Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Biden Crime Wave Firearms Task Force, FBI Frames Teddy Deegan Murder, Interstate Water Wars

June 23, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Biden Crime Wave Firearms Task Force, FBI Frames Teddy Deegan Murder, Interstate Water Wars
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Biden Crime Wave Firearms Task Force, FBI Frames Teddy Deegan Murder, Interstate Water Wars
Jun 23, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

Biden Crime Wave Firearms Task Force, FBI Frames Teddy Deegan Murder, Interstate Water Wars​

President Biden’s Whitehouse takes a sharp pivot to address a new crime wave with a hard focus on guns. New article details how the FBI framed 4 innocent men in the 1960s and we ask whether the current bureau is capable of something similar in 2021. As wildfires and droughts continue to spread across the country the Interstate Water Wars continue to heat up.​

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

🔵 A new crime wave sweeps across the country and the Biden Whitehouse is taking notice.​
🔵 Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice unveils new Firearms Trafficking Strike Force.​
🔵 A review of the DOJ plan to “Reduce Violent Crime”​
🔵 Is the new anti-crime posture from the Biden administration really about crime?​
🔵 Nancy Pelosi and others are talking about a new January 6th commission to investigate the alleged insurrection.​
🔵 Techno Fog releases new article details a case where the FBI framed four innocent men: https://technofog.substack.com/p/when-the-fbi-framed-four-innocent​
🔵 Who was Peter Limone and did he kill Teddy Deegan in 1965?​
🔵 Did the Hoover FBI know about the setup? Is it possible the current FBI is involved in similar conduct?​
🔵 Interstate water wars heat-up and the Supreme Court continues to monitor water rights throughout the United States.​
🔵 Review of the current status of water rights litigation and fights between Arizona, California and others.​
🔵 A peek at a Supreme Court order in the case of Arizona vs. California dating back to the 1960s.​
🔵 A review of Whitehouse’s tweets and his prior statements on rooting out racial injustice.​

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 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​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

☝🏻 Don't forget to join us on Locals for exclusive content, slides, book, coupon codes and more! ! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

WATCH ON RUMBLE:​

🟡 MAIN: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq​

#WatchingtheWatchers #CrimeWave #BidenCrime #CriminalJustice #2A #SecondAmendment #TaskForce #ATF #DEA #Feds #FBI #Water #WaterRights #WaterWars #InterstateWaterWars

Show Notes Transcript

Biden Crime Wave Firearms Task Force, FBI Frames Teddy Deegan Murder, Interstate Water Wars​

President Biden’s Whitehouse takes a sharp pivot to address a new crime wave with a hard focus on guns. New article details how the FBI framed 4 innocent men in the 1960s and we ask whether the current bureau is capable of something similar in 2021. As wildfires and droughts continue to spread across the country the Interstate Water Wars continue to heat up.​

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

🔵 A new crime wave sweeps across the country and the Biden Whitehouse is taking notice.​
🔵 Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice unveils new Firearms Trafficking Strike Force.​
🔵 A review of the DOJ plan to “Reduce Violent Crime”​
🔵 Is the new anti-crime posture from the Biden administration really about crime?​
🔵 Nancy Pelosi and others are talking about a new January 6th commission to investigate the alleged insurrection.​
🔵 Techno Fog releases new article details a case where the FBI framed four innocent men: https://technofog.substack.com/p/when-the-fbi-framed-four-innocent​
🔵 Who was Peter Limone and did he kill Teddy Deegan in 1965?​
🔵 Did the Hoover FBI know about the setup? Is it possible the current FBI is involved in similar conduct?​
🔵 Interstate water wars heat-up and the Supreme Court continues to monitor water rights throughout the United States.​
🔵 Review of the current status of water rights litigation and fights between Arizona, California and others.​
🔵 A peek at a Supreme Court order in the case of Arizona vs. California dating back to the 1960s.​
🔵 A review of Whitehouse’s tweets and his prior statements on rooting out racial injustice.​

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 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​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

☝🏻 Don't forget to join us on Locals for exclusive content, slides, book, coupon codes and more! ! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

WATCH ON RUMBLE:​

🟡 MAIN: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq​

#WatchingtheWatchers #CrimeWave #BidenCrime #CriminalJustice #2A #SecondAmendment #TaskForce #ATF #DEA #Feds #FBI #Water #WaterRights #WaterWars #InterstateWaterWars

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live recorded. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law room and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. Throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers together with your help. We can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get into. We're going to be talking about the Biden crime way . We've been talking about this a lot here on this channel, talking about the pendulum swinging back and forth between defund the police. Now, suddenly it's sort of looking like got a refund, the police here, and there's been a lot of nonsense going on in the criminal justice space for a long time. Now the white house is starting to get a grasp on the concept that maybe the police are in fact necessary. And so we're expecting to hear from Joe Biden today kind of doesn't really matter what he has to say because he sort of just gets thrown in front of a teleprompter anyways, but we do have some clips today or some, some excerpts from what the department of justice is intending to do. We've gone through a lot of their material. And so we're going to dive in a little bit further and see really what they are unveiling. They've got a couple of different protocols and sort of at different strategies that they are going to be using to address this crime wave that is spreading throughout America. So Biden's crime wave and the resulting task force that is going to be coming about. We're going to get into all of that. Then we're also going to talk about the one six commission because Nancy Pelosi is out there now floating the idea, or she may have confirmed it at this moment that they are going to be moving forward or with a further commission. If you recall to catch up on the story briefly, there was a lot of talk in Congress about whether a January six commission was going to be passed in order to investigate the January six riots or the insurrection or whatever you want to call it. And somehow that did not pass its way through Congress. I believe the Republicans were opposed to that. And so it didn't, it didn't go anywhere. Now. It sounds like Nancy Pelosi is going to sort of be doing this on her own, and we're going to get into that story briefly, but really why I want to spend some time on this segment is talking about a story that comes over from techno fog, told you a bit , a big fan of him. He sort of this pseudo anonymous lawyer that writes under the pseudonym techno fog . And so I'd encourage you to go follow him on Twitter and elsewhere. He wrote a very nice article over on sub stacked at the reactionary. And so we're going to talk about that where he's going through the Sicilian mafia, lucky Luciano and the Teddy Deegan murders, which you may remember some of these things from back in the , uh , when was this the 1950s, I believe it was sixties. And so we're going to get into that story because it, what does it show? It shows that the FBI framed for innocent people and you go, well, they're not capable of doing something like that here today, really with even a bigger budget and a bigger bureaucracy and more politicized [inaudible] in the intelligence community. We'll see. All right . And then we're going to wrap up on our last segment today talking about interstate water wars and you're going, what are you talking about? Water wars? Yeah. This is something that actually exists in law , actually a fascinating area of the law. And I know it might sound sort of mundane because we're talking about water and water rights, but you don't, I probably don't realize maybe you do that. The states are fighting to the death over water rights. And so in Arizona right now, we're sort of fighting over the Colorado river and we've got different apportionment between what Arizona gets and what California gets and what Utah gets and what New Mexico gets. And there's these little battles going on about the water. Of course, Arizona is on fire. California is going to be on fire soon enough. We're going to have rolling blackouts and brownouts because we can't keep the electricity on. And the water is just gone. It's all , it's , we're in a massive drought here on the Western side of the country, but the same thing is happening over on the east coast. We've got a battle between Georgia and Florida that sort of just got wrapped up or , or I want to share with you what happened there. And so what we're seeing now as the rest of the country is fighting over things like, you know , uh , oil pipelines, you know, gasoline's running out, we've got electricity problems throughout the country, and now we're, we're going to be looking like we might have some water problems here pretty soon because our , uh, our , our government is not particularly competent, really. So we've got a lot to get into ordinarily. I'd invite you to be a part of the show because we take questions in between each segment. But as I mentioned yesterday, I've got an event today. We actually, we have a company team building event that we're going to be doing this afternoon. And so I want to make sure that my full attention is dedicated to our team at the RNR law group. And so we're going to just be a w this is going to be a premiere video as you're watching right now. That is a prerecorded doesn't mean that we're not going to be taking questions though on Sunday. So on Sunday, if you're a member [email protected], if you support, support our show there, because YouTube demonetized our entire channel earlier this year, well, that would be great. First of all, thank you for the support, but we are going to be doing some good stuff this weekend. We've got our monthly zoom meetup . Camera's on optional. If you want them on leaving them on and we'll have some Q and a going on there on Saturday, but then if you can't make that, because I don't record that, we're going to do a Q and a I'm going to post a thread on locals. And so if you've got any questions or leftover cases or any stories that you're like, Rob, why don't you talk about this week? You missed one of the biggest stories. Then we're going to do a little Q and a. So I'll record a video on Sunday just to catch up for some of the lacking of questions during these prerecorded show . So once again, watching the watchers.locals.com , and I would encourage you to check out some of the other links that are down in the description below. Of course, we have a law firm in Scottsdale, Arizona, the R and R law group. We love to help good people facing criminal charges. And I also have some informational offerings down there at gumroad.com/robert. Gerler do not forget to subscribe to this channel and the others that are down linked in the description below. All right. So enough of the introduction let's get in to the news of the day, the Biden crime wave is capturing a lot of attention out there in the media, and also the people who are the victims of the surge in crime that is permeating itself throughout the country. Now, this is something that we spent a lot of time talking about. So I want to give a quick little breakdown of sort of how this channel came to be. If you're not familiar, if you haven't been with us for a long period of time, we've had a lot of growth. The channel has gotten a lot of attention. And because I think we're talking about having the important conversations that unfortunately, some other people are not having, but I digress. Let's go back to the origin story here. So as we all know, I'm a criminal defense lawyer, and I used to make these videos was where I would actually call out the police officers. So I'd actually kind of hold up their mugshot and say, Hey, this officer got arrested for this. If you've been stopped by this officer, your case may be able to be dismissed because he breached protocol who's to say he didn't breach protocol in your case, give our office a call. Right? And so I'd be, I'd be very aggressive towards law enforcement. And this was back in, you know , I would say late 2019 kind of working into early 2020, and I was doing a lot of public speaking and I was sort of out there , uh, you know, engaging with different recovery and treatment centers , uh , throughout Arizona, and then COVID hit. And so I thought, oh man, I just , you know, all of these things got canceled. And so I couldn't go in person anymore. So I thought I have to sort of, you know , uh, make sure that I'm still connecting with people some way and decided to start a live show here on YouTube. That was about March, 2020, because , uh , the , the context of the coronavirus , everything was locking down no more public speaking. So I just had to sort of say, okay, I'm going to let's do it . Let's try this live show thing and see how this works. I was sort of freaked out. I've got an entire law firm and that I wanted to keep open. And I wanted to make sure that we could keep representing our clients and maintain our , our office so that our, of course, our , our team can provide for their families. And so it was sort of a stressful time. So we decided to go online and I was still somebody at that time who was sort of, you know , uh , kind of aggressive towards law enforcement. And that was my, my watching the Watchers, right? Let's hold the police accountable because in March, 2020, not a lot of people were talking much about this stuff. And then we fast forward. And so, so let me back up there at the early outset of the show, I would say that if we're talking about this spectrum of sort of where you fall, I was a little bit more sort of like, let's say, pro police reform, let's put it that way. And I was very in favor of that, talking a lot, those issues, then something very interesting happened as the timeline progressed a little bit. So then we get to about may and George Ford happens, George Floyd is killed by Derek Shovan and the entire conversation changed overnight. Immediately. Everybody suddenly was interested in criminal justice reform. And so here is little old me going, whoa, wait a minute. I was out here screaming from the rooftops about this stuff in March. Suddenly we fast forward to may and all of this stuff is now unfolding right in front of our eyes. And I'm thinking, great. This is great finally, oh my gosh, I've been practicing law for all these years. And I've been screaming about this stuff from the rooftops. Finally, we're going to get some criminal justice reform conversations taking place in this country. And we did for about 20 seconds. Then the conversation shifted a little bit before it did though. Remember that moment when sort of America was unified when we were all sort of getting together and going, oh man, what we saw there was terrible, regardless of what we learned after the fact about , uh , Floyd's fentanyl or methamphetamine use or coronary disease or any of the other contributing factors that in my opinion creates a pretty serious reasonable doubt. At the time after we saw what happened there, when we all saw the footage, we didn't know much else about the case and everybody was unified. Everybody just saw what they saw. And they said, you know, I don't like that. And maybe we need to have a little bit of a conversation about humanity between law enforcement and the people that they're arresting. And I was all on board for that. Absolutely let's have this conversation because we represent people who are, or are subject in many cases to law enforcement. It can be very difficult to have to sort of you sit there with their families and explain that, Hey, this is just how the system is. I know it's terrible, but this is how it is. And so now we're starting to say, okay, finally, we're having this real conversation. And then something happened the whole dynamic shifted again. It went from having a real conversation about reasonable justice reform to defund the police. And suddenly we started to see buildings being burnt down. And the third precinct in Minneapolis got burnt to the ground. We've got Portland being in a Molotov cocktails are being lobbed their direction at the courthouse. And so we're just seeing sort of chaos spread throughout the country, all in the back of this, of this apparently pro justice reform movement, which wasn't really about justice at all anymore. It was about sort of, you know, exacting, I dunno , revenge expressing your displeasure with the current state of law enforcement. I don't really know what was gained by any of those protests or any of those, you know, Pete non peaceful protests , not much good came out of that because what ended up happening is it alienated everybody who was on the side of justice reform. They said, oh, well, if that's what justice reform looks like, if the solution to this is the defund, the police, well , I don't want any part of it. And so I've been saying on this channel, as we've been going through this timeline, that the pendulum is gonna swing the other way, it's going to happen. And we're getting very close to this. Now of course the white house is concerned over a surge in violent crime. So we can see that there let's make sure let's do an auto, let's swap this over here so we can get a nice cuts. All right . So we'll get that nice little transition there, policies for that. All right . So this article here, now we can see, it says, concerns are rising inside the white house, over a surge in violent crime. So written here by Jeff Zeleny and Kevin Liptak. And so concerns are rising and you go, yeah, of course they are right . Why wouldn't they be? Because literally different city councils around this country started to defund the police. We saw this 6 million gone and they brought 6 million back and the list goes on and on around the country, we've seen city councils say, Nope, we're going to move it from the police over to a community supervisors or whatever. And now the pendulum is swinging back the other direction. There was a lot of momentum against the police. And I've been saying this for a long time here. I totally disavowed BLM and all of those organizations because they became politicized. And the only momentum or the only action item that they had on their list of seven demands was to defund the police. As it comes to justice reform, the other six demands were all about, you know, political, political remove Trump don't let him run again, get them off the internet. Blah-blah-blah useless stuff, nothing to do with justice reform. So it was kind of an embarrassment of a movement, but we all knew that this was going to go the other direction. It was going to be a lot of calls for defunding the police, the police rightfully. So we're going to get agitated about that. Oh, you don't want me here policing you and protecting your neighborhood. And you think that I'm a racist piece of human debris. Well then how about I just don't come back. How about I just pick a different profession because I am free to do that. I'm not obligated to come in and protect and serve you. If you don't value my services, you're free to pick up and go, right? This is America. You're free to do that stuff, which I encourage everybody to do. If you're not, you know , if you're not happy, well , you have the many people have at least a modicum of flexibility to make some changes in their, in their lives. But they just tell themselves a bunch of things that, that they put in front of themselves as roadblocks, because they don't actually want to make some hard decisions. But this is now something that we can see the pendulum swiftly swinging the other direction. We're seeing murder rates rise. We're seeing crime go through the roof and the white house is suddenly concerned about this. So let's go back over to this article here from CNN. They're saying that a nationwide surge in violent crime has emerged as a growing area of concern inside the white house. Joe Biden is aids listened with alarm as local authorities worn a brutal summer summer of killing lies ahead. Okay. So let's see what else this says. Now my first instinct on this, right? I've got two institutes , two thoughts on this number one. Yeah, there probably is a very serious crime problem because the policies and the politicization of the, the conversation taking place around justice reform has created some pretty strong disincentives for good law enforcement to stick around any further, right. They w why would they stick around? They can just move on, go to a different jurisdiction, pick up their family, come to a different, you know, come to Texas or Arizona, where maybe we don't say that, you know, some of the same things you might hear in Portland or Minneapolis or Seattle, for example. So police are saying, we're going to pick up and move. That's one reason why this is a, a obvious outcome, not even a surprise, but the other thing that's so interesting about this is that, you know , Joe, Biden's got a lot of experience in this area. Okay. Remember this, he passed a bunch of crime bills from the 1980s all the way through the 1990s, we had the 1984 crime bill, the 1986 crime bill, which was in response to crack cocaine. That's where we got mandatory sentencing for, for crack cocaine, offenders, adversely , uh , dramatically impacted the African-American community adversely because that drug was ripping through their community. So Joe Biden, I've been saying this for a long time has been responsible for the incarceration of more black Americans in any person in modern American history. So may , maybe in history entirely. I don't know the numbers on that, but I would venture. I would, I would love to know who's more responsible for the incarceration of more people than Joe Biden. And if you want to really add the trifecta there, the double team duo, we've got add Kamala Harris as prosecutor and attorney general. So these people have been prosecuting crimes. We got the 1986 crime bill . Then we got the 1994 crime bill, which was a massive overhaul. We got the three strikes rule out of Joe Biden, mandatory sentencing, all of these tough on crime, you know , BS, nonsense laws came out of it. And we're now dealing with the repercussions of it. So the, this administration is perfectly suited for, I guess, cleaning up crime. They've got about 35 years of experience doing so. And so now what we're seeing is, oh , well , oh, we're, we're alarmed about it again. So what are we going to do that you just got done for the last year or so talking about an empathizing with defund the police now to , to Joe Biden's credit, right? He never sort of said that. And he's actually on record saying a few times that no, I've never supported defund the police. It's a stupid idea, but you've got, you know, you've got sort of his wing man, Kamala Harris, who's actually, you know , donating or posting on her Twitter to go and support the bail funds that are, that are helping people get out of custody. The same very people who burnt down the third precinct in Minneapolis, on her Twitter. It's probably still there. We covered it a couple of months ago. So the whole thing is kind of hilarious that , uh , it's, it's sad as hell, but you can see the pendulum swinging the other way. The Democrats here essentially caused this, this, this riff largely many people would say, it's the police, or, you know , George Floyd started it. I'm sorry that Derek Shovan and the George Floyd incident started it. And so the sort of the community reaction to it necessitated what was necessary in order to push back on the site to break the cycle. And then the police, you know, they're leaving. And so they've got a better response. They should have a bigger responsibility to continue to protect and serve their communities. And so you can, it's the chicken or the egg thing. We can play this game all day long and where this goes, but Politik , policy-wise in the last 12 months, what has changed. Okay. We had a lot of people now talking defund the police. When that happens. When you, when you tell the people who are supposed to be your on your team, that you really don't value them much anymore, they pick up and leave. These consequences are just in my mind entirely obvious. So they're creating sort of this, this, this problem of increased criminality by incentivizing officers to leave by defunding police departments. And now what's going to happen is they're going to recognize, oh my gosh, there's a big problem. We have to come back out here and address violent crime. And so what are they going to do? We've already been hearing about guns a lot, right? We been hearing about guns all over the place about how dangerous they are and about how many murders are happening. So I also get a little bit skeptical about this, right? We always hear never let a crisis go to waste. So we definitely have a crime surge that the Democrats, in my opinion, largely are, are exacerbating by not being more vehemently, opposed to defund the police. And they are saying that that increase in crime now needs to be addressed. Oh. While the Democrats have a very easy solution for that, don't they, it's probably going to be in the form of gun control. So just get ready for that coming down the pike. All right, enough, let's get into it. Now. Biden plans to address the spike in shootings, right? Armed robberies and vicious assaults on Wednesday afternoon, following a meeting with local officials, they're concerned about combating the trend. Now he hopes to dampen what has already become a cudgel for Republicans eager to run a law and order campaign. In next year's midterm elections president is poised to announce a comprehensive crime reduction strategy. If officials said we've got some information on what that's going to look like to address the root causes of the spike, and you'll notice this reducing gun violence, right? So that is obviously going to be the centerpiece of this. He plans to sign executive actions. We'll see what those look like with a particular focus on tamping down gun crimes, gun crimes. According to officials, while again, calling on Congress to take steps, to enact new gun control laws. He has also set to press Congress to confirm Dave Chipman as his nominee to lead the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. So there you go, folks, right? It looks like it's going to be a gun grab effort. It's going to be a second amendment assault , uh , sort of couched in the frame of being anti-crime. Now they just sort of caused a lot of this crime by creating a lot of this racial division that's taking place throughout the schools. We're having a lot of conversations about the oppressors versus the oppresses, even, you know, with eight year olds around around this country. And now we've got a lot of crime bursting through the seams in large part, in my opinion, due to conditions that were created by the national narrative that the country has been going through for the last 18 months and their solution. We've got to get rid of the guns. We got to come and take your guns in order to deal with these murders. It's the murders, right? And if the armed robberies , not just the robberies, the armed robberies as CNN points out and what are we seeing? Right? You can see it in the media. You can see the narrative, just developing this thing. Just burgeoning , uh , bursting at the seams. Here is NBC news. Now they're going to give us a lot of headlines. Look at all this gun violence. We've got Fitzsimmons here says the weekend gun violence shakes gatherings in cities across the U S it's almost like there's an epidemic of gun violence. Isn't there. Gun violence, marred outdoor indoor gatherings in cities. We've got Colorado Springs. They had back-to-back shootings. Five people injured on Friday night. Six people shot in Louisiana. We've got Flint. Michigan woman died after she was fatally shot by police. She was exchanging gunfire with them. Lots of guns, lots of shootings. The suspect whose name was not released, died at a hospital elsewhere in the Midwest. We've got NBC Chicago, at least five people were killed. Dozens injured in gun violence. There we've got Wichita police officer hospitalized. After there was a shooting there. Another shooting here killed. Somebody was killed in an exchange with police, Texas eight people were shot at a party. Police had this shooting happened in an argument after it broke out Northern California, seven people shot in Oakland. We've got Oakland PD saying, okay, right. So you get the gist of it. That it's shooting, shooting, shooting, shooting, shooting. It's responsible for all the crimes he's being shot. All right . And the mayors now we're going to, well, we can't we're at , uh , we can't, we can't solve this problem. I mean, we're, we need the federal government to come in and help us. So the Washington post is reporting as homicide soar , nationwide mayors, see few options for regaining control. Oh. So they can't figure out their local problems themselves. And what are they doing as mayor? All right . Killings rolled over the country like a fast moving storm from Savannah to Austin, Chicago, to Cleveland, six hours in one night for mass shooting attacks. So you see how this goes. We almost, we have done almost all we can do said van Johnson, mayor of Savannah, Georgia, the tools for fighting back. He says, Austin mayor, Steve Adler are limited without state and federal help got to get the feds going. We've got, you know, so I'd be curious what all these affiliations are going to Democrat over there. It's going to get worse as Cleveland mayor, Frank Jackson, Democrat, as the homicide rate, climbed through a year of pandemic and post shutdowns and civil unrest officials held firm in their belief that the rise was driven by an exceptional set of circumstances. But as life returned to normal, the killings would slow. But even as the restrictions have lifted and protests have quieted in recent months, the violence has not subsided. Indeed it has continued to grow and now local leaders are grappling with the possibility that they had long fear that a decades, long era of declining murder rates may be over. And the increased killings may be here to stay. There's nothing set Jackson, that's going to bring this down in the near future. Okay. So , uh, so that's good. That's really nice glass, half full optimistic leadership from these useless mayors. We've got Austin mayor, Steve Allora we're limited. We need state and federal help. Okay. So state help. I can understand, but the feds coming in here and getting involved in any of this stuff, we've got enough law enforcement layered on top of everything we do in society. We don't need more of it. All right . So we've got Baltimore police. She says that she's calling for boots on the ground. So know we've got another Baltimore police commissioner we've got Michael Harrison said Tuesday. He would like more quote boots on the ground and additional funding to help his department and met a surge in violent crime. During an interview with Jake Tapper, Harrison, that Baltimore and other big cities are seeing a spike in violence, Maryland rec recording 18 homicides. In the past days, the police chief said that this has resulted from a number of issues like gang violence and retaliation from bad acts. But the city has seen a particular increase in close acquaintance shootings and domestic violence. Harrison, who said his department is roughly 230 officers short. I wonder why that might be, why would officers who are scolded and have their fingers wagged in their faces all the time by people like me were actually, why would they just pick up and leave? Right? Why would they do this now? I'm , I'm , I'm a criminal defense lawyer. So I think that's pretty pertinent for me to, you know, be able to sort of express my concerns with the lack of accountability, transparency, or justice as it relates to bad officers. But I have never once on this channel, not once said that I agree with defunding the police or that any good officers should be considered to be racist. You know, whatever. Never ever said that, but the bad officers. Yeah, they they've got to go. But that same standard in my opinion, has not been applied across the board. I haven't seen that. I've seen a lot of people saying that ACA, be all cops are bad or, or another word. Right. And we've seen a lot of momentum from Democrats and really not even the mainstream Democrats, more people on the left wing who sort of have commandeered a large part of the party making arguments that no, when we mean defund the police, we mean defund the police. I didn't make a slide about this, but if you go online and type that into Google, we mean, we actually mean defund the police. You're going to see tons of articles. This is something that is actually a momentum has momentum in that political side of the aisle. So 230 officers they're gone, nobody wants to come in and work a thankless job. Why would they? So he says, well, we want to build those relationships. We need the community's help in helping us solve these murders so we can hold these bad actors accountable for terrorizing our community. Yeah . You know, it's , it's a sad thing. It's sad because it's, you know, these communities are going to just be, are going to be hurt. It's all right. So let's take a look. Now I said previously that I've got some concerns here that maybe some of this is about an attack on the second amendment coming after the guns, the firearms we've been seeing this a lot. We've been hearing this for a long time and I just went through, showed you some of the headlines, shooting, shooting, shooting, shooting, shooting, shooting. They are going to smack us in the face with this for the next several months, gun violence, gun violence, gun vault , every single thing is going to be about gun violence. So let's take a look now at some gun statistics, I've got a big problem with some of these numbers here, but I want to show you where this data comes from. So if you're a member, Gabby Giffords, Gabby Giffords was shot here in Arizona and she has sort of become a figurehead for, for, you know, anti-gun violence. And, you know, I don't, I don't want any gun violence at all. I certainly want to make sure that our second amendment is protected and that we have a , you know, a very safe and Liberty oriented concept around how that is functional in America. But I also certainly don't want done violence. Right? I think that it is not, I want to make sure that that's not happening. So, so, so Gabby Giffords now he's sort of somebody who is spearheading this conversation and she has an organization here called Giffords courage to fight gun violence. And so you see Gabby story, right? She was shot. This is a portrait of her. There was a shooting took place in Tucson, Arizona. She was shot. She survived. And actually her husband now is a Senator here in Arizona. So we've got history in the wake of the tragedy. She turned her outrage into action. She works against gun violence, contact us. Right. She's a journalist legend . If you're somebody can contact us. Okay . So the reason I wanted to show you this, we often talk about, you know, looking at data in light yeah . In a light, most favorable to the people, making the claim. So give them the benefit of the doubt. If they're going to, if they're going to make the argument, all right, let's, let's take their argument. Let's say everything right . It's true. And let's analyze it because if you can beat their argument at the best, well, then you can beat it sort of , sort of at any other, any other way. So you give him the benefit of the doubt, but I want to just show you this. There's not actually much to really analyze here. This comes over from the CDC. This was a graphic that was , uh , drafted over here by Gabby , by Gabby Giffords, her organization. She says here, you can see that gun deaths are on the rise nationally. So from about 2009 to about 2018, or the data stops. So super old data, we go about, it looks like maybe if you're checking the scale and they're about 9,000 votes, right? So about not votes deaths, not, not votes 9,000 and deaths here over the course of about 10 years. So, you know, it , it definitely looks dramatic because it is almost a quarter or a third of the total deaths that we had in 2009. And so deaths on the rise, quick point on this though, the data's from 2018. So we have a very big data problem in this country. In my humble opinion, we have, if you go over to the CDC, you can take a look at their gun data. And it says from the , the, the, the closest you can go back is the 2019. It's two years old. Okay. So age adjusted death here, we can go back to 2019, but we can't really see anything more recent than that. I think this is a big problem with a lot of the things that we're doing in Arizona. And I listened to a podcast over actually it was a clubhouse recording that , that I was listening to with a lot of people in the, in the sort of the crypto space, we're having a conversation and talking about the need to sort of rebuild America's information, supply chains so that we can get better data more quickly. And I think there was a, there was a really good idea here that when somebody dies, you don't actually need to get all of the data about them . So you don't need their name. And next of kin and you know , uh , what their medical history was or any of that stuff, there should be some sort of a way that we just document desks sort of immediately. And they go into this big database that we can all sort of see what the trends look like. So you can see immediately that this person died at this date and time at this location, and maybe a couple of quick identifying factors so that that person doesn't get double counted. But the theory would be that if you, if you have these. So as soon as law enforcement shows up to a suit, a shooting, they enter some sort of quick thing into an app or something. Okay, we got this one, make sure that we notify it goes into a national database and you can see numbers in real time, right? You don't necessarily have to know every single thing about that death, but at least we see what happened. And we say the initial suspected death, firearm, death, or this would have been extremely powerful for COVID right. What if we would just have, okay. Suspect the COVID death suspect, the COVID death, and rather than locking down, let's say every single, every state we could say, we've got to , we've got to re in real time, we've got a big problem over here in New York. We're going to make sure that that's dealt with, but in Idaho, things are pretty fine over there, right? There's , it's all, it's all well and good that we have, we have no deaths , we've got no hospitalizations. You can do the same thing for hospitalizations suspected COVID here. And we can have data really in real time from all across the country. And so, you know, maybe they have something like that, but they don't tell the public about that. Of course they don't give us any of that information. And so we're dealing with numbers from 2019 from the CDC. So thanks. Thanks. Great. So, all right, we've got now, when we break down those 2018 numbers, we saw that these were almost 39,000 deaths, a lot, a lot of deaths, but when you break that number up, you'll see about 22,000 of those, about 23061% of those are suicides. Okay. So about only, only 13 or 36% of those are homicides. And so they're not giving us year over year , uh, over what that breakdown looks like. So in other words, so let's say this is the, the X, the Y axis, the X axis. Now we have you , theoretically, we could have homicides that are still like this, but we have suicides that are like that. And so they're saying this is an increase in gun violence, but is it really gun violence or is it an increase in suicide? Right? We don't, we don't know because we have useless data. We have some other statistics here from Gabby Giffords says key findings. Someone's killed in the U S every 13 minutes. In 2019, we had 39,700 dead, but they say it's from gun violence. Right. But you know , like I , I get it. I get the legal definition of that. But if somebody dies by suicide, you know, that's, that's not, that's not somebody shooting somebody else that somebody shooting themselves. I don't know if that that's properly categorized there. Anyways, during the last decade, number of deaths increased 25%, 31,000 to 39,000. So that's the number firearms continue to drive the suicide epidemic. 50% of all suicides involve firearms. So 24,000 died, 60% of all gun deaths. So, you know, I don't know that that, that that's necessarily properly categorized, but listen. So now we have a framework for what's going on. We know that there's this, this crime wave that's working its way through the system. And Joe, Biden's going to give us a big speech and he's going to read from his , no cars in a teleprompter, and he's probably going to slur all over himself. And we're going to see if he's able to muster out any coherent philosophy about justice reform, because we know he's been wrecking it for the last 35 years. Literally I did the math on that back to 19 86, 35 years. Now, today, he's sort of having a conversation about reducing the same mandatory sentencing for crack cocaine that he implemented in 1986. He's now saying, oh, we're going to sort of unring that bell a little bit. He's going to unwind that. And then there's some pretty big sentencing disparities between let's say crack cocaine and another drug. One of those had a very increased penalty. Why? I don't know why, but I can tell you what the consequences were that it adversely impacted African-American communities more than any other community in this country. So if Joe, Biden's got to answer for that. Now he's got to come out here today and we're going to see what he has to say. It doesn't really matter. As I said, because the justice department is already giving us some information on what they intend to do. And they're the real actors here, Joe, Biden's just, you know, a, a , you know , silly old man, just kind of, you know, acting as president. Now we have the justice department yesterday. They gave us a press release. They say here that the justice department announces the formation of the firearms trafficking strike forces. Oh, there it is folks. So it didn't even take long. Let's go through this. They've got firearms trafficking, strike forces to crack down on the sources of crime guns. Okay. So, so they're going to go after the sources. We'll see how that works today. The department of justice announced it's going to launch a five cross jurisdictional firearms trafficking strike force . Next 30 days, they're going to reduce violent crime by addressing illegal gun trafficking, insignificant firearms, trafficking corridors. So let's see tomorrow, which is today. Attorney general is going to talk with the president about whatever comprehensive strategy to combat the rise in violent crime. He's got a lot of Joe Biden has a lot of experience in passing massive criminal bills, tons of them, 19 94, 80 19 84, 19 86 . And so on. In fact, at one point in time, Joe Biden said any criminal justice bill that came out of Congress since 1976, I think it was has Joe Biden's name on it. He was very proud of this record. So now good news. We've got somebody who has been incarcerating people for the last 40 years or so he's now going to be in charge of solving violent crime . So I'm looking forward to that. Are you looking forward to that? Because the current state of our justice system is a direct result of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. And now they're going to be tackling it again. So look, I'm great. Let's get into it. Gun violence, they say is a major driver in the increase of violent crime over the last 18 months, right? Gun violence. It's not anything else. It's not COVID lockdowns. It's not economic hardship. It's not climate change. As Camila Harris went down to Guatemala and made a big deal about that. Okay. It's gun violence is a , is a major problem for the violent crime. It's not CRTV is taught in the schools. It's not the, the, for the milking racial animosity between different groups. It's not pitting one American against another American in class warfare, everywhere we turn. It's none of that. It's gun violence and today's action is an important step in stemming the supply. So they're going to stop the supply if we can just stop the that'll be great. So mayor Garland came out and said working with our local partners to tackle violent crime is very important to us. Our firearms trafficking strike forces will investigate and disrupt the networks that channel crime guns into our communities with tragic consequences, five strike forces, he says are going to be focused on different corridors. We're going to go to New York. We got Chicago, we got LA, we got San Francisco bay and we got Washington DC going to be led by us attorneys. Of course, being run by the ATF, local law enforcement. Other partners strike forces will share information and otherwise collaborates tracking the guns from where they're coming unlawfully to where they commit violent crimes. Wrapping this up. It says at an event today, hosted by the police executive research forum attended by hundreds of law enforcement professionals, attorney general spoke about the strike force force launch. So that's Lisa Monaco, the deputy attorney general emphasizing the commitment to working closely with local partners. We're going to build on the broader now the , the violent crime reduction initiative. Okay. So, so Biden's gonna come out today and talk about a bunch of stuff, but they've already announced really the big, hefty thing that they're going to be doing. It's this violent crime reduction initiative. Okay. This was announced May 26th, 2021. And so it's not, it's not that old supports local communities in prosecuting preventing, investigating of course, gun violence. Now they say other violent crime. So in guidance to federal agents and the prosecutors, the deputy attorney made clear that firearms traffickers have enforcement priority across the country. Okay. So they're , they're sort of flagging for us violent crime and what causes the violent crime, the guns, and what are we going to do about that? We're going to go deal with the source of the guns, the firearms traffickers. They're going to go to a couple of different places, New York, Chicago, LA, San Fran, Washington, DC, and Chicago. That's a good spot. All right. I mean , we just saw, I think in the previous article , something like 18 deaths. So I want to go back now, let's take a quick look at this previous for, to reduce violent crime. So this came out on may 26 now, and it is a Washington DC. I want to show you these four bullet points that they gave us. So it says the strategy here is a three-pronged approach. First it establishes four fundamental principles that are going to apply to violent crime reduction. And so, you know , this is sort of what you think about this, like a mission statement. Like I talk about safety, clarity and hope all the time, right? So when we, when we talk about our law firm, you know , if we're going to take action, we're going to make sure that it's doing one of those things. If we're going to be, you know, I don't know what to do with this particular problem. Okay. Well, does it provide our clients with safety, clarity, and hope? If , if yes, then you're more inclined to do that. If not, you're not going to do that thing because those are our guiding principles. And so this is sort of what they're fleshing out for us. The fundamental principles that are going to be applied to the entire department to be reducing violent crime. So number one is they want to build and build trust and earn legitimacy. So they say meaningful law enforcement means you got to engage with, you got to connect with your community. They're saying this is an effective strategy. We're going to build trust, earn legitimacy, and that's going to be the foundation, which sounds great. Right? That's I love local. Local's good. I don't like the feds coming in local, but okay. Well, that's a good concept generally speaking. Uh , so I think one way to earn legitimacy is to sort of let the locals, you know, handle issues themselves. We'll see if that is how this functions. I doubt it. Number two, invest in prevention and intervention programs. Violent crime is not a problem that can be solved by law enforcement alone. The department must invest in community based violence prevention and intervention programs. Okay, good with that target enforcement priorities for enforcement efforts and priorities. It says it's effective when it, when it focuses its limited enforcement resources on identifying, investigating, and prosecuting the most significant drivers of gun violence and other violent crime. We'll see how that's interpreted. Okay. But I say this all the time, right? I say this repeatedly, why are they out there writing everybody traffic tickets all the time, generates money, right? Serve and protect or tax collect . It's kind of that running joke here. And I'm not, I like to poke fun at needle the police a little bit, but I under, I, I , I really mean that. I think that most police are excellent human beings and good people. There are there, but there is a very loud, problematic, volatile contingent of loans in general. That certainly needs to be addressed. But I've always said this. Why are they, you know, w w why are they stopping a grandma for going 11 miles over the speed limit? Okay, go get the person who's selling somebody . Phentenol this resulting in a bunch of deaths, but you know, it's like, well, no, that's not our responsibility. That's DEA. That's FBI. That is the attorney general. You know, we're just, we're just traffic police. Okay. I guess, I guess number four, now the department is measure results. Love to measure things. The fundamental goal of the work is to reduce the level of violence in our communities not increase the number of arrests or prosecutions as if they were ends in themselves. We must measure the results. So listen, I got it . I love that. Okay. I don't like politicians who come in here and say, well, we're going to just be tough on crime. And that means we're going to arrest a bunch of people, because what that means is a bunch of people like a grandma wandering through, you know , a building is going to get arrested for something that , uh , maybe is , is not quite necessary for that person. Right? So we've got all sorts of different. I've got a lot of different concerns about , uh , an overly active justice department. As soon as they start raising flags up, like we're going to be, you know, we're going to go into the psycho mode here addressing violent crime. I started to get a little bit concerned about it. So now let's see what else they're talking about. Those principles sound great principles , always sound great. I love principles . Right? You can say it's beautiful. It's very poetic. It makes me feel good. Let's see what else they've got. Now it says the department recognizes that there is no one size fits all solution. And that the needs of each jurisdiction will vary based on the nature of the violent crimes. Thus , the department has committed to providing additional support. So the FBI now is going to make available cutting edge analytical resources to state and local law enforcement , uh , to identify the most violent offenders and the most dangerous criminal organizations in the communities. Uh, the FBI will then deploy agents to assist with enforcement operate . Oh gosh. So great. So the FBI now is going to come in and the same FBI that said that, you know, I guess the proud boys and the oath keepers and the three percenters and all those people were going to take over the, the , they were going to take over the country. They were going to steal the podium. And that gives you unlimited American power. If you do that. So they knew it was coming and then they sort of failed and let them take over the building anyway, and almost sees total control of the country. So they've got cutting edge analytic analytical resources now, and they're going to support state and local enforcement officials. That's great. So we're feasible now. ATF is going to embed with local homicide units . So we got more feds coming in. So that's great. They're going to expand the availability of the center, which is going to match ballistics to crime scenes. We've got the DEA. So the drug agents are going to come in. They're going to go on state, local tribal law enforcement. They're going to disrupt the activities, the most violent drug trafficking, gangs, and egregious drug trafficking organizations. We'll see. I mean, you know, they've been saying that for like a hundred years now, we're going to go get just the bad guys. And then it turns out, you know, Johnny down at Arizona state university has got, you know, an ecstasy pill, narcotic drug, right? We're gonna make sure he gets the book thrown at him, but somebody who's trafficking fentanyl across the border as well. Well, calm said , don't come to those people. So that's good. The United States Marshall service in coordination with state and local authorities, they're going to conduct a fugitive sweets sweeps, correct , uh , state and local warrants for homicide, aggravated assault, firearm, aggravated robbery, robbery with a firearm rape or sex aggravated sexual assault departments , grant making components. We'll highlight funding opportunities for community programs and on and on violent crime. Okay. So, so we'll see then , right. Kind of the principles . We'll see , we'll see how those, those work in practice sound really great. But when it means that, oh, we're just going to take a bunch of federal law enforcement agents. And we're just going to cram them down the throats of the states, because we want to go enforce gun laws. It's you're not going to enforce, we'll see how this plays out. And we've already seen the states almost an open rebellion over some of this stuff. We have seen that the state of Missouri, the governor there signed into law that said, if you come into our state and you try to impede any of our gun rights, we are going to find, you find you $50,000 an incident. And they said, yeah, federal agents also. So the us attorney's office, the department of justice fired a letter back and said , uh , we don't agree with your analysis on this. We think that we have the supremacy clause and the feds have , uh , the , the ability to come in and actually tell you what to do, which is actually constitutionally more accurate than not generally speaking. But the state's recourse is to say, okay, well, that's fine. We're not going to enforce your laws. So if you want to enforce them coming, enforce them, and guess what, they're going to do it as we now know. So attorney general Merrick Garland now is releasing new anti violent crime proposals. Joe Biden is just going to get out there and read whatever the people tell them to read. So we'll see what ultimately happens. That pendulum continues to swing my friends and a lot of innocent people. And a lot of our lives are being caught up in this stupid game from our ineffective politicians. So a lot of innocent people are going to get caught up in this hyper enforcement as is always the case. The government just says, oh, we're just gonna throw a bunch of money on agents. And we're going to , whatever we're going to talk about in a later segment here, just how the FBI maybe framed for people there . He's still in charge of a lot of this stuff. So there's a lot of problems in our justice system. We've got a lot to deal with. If you happen to know anybody though is also facing some justice problems. Well, we've got a law firm here in Scottsdale, Arizona. We're pretty good at what we do. We love to help good people facing criminal charges, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. And so if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona that needs help with one of these types of criminal charges, give our office a call. We would be very happy to speak with them. We can help with things like felony charges, drug charges, we've got traffic tickets, we've got DUI charges and much more that we can help with. And also if you don't need any help with a criminal case, while there's some good informational offerings that maybe you might consider [email protected], Robert ruler got a two and a half hour seminar that we did call law enforcement interaction training available down here. Very, very interesting stuff. I go through the 1, 2, 3 rule for how to deal with law enforcement. Very, very simple framework for dealing with law enforcement. If you're interested in personal productivity, I have a different course here. And if you're a lawyer or a law firm marketing person, and you're interested in how we sort of run our firm and how we have sort of grown quickly and helped a lot of people. That's another offering that you can check out there as well. gumroad.com/robert ruler . And I appreciate all your support and do not forget to head on over to watching the watchers.locals.com , which is our community where we do other things. We've got a zoom meetup that is coming up on Saturday, and that we have a , uh , we've got a lot of other events that are just sort of in the works. And so I'd invite you to go on over there and check that out. We'd be very happy to have you there. All right. So we're going to change gears. Now. We are going to switch gears and we're going to talk about , uh, Nancy Pelosi and the FBI. Oh my goodness. Okay. So we're going to get into this story. Let's start here. We've got Nancy [inaudible] is still considering whether or not to form a January 6th commission. This is something that has been in the works for a long time. After January six came and went, many people were scratching their heads, myself included. Wondering how did something so catastrophic happen? We've got, you know, 18 different intelligence community agencies. We've got different layers of law enforcement. We have national guard all over the place. And somehow one of the most sacred buildings in the United States got taken over by about a thousand people , uh , who , who knocked over some barricades. So the whole was kind of embarrassing as well , American from top to bottom, just a catastrophic failure across the board. And so the government has sort of been, you know , kicking the can around a little bit, trying to figure out what to do about this, whether they're going to investigate it and what that investigation looks like. So Pelosi now is kicking around whether she's going to create a January six committee. And in fact, she may have already clarified this and , and decided that she's going to move forward with this. But you know, a big question came up very recently. And Tucker Carlson was somebody who talked about it on his show. And there were some other articles that came out from revolver.news, kind of hinting around the idea that maybe the FBI hasn't been as honest with us in this case, maybe the people who were supposed to be investigating this, the people who were in charge of securing the facility, maybe they had prior knowledge. Maybe they kind of dropped the ball a little bit or let their guard down because it would look kind of really, and it kind of w might , might serve somebodies interest one way or the other. If Donald Trump looks like a tyrannical mobster. So, you know, there's a, there's a lot of questions being asked about this and the response to a lot of this has been, oh no, the FBI, no, they wouldn't come up . They would never do something like that. They , this is our cherished institution. They protect the Homeland. It's filled with great people over there. And I'm sure that there are great people over there. Have no doubt about that. It's probably mirrors a lot of the same complaints that I have with law , but is there any historical context for this? Is there any historical example of when the FBI maybe framed for innocent people? There is in fact, and who is going to guide us through this story? Techno fog told you a big fan of his work. He's a lawyer writer, researcher, follow him [email protected] And then of course, go check this out. This is what he wrote on his sub stack. When the FBI framed four innocent men and how John Durham uncovered the shocking crime. So go check this out. And I typically don't like to read from somebody's entire article, but I think we're able to add a little bit to this and I would encourage you to go support his work over at sub stack . But I do believe this is a free article at the moment. So , uh , techno fog , thank you for your work. Nice job. Keep it up. All right. So let's get into this article. It says when the F I framed for innocent men and as is usually the case, we're going to go through, I've got some emoji explanations and I've got some photographs when they are applicable, but I want to go through this and sort of diagram what's happening here. The allegation here is the FBI framed four innocent men and how they did it. This was the story murder. They destroyed families and they tried to cover it up. It's also the story of John Durham and Robert Mueller and how Durham uncovered the crimes and how Mueller's FBI disputed the innocence skate. We're going to be talking about these guys. We've got Salvati Tamela and Greco down here, and Lamoni is somebody who's going to be the subject. He's kind of the main defendant of this case up here. We have the FBI agents. We've got Mike , uh , we've got Morris and Conley in 1983, albino down here was a member of the Massachusetts state patrol parole board, Alba Albano thought that he was doing his job. He was looking into commute. The sentence of Lamoni. So he's on the parole board. He's saying, well, we're going to look at Lamoni and see if we can commute his sentence. Lamoni had been charged with murdering Deegan down here. Degan in conjunction, allegedly Lamoni with Greco to mellow and Salvati murdered Teddy Deegan . So the convictions though never sat right with Albano . He wasn't happy about that. He had suspicions about him because he met with Greco one day and Greco said he just wanted to live one day as a free man, just one day. So Albano, there has some suspicions and you know , FBI Morris comes to his door. FBI Connolly comes to his door, 1983. They just got some questions for him. Is that the case? No, not really. Not at all. FBI special agents , John Morris, John Connolly. They weren't there to say hello. See, they got some new emojis now they're not happy. So they are there. There was a darker purpose, straight up intimidation. So they go to all Bono's house. They're intimidating him. They say that it wouldn't be good for all Banos career. If he voted for the commutation. So Obama wants to commute Lamone sentence for the murder of Deegan saying, listen, FBI says, if you do that, not going to be so good for either buddy boy. So Albano though, he commuted them. Anyways, particular petition Lamone filed six petitions. They were all rejected. Governor Dukakis rejected it because the FBI and us attorney, bill weld, they put pressure on new caucus. They said that Lamone was guilty of the murder. He had been involved in the commissioning of the murder and so on and so forth. Parole board voted in favor of two commutations by Greco . Okay. So Greco was , uh , denied by Dukakis, denied by weld. So nobody got out. There was no ruling on the third commutation. He died soon after it was filed. Greco's plea that he just lived one day was never granted. So all of these guys now are in custody and the parole board is , is consistently granting them commutations but the commutations are being denied by the governor. Okay? So he's saying, Hey, commute, these guys sentences. Governor says, Nope, not gonna do that. Governor over here in clown show FBI, leaving a lot of pre , you know, putting a lot of pressure through the us attorney's office on the governor to put pressure on Albano. And so Greco ends up dying and to mellow . And the other is nobody ever ends up getting out yet, cause the commutations are all denied. And so to understand the case, now you have to go back to the 1960s, which is where we're going to go see what J Edgar Hoover had to do. He's the FBI director. He made it his focus to Kate to take down the Italian mob, LA LA Cosa Nostra by any means necessary. And so to do this well, he got criminal informants to help him in the process. So let's take a look now at what's going on with the Teddy Deegan murder. So recall here that this is Teddy Deegan, Teddy Deegan is down here and Teddy Deegan allegedly was killed by Lamoni Greco and to mellow and Salvati. And so the story is saying that all of these four guys were all framed. Let's go to it. Teddy Deegan now was murdered on the night of March 12th, 1965 in Boston. He was found with an app behind the alley glove screwdriver found near his left hand tool of his trade. Lieutenant arrived on scene, fresh pool of blood Lira's left knee left, knee and blood still oozing from the rear of his head. And all he was shot six times with three different guns. So you can see him lying there. We also have the officers who recognize Deegan they're lying in the alley. Wouldn't have been surprised. Deegan didn't hang out around the best people. Didn't exactly behave himself. They didn't expect Egan's murder, but they wouldn't have been surprised. But then a restroom made, okay . We talked about these four guys Salvati mellow Greco, and Lamoni for the murder of Deegan Lamone was arrested meeting with their son Greco surrendered to the FBI. He was married, had a couple young children. He was a , he would turn from the war disabled from life. He had a shattered ankle. Salvati was 34. He was arrested to mellow was the oldest of four men. So we get a little background on who these guys are, right? These are people, these are human beings. These are not just, you know , uh , people, you just throw away their people. So the trial and the convictions now, so the state murder trial then started on May 27th, 1968. And so we've got we're this right? We've got the government is prosecuting Lamoni and these three other guys Greco to mellow and Salvati all for the killing of Deegan . So let's get mics . Make sure we have the actors, right. We had not, that Barbosa was innocent. He was indicted for, okay, let me back up. So it says here, Joseph, Barboza an FBI informant, this guy. So this is his actual picture, testified that Lamoni and tamarillo approved the hit on Degan . So these two guys Tamela and Lamoni they approved the hit on Deegan and then Greco helped plan the killing and then Salvati was there with him . So this guy comes in and testifies against all , all, all four of them. Article goes on, techno says Barbosa was innocent. Not that he was innocent, but he was indicted for a misdemeanor , uh , relating to the murder. And it was serving time for possessing an illegal firearm. This was part of the deal that the FBI gave to Barboza T if they, if he comes in and testifies for Massachusetts , they'd let them go with, with , uh , sort of a slap on the wrist. We also have this guy, the Apollo's who's also at the scene and he testifies he's there. He says that somebody who looked like Greco wanted to get him as well. Other witnesses testified to guilt indicating conduct by the defendant. So it was alleged that Tamela and Greco tried to bribe Barboza and Stephanopoulos in order to change their testimony. Okay. So sort of, you know, these guys are saying, oh no, you know, they, they, they tried to bribe us. So you've got all this kind of, he said, she said stuff going on here. Now the FBI continues. So the defense had an uphill battle. The lawyer suspected the FBI might have information or documents relating to witnesses because we talk about this in the, in the law, it's called exculpatory evidence. If the government has information and you need that information, well, you got to get it from the government, right? If they're the sort of the stewards of the information, if they don't give it to you, you have really no way to get it. And you don't necessarily even know what they have. Right? So it's very important. The Supreme court has said when the government has, has exculpatory information or they have data that they need to , that might show that you are innocent or might tend to prove your innocence. They've got to disclose that over to you. In this case, the defense attorneys here were saying, well, we think that they might have something, but the FBI didn't produce anything. They produce nothing. So that case went to trial. Jury reached its verdict, July 31st, 1968, four man found guilty Greco, first degree murder accessories before the fact accessories, after the fact conspiracy and so on. Now they all three of them received the death penalty. Salvati was sentenced to life. Convictions brought the attention of FBI director Hoover with the Boston office, sending memos saying this was a direct result of the FBI investigation, FBI agents involved in the case, they testified they were, they got awards and they've got letters of commendation. They really later received large bonuses and they were praised by director Hoover. Well done, John guys , an outstanding, you got the four people who killed this guy. They're all going to face the death penalty or life in prison. Here's a job. Here's a commendation. Here's a bonus FBI director Hoover. Now the article goes through, we're going to go through this quickly for families. Of course, we're all devastated. Ben distraught, since the arrest hard for the wives, children had it worse going through , uh , you know , cold prison gates girls anxiety. Henry Tom was the oldest of four. Okay. These are people is the point of this section. Greco's conviction. His son was just 10 years old son contemplated suicide, right? Boy's mother Roberta stopped cooking and cleaning families are devastated. Greco's health suffered. Same fate as his family lost control of his bowels. Salvati helped clean up after him. Greg was right. Leg was amputated below the knee due to gangrene. He died in prison 1995. Okay . Somebody died in prison. Now, if you, if you say that he was a guilty person, maybe you're not too bothered by that, but let's see what happens. Two years later, his son committed suicide by drinking a of Draino, his other son, Eddie struggled with cocaine and heroin addiction. He would also eventually die from what was likely an overdose. So very catastrophic when stuff like this happens, wrecks everybody. And it should not be looked at lightly, obviously. Okay. Now let's go in now. What did the FBI know about this? We now have the story. We know what happened here. It sounds pretty obvious, right? Okay. Well, what does the FBI know? According to techno fog? Well, they, there were FBI secrets about these convictions for 30 years. These secrets went all the way up to the FBI director. Hoover. They were uncovered in late 2000 by then assistant us attorney John Durham . Remember this guy? Where'd he go? Here's Hoover. You got the FBI framed for innocent men for murder. This setup was known to supported by encouraged and facilitated by the FBI hierarchy all the way up to the FBI director. We're going to get back to that footnote here later to understand the conspiracy. We got to go back to the 1960s, FBI director, Hoover. He wanted to take down LA Cosa. Nostra the Italian mob by any means necessary. Part of that task involved, focusing on Raymond Patriarca powerful new England organized crime boss. This guy right here, 1962, FBI installed a wire in his Providence without a warrant conversations were monitored and they were forwarded to the FBI's Boston office. This was kept secret even within the FBI, because it was illegal. There was no warrant per judge. Gertner somebody who was sort of dealing with this case in the aftermath. FBI reports, describing conversations on the wire, refer to it as if it were a human source. Uninformative just like any other. Okay. So we've got the Sicilian mafia over here. They talk about , uh , lucky Luciano here with the Sicilian mafia. Let's see what comes up next here . We've got the FBI also made use of informants and with whom their agents were to have a secret long-term relationship. We got this guy, his name. Is it protect? No Fogg's article Jimmy Flemmi. His full name is Vincent James Flemmi. So we got Jimmy Flemmi here and his birthday is September 5th, 1935 career criminal. And he's also a top FBI informant. Okay. So now what we see what we see what's going on here. We have an FBI informants, huh? Named Jimmy. Jimmy Flemmi . So FBI had known of his criminal history knew that Flemmi hadn't been involved in a number of murders, but he was a top informant Coda , uh , Condon . One of the agents also handling Fleming Fleming had been informed in 64 and 65 that he committed several murders. Didn't matter to FBI agent Dennis Condon, his Boston FBI supervisor, or even Hoover. Yeah. He could get close to Patriarca and other mob figures, therefore he had potential. So they just wanted to use this guy to get close to the Italian mob. Jimmy Flemmi was eventually closed as an informant, 1965, his brother Stephan or Steven also began informing for the FBI. Steven was also a career criminal gangster and killer. So now we've got a situation where we've got an FBI informant. Somebody who's providing a lot of information on a very high profile mob, the Patriarca and the Italian mob. And so the FBI Hoover wants really to make sure that they go get them. We got Vincent Flemmi. Even though he is a known murderer, a career criminal, he's been a top FBI informant for a long time. And they know that he's got close access to Patriarca. They , they want to make sure that he doesn't get busted for anything. Cause he's going to help them get somebody else. Now we've got the FBI's knowledge now of the plot to kill Deagan . So remember, we've got now a wire and patriarchal thing. We got wires all over the place, doing stuff without warrants and all of this. Actually, if you're asking where this information came from, this, this case came from a , uh , uh, an actual opinion because a court dealt with this later down the line, after all of this started to get uncovered. So this is coming from the official court documents, the FBI's plot now to kill Deegan . So if the FBI has, you know, bugs all over the place, so listening to everything, did they know about this? Okay. Many people are sort of asking the same question about Capitol hill. Wait a minute. Sounds like the FBI was on top of all this. They were warning us all the time that there were these white supremacists all over the country that we're going to wreak havoc all over the place. So if they are the FBI and the intelligence community, what did you suspect that they have some intelligence about an insurrection that's bubbling up and taking place? And if so, if they were sort of embedded in those organizations, why didn't they do anything to stop it? Why didn't they prevent it from happening if they were so embedded? And if they weren't embedded, why weren't they, if they're , you know, if they're not, if they're, if they're claiming that these organizations are such criminal illegal operations, well then why are they not infiltrating the criminal illegal operations? Or is it maybe that they're they're mis-characterizing some of them, I don't know, but let's see. What did the FBI know when there was this plot to kill Teddy Deegan back in 1960s, the wires and the informants against Patriarca. This guy were already well underway in 1965 in 1964. The FBI learned on two occasions that Jimmy Flemmi, this guy you'll notice not one of the four defendants wanted to kill Deegan . FBI knew that this, this is Hoover. So Hoover is aware of this conversation happening here. Five months later, 1965, Jimmy Flemmi met with Patriarca and asked for permission to kill Degan . Okay. So now Flemmi comes over here and meets with Patriarca and he says, Hey, can I kill this guy? Deegan ? Couple of days later, Flemmi returned with Joseph Barboza and asked for an okay to kill him. Flemmi thought Degan was an arrogant, nasty sneak, and should be killed. Okay. So , so now Flemmi then go and meet with Barboza and Barbosa . They both want to kill Degan two days prior to Deakin's murder murder, an informant advised the FBI that Raymond Patriarca powerful new England organized crime boss had ordered a hit on Degan . They had already completed a dry run and a close associate of Diegans had agreed to set him up. The FBI knew it was coming because they were listening to all these calls. They got informants and everybody's talking back and forth. Hoover's just kind of watching all this happen. We have this document that comes out. It says regarding Edward Deegan crime conditions in greater Boston, we got Raymond L Patriarca also listed here. Informant advise that he had just heard from Jimmy Flemmi that Flemmi told the informant that Raymond Patriarca had put out the word that Edward Teddy Deegan is to be quote hit and that a dry run already been made. And then a close associate of Diegans has agreed to set him up. Flemmi told the informant that the informant for the next few evenings should have a provable alibi in Casey is suspected of killing Degan . Fleming indicated that the informant that patriarchy put the word out on Degan because Degan evidently pulled a gun and threatened some people in the ed tide restaurant in Revere, Massachusetts. So Deegan offended somebody and the heat went out on him by patriarch up Flemmi and Barboza they go over? We'll have a conversation with Paik . Patriarca say, can, can we hit this guy? He says, yeah, certainly why? Cause he went in and he insulted me at my air tide restaurant in Revere, Massachusetts. So then Deegan of course is actually executed March 12th, 1965 . This was the same day that one of his killers Jimmy Flemmi was assigned to be developed as an actor . [inaudible] okay. So the , the, the actual story now is that Flemmi and Barboza responsible for it. The FBI's knowledge, the FBI never doubted who killed Teddy Deegan , that they knew the day after the murder, an FBI informant reported Jimmy Flemmi confessed to the killing along with Roy French, Joseph Romeo, Martin, Ronnie Kasisto , and Joseph Barboza three months later, Hoover was informed that Flemmi had participated in the murder, this guy and this guy Barboza. And if you recall earlier on these two people were a part of the trial taking place against the , the , the four co-defendants. The FBI was able to put together exactly how the murder was supposed to go down. After the hit was approved by Patriarca the men planned to kill Degan when he and an associate who was also to be killed were robbing a place in Chelsea. French was the tip off the killers. As at the time of the location, the death had the criminal world talking March 13th, 1965. The day after the murder, a top FBI informant reported Flemmi confessed to the murder with France , Romeo, Martin Kasisto , and Barboza that account would be repeated over and over with minor variations in every single document the FBI had before Barbosa started cooperating. Other accounts supported that theory of the murder as well. Chelsea police had information that the men had been seen leaving the restaurant together at 9:00 PM returned 45 minutes later. Other informants came forward 11 days after Deakin's murder in 1965, it was reported that the FBI, that Barbara Rosa , this guy also admitted to the killing the well below shows that director Hoover, the director of the FBI was informed that the FBI's own informant had murdered Deegan. Here's that document following her developments during the current week, I think criminal intelligence program, Boston division on March 12th, 1965 , Edward Teddy Deegan was found killed in the alley gang land, fashion informants, or that Ronald Cassa , Ronald Martin, Vincent James Flemmi , Joseph Barboza prominent local hoodlums, or responsible for the killing. They accomplish this by having Roy French , another Boston hoodlum set Deagan in a proposed breaking and entering French apparently walked in behind Deegan just as they were gaining entrance to the building and fired the first shot, hitting Deegan in the back of the head. Cause CESA and Martin immediately thereafter shot Deegan from the front. Anthony Steph Apollos was also in on the burglary, but outside in the car. Okay? So these guys just, you know , set them up, execute them, walk in, like they're doing a breaking and entering shoot them the back ahead, as soon as the door goes off. And uh , that's it Hoover. Now this information wasn't shared with state authorities, all of that information that was being held with the FBI, never made it to the state. Authorities, never made it to the defense counsel . As a result. This became a criminal conspiracy by the FBI hierarchy all the way up to director Hoover. This guy right here and can't happen today. Really? How did this all come about while Durham started digging into this 1995 information of the Whitley burgers, Whitney Whitey , Berg Bolger's relationship with corrupt FBI agents became public. FBI started to investigate the Boston field office. This included a review of document it's relating to the alimony's case in 2000 Durham uncovered memos from the 1960s, detailing the misconduct. He gave them over to the DOJ, us attorney's office, state, and prosecutors, and the FBI. As a result, the county district attorney's office immediately filed a motion to vacate that conviction. They wanted to grant Lamoni a new trial and then admit him to bail. Okay. In 2000 years, decades later, justice judge Margaret Hinkle of the superior court ruled that Durham's documents were material. They were exculpatory and they cast a real doubt on the justice of his convictions. Obviously the state cases against Salvati and Lamoni the only two still alive were dropped Greco and mellow died already in prison. Their cases were post human humorously dropped. So two people are released. Two people are dead because the FBI covered up for their informants who actually committed the murder. They were very useful informants to them. So it served them to make sure that they didn't go to prison for this stuff for other people dead . Now, Mueller, once he uncovered the documents, the Massachusetts port, pardon board reached out to director Mueller member , Robert Mueller, the esteemable person who was going to go out and take out Donald Trump for all his in proprieties, asking the FBI, they're asking about their official response to the evidence. Boston field office provided a shameful response. That new evidence of an FBI set up did not mean that the men were innocent. They do this all the time. It's disgusting. It merely means that entitled to quote a new trial, right? Here's what they say, January 5th, we got an order from the court advocates , all those things based on the conversations. It's our understanding that , uh , some of these documents came out, somebody was shot and killed, blah, blah. This does not necessarily mean. However that Lamoni or any of the other defendants is innocent. Merely means they're entitled to a new trial, okay? Because the FBI would never want to admit that they did anything wrong. Much of the FBI confidential source relates to them. They were involved as principals . His information is not necessarily inconsistent. So they're just going to cover up, right? They know exactly what happened. They know where this went and they did it anyways. So where did this all come from? We've got the aftermath of the lawsuit. Eventually the surviving men and their families, along with the families of the deceased filed suit against the FBI saying they've structured. Their civil rights turns out that the FBI had been hiding evidence from their own lawyers judge, to say that this matter should be brought to the personal attention of the director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, after a bench trial, judge Gertner concluded. This was about intentional misconduct. This was about subordination of perjury, conspiracy, the framing of four innocent men. She awarded them a hundred million in damages for the wrongly convicted though. It's never going to be enough. Okay. They spent their life in prison. They also lost two colleagues to two of their co-defendants are dead. Meanwhile, right ? The FBI headquarters is still called the J Edgar Hoover building Mueller enjoys at least this , a good reputation with some in Durham, still quietly looks for the truth. Great article here from techno fog. That is the link. Go check him out. These are his sources. So he did some hands heavy lifting on this. Now this, as he says, a lot of this comes from this opinion, judge Nancy Gertner is July 26th, 2007 memo and civil litigation. So if you want to read the full case, that is where you will find it . But of course, you know , uh , techno summarize it very nicely for us. But the question here is sort of the takeaway. The reason I wanted to share this story with you is because it begs the question. You know, a lot of people live in this little fantasy world where they start thinking that all of our law enforcement agents and the FBI and the CIA and the ATF and the DOJ and all the U S attorneys, and they're all just amazing people, just great hearts . And they would never do anything that would potentially incriminate somebody who didn't actually do it. Right. We all live under this fallacy, this, this idea that, that if , if somebody is in handcuffs or if somebody is arrested, or if the cops knock on your door, well, you must've done something wrong, right? No, it doesn't happen that way. And you know , this was back in the 1960s, we have a bigger FBI with more bureaucracy. It's more politicized that has even more documented histories of malfeasance, especially related to the Donald Trump. We've got the FBI lovers case. We've got all of the improprieties as they relate to all of the other Trump administration officials. The list goes on and on and on. There's a lot of questions now about what happened at January six. We're now seeing the FBI wants to get involved in local enforcement of drug crimes and, and violent gun crimes throughout the different states and cities throughout the rest of America. So we're on track for a very interesting , uh , justice transition under this new administration. And I personally am not somebody who is looking forward to where this is going. We'll see where it goes, but we're going to stay here and we're going to continue to hold the line against this, this, this type of government misconduct, lack of accountability, lack of transparency. It's why we started the whole show here. All right. So unfortunately there are people who are in situations like this that are absolutely innocent, but they're charged with crimes. We just heard about for innocent people that the FBI framed. If you know somebody who is facing criminal charges and similar circumstances, give our law office a call. We are the RNR law group. We can help with any type of crime here in the state of Arizona, felony charges, drug charges, traffic tickets, DUI charges, anything, and everything in between, we can help you remove a mugshot off the internet. We can clear up old criminal records. We can help you restore your right to vote, restore your right, to possess a firearm. So you can get back to enjoying those constitutional rights that you should be entitled to. It will help you get that cleared up and we offer free case evaluations, and we love to help good people facing criminal charges, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. We would appreciate your referrals. If you're not interested in criminal law or, or hiring a criminal law firm, I should be more specific. You may be interested in learning something about criminal law. And so I want to share with you my gumroad.com/robert ruler address. We did a two and a half hour law enforcement interaction training, which is available here. If you want to take a look at that, if you want to follow, we've got some other courses I'm working on right now, throw that in there, or take a picture on your cell phone. And that will take you right directly to the link. We have existence systems, and we have a legal mastermind. If you're a lawyer or a legal professional, certainly check that out. And I certainly want to make sure that you head on over to watching the watchers.locals.com, which is where we have a lot of other activity that takes place throughout the day. I'm starting to post a little bit more behind the scenes stuff. So sort of, you know, a little bit more informal impromptu stuff over there, but the real reason to be there is because when we have a live show, we do live [email protected] . And we also have a monthly meetup that's coming up this Saturday. And so you can get the registration link over there and we really do appreciate all your support. Thank you so much for that. All right . And our last segment for the day, this one's a little bit, a little bit different. We don't normally talk about this type of stuff, but I think this is interesting. I'm curious to see what you have to say about it. All right. In the United States, we have seen a lot of shortages. We had a gasoline shortage, we've had some electricity shortage and now we have a water shortage and many people might be saying, well, what are we talking about? Waterford? This is a law channel. Well, what's interesting is that the Supreme court actually deals with a lot of water battles and there is something happening right now that many people are referring to as the interstate water, because it kind of feels like that we've got all these different states going over very limited resources and the way that this works practically, if you have rivers that are running all throughout the country and different states want access to that. So here in Arizona, we talk about the Colorado river. A lot runs through a big portion of the west coast of the United States. And everybody wants to dip their straw into that river and suck out a little bit of water for their states. But what happens now, when that sort of, you know, the , the, the Colorado river sort of creates a border between Arizona and California and you've got other states. And so w is there any water left for Mexico? Everybody wants to put their straw in and drink some of that water out. And so this is going to be, I think, one of the bigger issues in our lifetime, if we don't sort of sort some of this out, so I want to show you what's happening right now, because we just got done with the Arizona heat dome, and it is warm here. We've got wildfires in Arizona last year. We had a ton of wildfires in California, probably going to see that again and elsewhere around the world. And in fact, we're seeing it in many different states. We've got wildfires across , uh , California, Arizona, Oregon, Utah, New Mexico, their blazes are, are hot and dry conditions. We've got lightning started this one, you can see this here. And so I want to show you what the sort of the drought looks like, okay, this is over in the Angeles national forest. And you can see this image here from June, 2020. You can see this Morris reservoir just pretty full, right. We can see there's a lot of that sort of the, the distance between the blue and the green is very small. That's kind of a small shoreline there. And we see a lot of blue water and the tributaries are all pretty full, is filled up. And this is the Morris reservoir, right? And we've got dam systems. And a lot of this water provides electricity because it's sort of running through hydro electric power plants. And so this is very important to the entire ecosystem of this city that lives right here, right? This, this is very important for this area. Now, when we fast forward to June, 2021, things look pretty different, don't they? Okay, same summer. So this isn't like a winter versus the summer thing, but you'll notice the reservoir looks a lot different. And in fact, the entire geography looks different. This looks green over here in 2020, but in 2021, it looks sort of like a , uh , you know, a brown barren desert. And you'll also notice that the area where, where we see the shoreline is, is very big. Now we see a very, very robust shoreline lot of sand, because there's no water in this reservoir, the reservoir down here, the one that sort of houses, some of the, I believe some of the electrical facilities that the power things is also empty. And so this is a big problem because we see this now happening throughout the entire west coast. And it is, it is also happening in Texas and, you know, subs and elsewhere around the country. And so this is a drought that we're seeing, right? So the United States is going to have to deal with this. And in particular, these Southern states are going to really have to deal with this. Now, if you're thinking that this is only for the west coast, if you think in the you're over here, Florida, or you're over here on the, on the east coast, not so fast. Okay. Because these are battles that are also taking place. I'm going to show you a battle between Florida and Georgia over one of these rivers. I think this river right here, and they were just not, you know , they Florida thought that they were going to get it and then Georgia kind of swept in under them. And so it can turn into this, this little interesting battle. This is sort of what it looks like when we start to divide the rivers up. So we've got the Colorado river basin. It's a portion mint , and we've got Arizona. That's a big part of the lower basin. So the question is now how much of this can we siphon off for Arizona? How much does Utah get? How much does Colorado get? What does New Mexico we get ? How about California? And so we've got these different structures here from the U S bureau of reclamation that divvy up the river only , you can only take so much of this Arizona. You get 2.8 million acre feet per year of that water. And then the apportionment of that water. And so practically, you know, here's a different example of what it looks like Arizona. You get 17% of the Colorado river, Colorado. You get 23% Utah, 11 Wyoming, six Nevada to California, 27%. You know? And so these are, these are complicated issues. The courts are having to sort this stuff out. And it's interesting when you actually get into it, these things can get pretty heated and they can take 20 to 30 years before you work out some of these water rights. So if you're thinking about where to move, right, and you're, and you're looking about longterm planning, consider water, here's sort of a quick review of what some of the , the structures looks like. And so you can see all the different states have a lot of interest in sort of capturing some of the water. So here we've got on lake Powell, the Glen canyon dam, right? Big dam here, we got the flaming Gorge dam. We've got up in Wyoming, they've got a dam. We have Colorado river still running through the Garrison. So Colorado is, it's taking a lot of that. We have the Navajo dam in New Mexico. The tributaries are sort of running their way down through the healer river, into Phoenix. We've got Parker dam. So everybody wants to just stick their straw in and siphon a little bit of this off. And so, as we can see here, this guy wrote this article. Robert Glennon does an interstate water war. They're heating up along with the climate. So in a lot of people are gonna say, this is a climate change thing. That's fine. Well, and good. That's beside the point. I just want to show you sort of how this functions. So interstate water wars, these are disputes that are as American as apple pie. Think of these as one state using more of their fair share from a river. Currently, the U S Supreme court has on its docket, a case between Texas new, Mexico and Colorado. And another one between Mississippi and Tennessee court has already ruled this term on cases, pitting Texas against New Mexico and then Florida against Georgia. So this is kind of one of those areas. Like these cases are always kind of going on and they're always kind of lingering around and they take years and years to develop, but there's always these little wars going on between the states. And as we know, the Supreme court has original jurisdiction when there are complaints between the different states, right? When they, when they, when they're sort of , uh , at each other's jurisdictional throats, the Supreme court gets in here and sort some of this stuff out. So he's saying here, climate stresses are raising the stakes. Rising temperatures require farmers to use more water to grow the same amount. Wildfires are burning, hotter , lasting longer. They bake the soil. They reduced the force ability to hold the water and on as a longtime observer of interstate water negotiations, it says, I see a basic problem here. In some cases, more water rights exist in paper, on paper. Then as wet water, more water rights exist on paper. Then as wet water, even before factoring shortages caused by climate change or anything else in my view, states should put at least as much effort into reducing water use as they do litigation. There's no guaranteed winners. They say in water lawsuits. So as you know , you're being told to turn your air conditioning, you know, up or down, depending on the weather, as you're told to sort of, you know , transition to renewable energy, as we start to really think about the climate in , in, in many different ways, whether you want to, or not, things are changing around us. And so, you know, water usage might be a big issue in the, in the near future. Maybe you don't have any, any more lawns in Arizona, right? We're in the desert. We've got golf courses all over the place. What happens if we're not allowed to water those? What happens if the Supreme court comes down and says, no, Arizona, you don't get to you don't, you don't get that. That much water, California gets more. Utah gets more. What happens if this is your state? Let's take a look at what's going on here. So I want to show you what's happening with Utah. The most controversial proposal comes from one of the nation's fastest growing areas. St. George, Utah, 90,000 residents, lots of golf courses, St . George has a very high consumption rate. Very low water prices. City is proposing to augment its water supply. They want 140 mile pipeline from lake Powell going to carry 86,000 acre feet per year. This is other calculating these things. So truth be told. That's not , that's not that much water. It would not exceed Utah's unused allocation, but the six other Colorado river basin states have protested as though St . George were asking for their first born child. Okay. So a city just wants like, Hey, we need a little bit more water. We've got six other states ago . What, what did you say?

Speaker 2:

Oh, oh, you

Speaker 1:

Want another bytes ? No, sorry. Get in line there, buddy. Boy, that's our water. First in a joint letter dated September 8th, 2020 , the other states employed the implored, the interior department to refrain from issuing a final environmental review of the pipeline until all seven states could reach a consensus letter, explicitly threatened a high probability of multi-year litigation, Utah blinked, having earlier insisted on expedited review, they decided we're going to the delay. A decision governor Spencer Mike signed a bill creating the Colorado river authority, gave him 9 million bucks as a legal defense fund. Okay. So the city that the Utah, the , the governor said, okay, here's $9 million. Here's a legal defense fund. We're going to go throw that , uh , towards, you know, an army of lawyers to go fight for water rights. How huge could it be in 1930, Arizona sued California. Good in an epic battle that did not end until 2006. Look at that. Arizona prevailed just right , baby, by finally securing a fixed allocation from the water, a portion to California, Nevada, and Arizona. So that's right. Punks, California punks. All right . So that's good stuff. Water rights litigation is fraught with uncertainty, just ask Florida, which thought it had a strong case against the Georgia water diversion from the app. Patrola Chattahoochee, Chattahoochee, Chattahoochee, Flint river basin. And that's a great, oh God, I can't comment on that. Uh , Flint river basin. We're harming it's oyster fishery downstream. Okay. So we've got Florida, Georgia was now diverting water from the APA Appalachia Appalachia Jacola Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Chattahoochee Flint river basin. That is a hell of a name, the Appalachia. Uh, alright , we're gonna move on that case. Extended over 20 years before a us Supreme court ended the final chapter in April, 2021, the court used a procedural rule that places the burden on plaintiffs to provide clear and convincing evidence, Florida failed to convince the court and walked away with nothing. Those Georgians. They just took all your water , Florida Supreme court. So that's a , sorry. Step it up next time. But Florida, I mean, candidly, you have a lot of water. Like I know it's not the water that you want, but it's, you're like, sir , like three sides of your state or like surrounded by, by water. I know that desalination is expensive. I know it's not the same thing. All right , what's going on here? Let's take a look. This was the complaint that was decided back in the , it looks like Arizona versus California. Just want to show you what this looks like. Cause it's just kind of a fun thing to think about. We've got different states, duking it out over water, Arizona versus California, October term, 2005, a bill of complaints . So Arizona's Hey, we're , we're filing a lawsuit against you, California. And they say it was reported. Final settlement agreements were approved. Let's see, we've got a bunch of attorneys here, January 19th, 1953, the court granted Arizona leave to file a bill of complaint against California and seven agencies. So the court said, yeah, you can go. You can go file a complaint against them. Court referred the case out. We got states of Arizona, Palo Alto, all of these different things. So they're defining these different organizations. We've got Arizona, California, Nevada, Palo Verde irrigation, district, Imperial irrigation, district, Coachella valley, water, blah, blah, blah. All of you people you are now by order of the Supreme court hereby and severally enjoined, meaning you can't do any of this stuff. Do not interfere with this decree. Okay? We're in charge here from interfering with or purporting to authorize interference with any water controlled by the United States. You are not allowed to divert or authorized any diversion unless it's authorized here. You're not allowed to consume or per part per port to authorize to consume any of the water and so on. Right? And then we can see that they're under section. This is a four state of New Mexico now is getting told right now. So New Mexico is getting told that, Hey, you're also enjoying here in New Mexico from diverting or permitting the diversion of water from the sand Simon Creek or any of its tributaries more than 29 years , a hundred acres. Don't even think about it. You also better not divert any water from the San Francisco river or its tributaries. Okay. You're going to be in big trouble following number acre . So they're just defining the acres for the Glenwood area, the reserve area, the Apache Creek Aragon area , Luna Luna area. Right. And I don't know, I don't know New Mexico at all, but you can see kind of how this works. Then we have a breakdown of this. We just go through, we say, okay, well the , the , the , the , the decree shall not enjoying the use of underground water on any of the following lands. So they went and they talked to Marvin Arnett and JC O'Dell and they talked to Hiram pace and Ray Richardson, and they talked to Harry de [inaudible] and they said, Hey, we're just gonna , w we're going to make sure that you're excluded from all of these bickering quarrels between the different states. Interesting stuff. Now, hopefully it doesn't turn into a big problem. I tend to think that humanity tends to solve these problems through technology and transportation and increased efficiencies . And at some point somebody will be able to extract water from the air and you know what, we'll figure something out, certainly, but it is a little bit concerning because there is only so much water to go around. And, you know, there are some, I think there's a , a cartoon or something out there that, you know, that , that sort of demonstrates and shows that by the time the water reaches is the Gulf of Mexico or the , um, uh, the Baha insula down there that there's no more water left in the Colorado river. It's all gone. Everybody's straws took it up. California took it. Arizona took it. Nevada took it. Everybody else took it. So, you know, water is something that is quite important. We'll see how this continues to unfold. So a little bit of a different story. Thanks for indulging me on that before we get out of here. Quick reminder, if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who is facing criminal charges, our law office, the RNR law group is very passionate about helping good people facing criminal charges to find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives, we would be honored and humbled. If you sent a referral our direction, we can help with any of these types of offenses. Things like drug charges, traffic violations, felony charges, DUI charges, anytime anybody's in trouble with the law, we can help. And we would love the opportunity to do so. We offer free case evaluations. Our phone number is (480) 787-0394. We'd very much appreciate a referral if you don't need any help with the law, it's a good thing, but it may be good to have some information about what to do in the event that you do need to deal with the law. And so I want to invite you to check out law enforcement interaction training. You can see that down here, it's available at gumroad.com/robert ruler. Our existence systems program is available there as well. If you're an attorney or a legal professional check out the twice monthly legal mastermind meetup , and that my friends is it for me for the show today, quick reminder, to check out our locals [email protected] . We've got an event coming up Saturday at 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 7:00 PM, Eastern time. It's going to be a zoom monthly meetup. So we're going to get to connect with each other on Saturday, which is going to be a lot of fun. Then we're going to do a Q and a. I'm going to record a video for Q and a on Sunday. And we've got some other just good stuff happening there at locals. It's a great place to be watching the watchers.locals.com. And every time that you go over there, we're sort of, you know , laying one additional brick in the, in the , the, the new informational supply chain so that we can sort of segment ourselves off and be less beholden to the YouTubes and the Googles of the world. So we really appreciate your support over there. And my friends that is it from me. We're going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow doing the show. We should be back live at that time, because I think we're back on schedule. So that , that, that is it for me, everybody have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Same place, same time, 4:00 PM. Arizona, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida, man, everybody else be well this evening. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye .