due to this malicious act and other family must now cope with a sudden loss of their loved one. So this is the story now laid on Sunday. Her name is Deanna and magic Erickson killed after a man rammed his SUV into a group of protestors vehicles parked a block off the nearby intersection driver. 35 year old Nicholas Krauss was charged with second degree. Unpremeditated murder been in custody since early Monday, police had protestors initially pulled them out of the vehicle and beat him. His motive remains unclear though, the Minneapolis police said that alcohol and drugs may have been contributing factors. They're calling him a white supremacist. We don't know if that's accurate or not yet a sort search warrant also said the cross admitted to being the driver gave a logical, irrelevant answers, telling police that his name was Jesus Christ. And Tim Burton been a carpenter for 2000 years. He could be a crazy person, right? Who knows document obtained by E said, security footage showed, showed no brake lights. His Krauss approached the has five convictions for driving under the influence, dating back to 2007. According to court records, his driver's license was canceled. So, okay. So, so you know, they're going to be protesting that they are protesting that I've, I've seen on Twitter already today that you know, they're, they're calling him a white supremacist. Sounds like he's a crazy person, but all right, here's a scene. Here's what the scene looks like from where the accident occurred. That resulted in another dead. The person in our cities, we have what looks like to be some pretty serious damage, right? This was the intersection. So it's now cordoned off. This was the driver. It looks like his, the front of his car is his ramp is jammed up. This car looks like it may have had an impact. Those tires look blown down there. See what else? Right? So that's car tires are down there. It looks like an impact here. It looks like the airbags went off on that one. So this guy's airbags. I think those may have gone off front front is, is mashed up there. Cops taking a load off over here. We've got, yeah. So this is where the protest was. See, Winston is written down here. How many, how many we've got free America. All right, so let's take a look at some questions. What do we have coming in here? Hot from watching the watchers.locals.com. We got farmer's daughters here. It says, you know, to expand on Jeremy's comments. I have no doubt. We are all in on inspiration. How much you give of yourself as to the need comment? My favorite, my father's fate. First of all, thank you for that. Farmer's daughter, as to the need comment. My father's favorite saying was when we wanted something, he didn't want to get us like a horse. His response was my job as a parent is to make sure you have everything you need, not everything you want. He was a great father in that regard, but I never did get a horse. LOL. Yeah. Thank you for that. Farmer's daughter. That's a nice story. I think that's a good point, right? There's certain, I think sort of baselines that we, you try to adhere to, it sounds like your father had some good wisdom there. Right? And I think there's a lot of value in not giving people everything they want, especially kids, a lot of the best lessons I ever got was somebody telling me, I'm not going to give that to you. Right. Or the better lessons you can't get that you can't have that because what does that make you do want and go get it and work pretty well hard to do so. So I, I really do appreciate that. I mean, it means a lot, you know, I have a lot of fun spending time here with you. And I have just a lot that I want to, I want to do. One of the things that I try to work on regularly is sort of relax a little bit. I have a business coach that I work with and he's constantly telling me, Hey, you don't have to fight for everything. Just take it easy, relax a little bit. Cause I it's sort of in my DNA, why wanted to be a defense lawyer at some point, because I like to fight and I like to, you know, go out there and get after it. So sometimes when I'm sort of resting a little bit, I'm feeling like I should be working and I got to just calm down a little bit. So, you know, I think there's a, there's a people talk about balance. I really don't like that concept of having balance, but there is, I think a little bit more or, uh, focused intentional rest could be useful probably for, for you to, I talk a lot about myself here, but maybe a little intentional rest would be good for me. All of us, maybe society could use a little bit of that because we've all been through the ringer on this one. We have been through a lot, whether, you know, it or not, I mean many people sort of, I think we're looking back at 2020, like they had the year off and maybe it wasn't that big of a deal for them for many people. I think it was a very catastrophic year. And I think even those people who kind of think that it wasn't that big of a deal, I think they don't really know what the long lasting consequences of that may intent may ultimately being. So I think it's a good time for all of us to pause and just reflect a little bit. All right, next up enough of that. We've got Sarah smother says, how is it that the left can both be supporting a criminal who broke gun laws and yet still want more gun control laws at the same time, I know a life was lost. That shouldn't have been, but letting him leave was the best option. How can you enforce gun control laws if you let offenders leave the scene? Well, so it's a great points there. I totally understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with you to some degree. I think, I think the, the real question that, that, that this is getting at is sort of, or at least where I have my, my distinctions here is based on the methodology that they use when they're enact, when they're, when they're executing these warrants and arrests, right? They, they tend to do them in sort of these high stakes situations where they've got 20 officers. They all come in, they say there he is. And we crashed down upon him on the roof of a parking lot. When there are other ways that you can do this stuff, you know, there, there are, there are ways that don't involve coming in, guns blazing all the time. But unfortunately that happens a lot. Right? And, and the reason that I get irritated about it is because I, we, we talked talk a lot about the stories like this. Like the Brianna Taylor case is a great example of that, right? They just sort of busted in something happened, guns, go off blazing all over the place, girl now, and we're just going, can, is there a better way to go about this? Do you have to just go in hot all the time? Because it feels like they are. And I think that this is where a lot of people have some, you know, some, some disagreements about I Al I don't want dangerous people flying around society. I don't want people going out there, you know, committing dangerous, violent gun offenses. I, it doesn't serve me living in that society. People think that because I'm a defense lawyer, it's like I endorse criminality. I don't want it to be mad. Max road warrior out there at all right. I got to live in the same society myself, but I just want the government to sort of prioritize life over an arrest. That's all. And I'm not saying that the officers in this case didn't do that. Right. I mean, they did a lot. Hasn't come out. But the other issue that I have with this stuff is this happened back on June 7th. We may never know what the hell happened. This is what the feds, us marshals. They, they give us a blurb. Uh, we had, uh, a deputy from Hennepin county who may have fired his weapon. Oh, great. Thanks guys. Good job. Okay. And part of my other concern with all of these, it's like, listen, you know, if, if the government wants people to be reasonable, they gotta be reasonable with us back. There's a bunch of people out there protesting because they think the government just did something bad by shooting and killing Winston Smith. If they had a rapid response team and they said, Hey, listen, we warned him. 50 times we were surrounding his car. He had a gun up in the air. He started shooting back at us or whatever that they released, that they have a rapid response team and we all get the picture. We all go, oh, it's okay. You're right. Remember that same thing happened with, um, uh, Mikaila Bryant, the 17 year old girl who was shot and killed. Okay. Everybody started losing their minds over that one up another white cop shot shoots another young black girl she's dead. And lo and behold, they released the body camera footage immediately. She was lunging at somebody with a knife. I mean, like, you know, inches away from stabbing right in the throat or neck or whatever the chest area was. So it's like, okay. So we, we just, you know, respond it's accountability and transparency open up. Let's what happened here. If you said that nothing went wrong. What happened? Because they, they D they just shut their mouth. They put everything behind closed doors. The people don't know any better. They go out there and they start protesting. You have some Luna tech who drives, you know, drives over somebody. We have another dead person, Minneapolis that whole city has just been under wreckage. There's a lot of very good people there who probably are tired of this. Right? And their lives are being destroyed from this continued unrest. That is largely at the hands of our incompetent government and law enforcement agencies that continue to execute these high-risk maneuvers. And I'm just tired of seeing it. I mean, that's, that's what it comes down to. You know, the whole thing could come out later down the road, everything was done by the book and I'm ranting about nothing. Cause we don't know anything about the story could just be, you know, that the whole thing was, was perfectly fine. But my, my point we've, we've seen enough of this, that there starts to become a pattern that you can just sort of predict it. And if they start calling a national guard, a hundred of those people coming in now and going, oh great, here we go again. So we'll see where it goes. But I do understand your point, Sarah. Right? We do want to save society. I agree with you that we don't want, you know, you know, gun con gun V you know, violent gun, criminal maniacs running around society. But I just think that we may have a difference of opinion about what we do or how we go about making sure that those people don't become harmful to society. Ultimately, we both want the same outcome. It's just a question about how we get there. I think, I think great question though. Thank you for that. We have in the dark says, wait a minute, how did he possibly drive? If he didn't have a license? That's a good question, man. I mean, you know, did he have a, they have too many points on his license. It sounded like he had a lot of points on his license. So that's a good question. It's illegal to drive. If you have too many points on your license, you know, all right, those were great questions. All of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. I want to thank everybody for all of your support over there. I want to welcome a couple of newcomers to the show and to the community we've got. Allie, Joe is in the house now. Welcome Allie, grateful to have you here at our community. We've got M Burke, double oh seven is in the house, which I guess sounds like he's ready for some business. So James Bond is here now over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Thank you very much. Both of you for signing up a lot of good stuff over there. If you have not already checked that out, you can go over there and take a look at our whole slew of documents over there. The Nope, we're going to go there. We've got the slides that are available to download. You can download a copy of my book, impeachment party documents also available. Their existence systems template is available to download. We've got links. We've got great people over there. We've got a zoom meetup that is coming up on June 26th. So register you can, you can go over here and sign up, register@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. It is free if you are over there and a couple other quick plugs, of course, we've got some info products that you can go and take a look at it. If you want to stay connected and learn a little bit more about other things like how to deal with law enforcement would love it. If you check this course out and if you are somebody who already went through, it would really very much appreciate a review down there. If you're interested in personal productivity, there is an existence systems. If you're a lawyer or a legal professional, definitely come give this course a look at it. It's not a course. It's a community. We do a legal mastermind. We meet twice a week month. Talk about being better lawyers and building better practices so that we can do better in society. I would invite you to come check that out lastly, but not leastly. I am a criminal defense lawyer here at the RNR law group. And so if you know anybody who has been charged with a crime in the state of Arizona, we would appreciate a referral, our direction. We can help with anything and everything that involves the law being in trouble with the law, specifically criminal law. That means things like drug charges, domestic violence, DUI, even traffic tickets. We have a lot of criminal traffic violations in the state of Arizona that are in fact quite serious. So if you need some help or, you know, anybody that might, we would be honored and humbled, if you sent them our direction, we love the opportunity to help good people find safety, clarity, and hope in their criminal cases. And beyond that in their lives, we'd very much appreciate it at any anybody you sent our way. We'll make sure we take very good care of them and that my friends is it for me today. Want to thank you for joining us? We're going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow, going to be at 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on that east coast for that one, Florida man out there. And everybody else be well tonight, sleep very well. Have a Hardy dinner because we're going to be ready to go tomorrow. I'll see you then have a great evening. Bye bye everybody.