Garland’s Jan 6 Anniversary, Q-Anon Shaman Chansley Denied Bail, Trump Sues Big Tech in Class Action

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland meets with the Capitol Hill police to commemorate the 6-month anniversary of the Insurrection. Federal Judge denies Qanon Shaman Jacob Chansley’s third request for bail, meaning he will remain in custody pending trial. Donald Trump reveals he is filing a class-action lawsuit against the big tech companies with the help of the America First Policy Institute. ​

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

🔵 U.S. Capitol Police celebrate their 6-month Insurrection Anniversary with Merrick Garland and take photos for their law enforcement scrapbooks.​
🔵 Department of Justice issues press release commemorating the day, announcing 535 defendants have been arrested.​
🔵 We review the City of Scottsdale arrest data for June 2021, which shows well over 600 arrests, and compare the cases with the Capitol Hill Cases.​
🔵 Why the drama? Power: Capitol Hill Police are now opening branches in California and other locations around the country to pursue threats against Congress.​
🔵 QAnon Shaman Jacob Chansley is denied bail AGAIN and is ordered to remain in custody pending trial.​
🔵 Review of the docket in U.S. vs. Chansley shows several entries following a motion hearing regarding the bond status of Mr. Chansley.​
🔵 Judge Royce C. Lamberth issues order and memorandum opinion denying the request to reopen the detention hearing.​
🔵 The memo, 9-pages, explains that the court did not find new information presented in Chansley’s motion to be compelling to justify a modification of prior orders.​
🔵 Former President Donald Trump announces “major” class-action lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook, and Google over de-platforming.​
🔵 Speaking at the Trump National Golf Club, Trump announces the lawsuit will be filed in the Southern District of Florida Federal District Court.​
🔵 The America First Policy Institute is backing the lawsuit, and we learn who is on the team.​
🔵 Brooke L. Rollins and Pam Bondi from AFPI release statements promising to combat growing censorship.​
🔵 Live chat after each segment at watchingthewatchers.locals.com!​

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, July 24th at 7 p.m. eastern – Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.​

🥳 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​
🟢 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 TikTok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdCFry1E/​
🟢 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​

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

🟡 ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@WatchingTheWatchers:8​
🟡 RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq ​

#WatchingtheWatchers #Tr

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today because we've got a lot to get into. We're going to start this show off by talking about Merrick Garland. He's our United States attorney general, if you're not familiar with him, but he met with the us Capitol police yesterday. I didn't even realize this because I was busy doing other things, but there was a six month anniversary of the insurrection that was yesterday. We all just kind of forgot about it here on the show, but not in Washington DC or we're on Capitol hill. Merrick Garland went over with the Capitol police and they took some pictures for their scrapbooks and things. And so we're going to go through that. What happened there? And then what I want to do is something a little bit different is I actually want to sort of run through some numbers that we have from the city of Scottsdale, which might seem a little bit strange. You're going well, what, what does city, the city of Scottsdale have to do with anything? Well, I'm going to show you because we have a lot of cases that come through the city of Scottsdale, way more than what the us attorney's office is dealing with related to the Capitol hill insurrection cases. And so I want to just show you kind of what a joke this whole thing really is. And we're going to do that by doing a compare and contrast with an actual city that actually does criminal prosecutions. So that's going to be interesting. We're going to go through all the Capitol hill stuff then closely related. We're going to transition and talk about Jacob chancellor because he had a, a hearing on June 30th that we were waiting for a ruling on Jacob Chandley of course is the Q Anon Shama. And the guy in the horns who was arrested for the, uh, almost seizing America out from under us. And he's been trying to get out of custody for the last six months, three times, he's tried to get out of custody and the judge denied it yet. Again, the final order memorandum came out today. So it's looking like Jacob chancellor of the Q Anon shaman is going to be in custody for the foreseeable future. We're going to hear from judge Royce, Lamberth over from the DC circuit court. And so we're going to go through that a memo. It is not particularly long. It's about nine pages. We're going to fly through it though. And there's some interesting stuff in there. So we're going to see what he says, why is Jacob? Tansley not being allowed out. We're going to get to that. And more, then we're going to finish off with the big news of the day. Of course, Donald Trump was out earlier this morning, announcing a class action lawsuit against all of the big tech platforms for some of their, you know, activities let's say of throwing him and many other people off of the internet and sort of tilting the scales in favor of their political ideology. So he said that he's going to come out now and actually Sue them, uh, uh, named a number of different of the big tech platforms, and also says that he's got the backing of an organization called America first policy and Institute people like Brooke L Rollins and Pam Bondi from the ASPI are going to be sort of assisting in this class action lawsuit. And we're going to take a look at that organization. Now, I don't have actually a copy of the class action itself. I have not seen that out yet. Presumably that was all being filed today. And so we'll get copies of that soon enough, but we've got a lot to get into, as I mentioned, if you want to be a part of the show, the place to do that is by going over to watching the watchers.locals.com and I'm taking a look, we've got a lot of people over there in the chat. Want to give a quick shout out to Jeremy[inaudible] he's over there. Chairman of a board is in the house. We have ZZ boxing, CAC, what's up. He Don test tos forever is here. We have rye Eugene and many others, and this is where we're going to take the chats from. And so, uh, as we know, we're going to sort of, you know, the, the format's a little bit differently. So I'm just going to be reading from the chat and we're going to be getting to those questions here. Soon enough, thunder seven says, hello, farmer's daughter says hello, and we're going to get to some more people there. So if you want to be a part of the show, head on over to watching the wall watchers.locals.com, that's where the live chat is taking place. And we're going to check in over there after each different segment. So want to also invite you, of course, please check out other of the, some of the other links down in the description below, we have some other channels that we're working on a little bit backed up on some of those other channels, but of course, if you need or know anybody in the state of Arizona that needs any criminal representation, I asked you to sort of, you know, maybe, maybe consider referring them over to our law firm over here at the RNR law group, we love to help good people facing criminal charges navigate through the justice system. Okay. So enough of all of that, let's get into the news of the day. Attorney general Merrick Garland is sort of the chief attorney for the United States. And so when he puts his efforts into something, everybody should sort of pay attention. Well, yesterday he actually paused to commemorate a very important six month anniversary. Now, six month anniversary, sort of something, one of those things that I kind of go, wow, that's seems a little bit premature to be celebrating anything or to be commemorating. Anything. What are we talking about here? Typically, you kind of wait for a year, right? And you, you know, that person that you've dated historically and they come out and you've been dating for a couple of weeks a couple months and they say, Hey, sweetie, what are we going to do to celebrate our two month anniversary? You just go, uh, uh, in the relationship, right? Not going to continue on with that thing. So when you start to see stuff like this, come out from the federal government, uh, you know, it's kind of raises an a little bit, but what am I talking about? Well, yesterday was January six. It was six months after that. It was actually July six, which of course is six months after January 6th. It was the six month anniversary of the January six attack on the Capitol. The insurrection heard round the world, the most devastating attack in American history, almost literally seize control of the country because that guy had the podium and the other guy had his feet on Pelosi's desk. And it was just madness all around. There's still a lot of people who are recovering from that travesty. And, uh, we wish them well. Now I want to show you what is going on with the justice department, because we've been seeing for a long time that this has been such a catastrophe, that it sort of requires that we marshal all of the resources of the entire federal government, like everybody, every single agency, every single available federal officer, every FBI agent, every us attorney, every single person who can, we can get their hands on to go deal with whatever happened that day. And it's a big, big deal. So when we are six months out of it, now we got to look back and we got to just sort of pat ourselves on the back and say, Hey, nice job, everybody for doing such a great, a great job protecting America. So Merrick Garland was out yesterday. He came out on Tuesday, July 6th said a readout from the attorney general Merritt Garland's meetings commemorating the six months since January six. Right? So it's a big commemoration. I've been saying this here on this channel that they are going to beat this thing to death. If you think this is a big thing, wait until we have the one year anniversary. Oh my goodness. You're going to see all sorts of just commemorations and probably big long documentaries. And you're going to see a lot of tears and people just weeping all over themselves over what happened. And so now we're just getting started just six months. We're already at it. Attorney general Merrick Garland. This afternoon. He met with us Capitol police officers who defended the Capitol on January 6th with the department of justice employees who have worked tirelessly to hold accountable. Those who attack the Capitol six months ago today. So, you know, good for them. They're, they're having their little celebration. The us Capitol police were very excited about this. They posted this over on Twitter. It says today, attorney general Merrick Garland visited one of our roll calls, thanks to our brave us Capitol police officers. And to give them an update on the January six cases, we thank attorney general Garland justice department and all of our law enforcement partners for their support. And so they make this thing, like it's a huge big deal, right? It's a big, big stinking deal that this is going to, it's going to require all of the efforts of law enforcement. We've seen the FBI on Twitter every day, looking for grandma. Can't find her for some reason, but they're still going to just keep reminding us about this. We've got, you know, 18 intelligence agencies that couldn't prevent this. And of course they're having a difficult time prosecuting these cases because there must've been so many of them, right? This was such a big deal. We're going to get there in a second. But first we'll just make a, make a quick note. You know, they're taking pictures, they're sort of having fun. It was a roll call event. So Merrick Garland, you've got these other officers just sitting back here pretty much bored out of their minds. Who is this guy? What does he want? What are we doing here? We all know it's just a, basically a photo op. We're going to see what the rest of Merrick Garland statement looks like. It's like another, you know, two paragraphs, there's nothing going on here, but he goes to their roll call. So all these guys are showing up for duty and they just sort of parade the attorney general and right in front of them, these guys are going to go, what are you talking about? Can we get back to work, leave us alone? And of course though, before they leave, they've got to get their photographs in because they've got their scrapbooks that they need to start working on. So we've got, you know, an image here, everybody wants a pose and yes, we're doing a great job and you know what, take fine. And you know, okay, so they're having fun with it. And now we see the rest of the statement. So this is the entirety of the statement that it's, it's about, you know, four, three and a half paragraphs. So what attorney general Merrick Garland says is along with the deputy attorney, Lisa O Monaco, and, you know, there's something I wanted to flag about this, this, this is very interesting to me. He, he's very, very supportive of his deputy attorney. We see her name mentioned a lot, like a lot, right? He's every time that he does something, oh, also with Monica also with Monica, which is curious, don't know if that is to speculate, maybe he's sort of, you know, training or replacement, or maybe he's going to be slotted into a different position. And Lisa Monaco then gets the attorney general role. I don't know, but he is referencing her a lot. And in fact, she makes a lot of these statements on her own. He doesn't really even do it. Um, uh, often we've covered many of these press releases that come just from Lisa Monaco, not from Eric Garland. My initial thought was maybe that he, it would be, you know, they were going to try to get, yes, get retribution or payback for not putting Merrick Garland on the Supreme court and that maybe they would want to elevate him up into that status. But then I looked at his age he's 68 years old. So he's too old for that. So it may just be, you know, curious may not be any real reason to it. Anyways, he's saying that the attorney general and his deputy, they met with investigators and they met with analysts and they met with prosecutors and professional staff. That's all assigned to the January six cases from the FBI's Washington field office and the us attorney's office for the district of Columbia. Okay. So as we go through the rest of this statement, I want you to start to think about like resources. You know, if you, if you needed to build a house or something, you need a certain amount of lumber and a certain amount of electrical wire and a certain amount of concrete to pour the foundation and so on and so forth. Kind of the same concept when you're talking about prosecuting cases, right? When you are dealing with a law firm or a group of prosecutors, you're typically talking about assigning a caseload to a certain attorney, and, you know, it depends on the caseload. If you have a lot of sort of low level criminal cases, an attorney can handle, you know, even up to a hundred maybe cases, depending on how sort of intense they are. Okay. If it's a bunch of sort of, you know, traffic violations and things like that, one attorney can handle a large amount of cases because they don't require a lot of work. Now you sort of have the scale that works the other way. You may have an attorney that has a very serious murder case, or, you know, some gang related cases that have multiple co-defendants and those attorneys maybe have five to 10 cases that they work on a year, right? Or a capital punishment case or something that requires a lot of effort. And so we have to think about that now, because we're talking about a certain number of defendants and we have a certain number of manpower or women power or a gender neutral power, whatever that is, that we'll work on solving this problem. The problem that we're framing out here is that there was a, there was an insurrection that happened. There were thousands of people that bombarded the congressional building. And we know based on the previous stories that we've covered here, that the us attorney's office and that the Capitol hill police and everybody, the department of justice were having a lot of difficulty actually prosecuting these cases. We're so overwhelmed. This was such a massive problem. We talked about this in the Jacob Tansley case, they actually came out the U S attorneys did in many of these Capitol hill defendant cases and said, we need 60 day continuances because we're just so overwhelmed. We can't get it together. And back then I was screaming at what are you talking about? There's like 500 extra cases coming through here. You guys, you, you, the entire us government can't figure out how to move some bodies around so that they can prosecute a few extra cases. Okay. You know, I have a law firm here in Scottsdale and we can handle 500 cases, no problem at all. So it's one of these things that I'm just kind of shocked that it's been so difficult for the U S government to actually prosecute these things. Given the fact that they've got the FBI Washington field office, right? They, the, the entire field office, they have the us attorney's office for the district of Columbia. And I mean, a lot of resources. This is the federal stinking government. They've got every single thing at their disposal and they had a difficult time. So it didn't make much sense to me. Anyways, during the meeting attorney general, deputy attorney general, they acknowledged the extraordinary work of the dedicated public servants across the us attorney's offices and the FBI field offices all throughout the country. Now they're recognizing this work and the recent milestones in the investigation, including the arrest of more than 535 defendants. Okay. So put a pin in that number 535 people, that's it, all of this whole thing, 535 people, I'm going to show you what an embarrassing number that is the attorney general and deputy attorney general encourage the team to continue to follow the facts in this case and charge what the evidence supports to hold all the perpetrators accountable later, the attorney general visited with members of the Capitol police, where he command, commanded them for their bravery express, his appreciation blah-blah-blah FBI released 11 new videos of suspects and violent assaults. So they're still going after it. They still can't figure it out. Charges contained in any of these things are just allegations office of the U S attorney general. Okay. So I mentioned now that I want to sort of compare and contrast the Capitol hill cases with the Scottsdale city court cases. Okay. That's where our office is right in the city of Scottsdale right. In Arizona. So I know exactly how the court works because we are there all the time. We, we bought, you know, many cases that we work out of the city of Scottsdale and I'm involved in some other areas in the city of Scottsdale. And so I'm very familiar with how this stuff works. I want to show you some data from their public records. Now you should be able to access this on your own, but I want to, let me see if I can got to pull this up here. What happened to my, I apologies folks. I'm running a little bit, uh, uh, on empty over here, just a slight little bit. And so I'm, I'm skidding in here, but what I'm going to do is show you my actual, uh, SLI or my, uh, a spreadsheet that I was able to draft from data from the city of Scottsdale. So let me show you what this looks like here. I have it open and all of this of course is public record. And this is a spreadsheet that doesn't have any personal identifying information, but let me frame this out just a little bit better. So in the city of Scottsdale, right, we're, we're now not even one of the bigger cities in Arizona. We've got the city of Phoenix, we've got the city of Mesa, we've got Gilbert and Glendale. And all of these other cities Scottsdale is, you know, it's a moderate sized city and there's, you know, some act criminal activity that goes on here, just like any other city, every time that there's an arrest. Every time the Scottsdale police book, somebody into custody or book them into jail, they make a list it's called a booking list and all of this access, it, all of this information is accessible on the internet. So you can just go and pull it up. And what I've done is I've done that, right? You don't have to be an attorney to go get it, but I put it into a spreadsheet and I organized it a little bit. And the reason I did so is because I want to compare and contrast one city's data, one city, the city of Scottsdale versus the Capitol hill police cases. Okay. We know from them that they've got a lot of people working on this, the us attorney's office, the entire department of justice. We have the FBI, we have probably many other agencies that are sort of all spiraling into this thing. And we've talked about them here, so we know what resources they have. Let's see what's going on out of the city of Scottsdale. So I want to show you what I did with this data. I know it's going to look like a big boring spreadsheet here, but just sort of bear with me as I explain what's happening. You're going to see here in column B, we have the arrest date. Okay. So what I did is I went through and I scrubbed all of the other dates outside of June. So right now we have June one. And if we scroll all the way down, you're going to see that these charges just keep going and we're just moving down the month. So now we're on June 10th. We're going to scroll down to June 13th, keep going to June 17th, keep scrolling down six 20. Now we're down to 6 25 and the month wraps up arrive right around 6 27. Okay. So this that's when this data ends and you'll notice that we've got gotten down to 636 rows, which means we're going to delete the top row, which means we've got about 635 cases in one month. Okay. June one month in June, the city of Scottsdale had 635 arrest or bookings or citations that came through through their court. And it's just one city. Okay. We have four judges there. We have some temporary temporary judges that are called proteins that will help periodically. We have about eight to 10 different prosecutors on average, right? That number sort of fluctuates, but about two prosecutors to the court. And so you've got, you know, let's, let's say about a total people of about 15 people plus all of the Scottsdale police. Of course, there are a lot of people there. And so that's the amount of resources that we're talking about and they are able to handle in June 636 cases. Now the Capitol hill police, they have been beating themselves over the head trying to figure out how to prosecute 535 cases over the last six months. This was in one month in June. And so guess what happens next month? Scottsdale has another five to 600, sometimes a thousand cases that come through and they've got to deal with that are the Capitol hill police going to have another 535 insurrection cases coming through next month? Probably not. Cause there's not going to be another insurrection. So Scottsdale has to prosecute and process 635 cases basically every month. And sometimes we get these massive spikes where we'll have a waste management open here or a golf tournament, or the Superbowl will be here and everything goes bonkers. And so they have a surge of cases. How do I know that? Because, well, we've got surges of cases too, right? Because it, when it happens, people get charged, they need good legal representation. So they give our office a call and this happens year round, all year round. So we have a very small city jurisdiction here that has a fraction east eighth sliver of the resources that the entire apparatus of the federal government has. And they're able to process through 636 cases a month while these people are struggling with 535. And so I know what the next question of course is going to be. Yeah, Rob, but this is a serious thing, right? These are totally different types of offenses. Not really right. These are sort of trespass charges that we're seeing in the Capitol building. It's many of them are being charged as sort of mid tier felonies and low level misdemeanors. We've seen some plea deals already come through where basically misdemeanors and probation. So it's the same type of charges. It's a trespass, just like going into a, you know, being asked to leave a bar in old town, Scottsdale and not ever leaving it's a crime, just like it is to enter into a building at the Capitol. It's a different crime, it's a capital crime. And it's something that is prohibited by other federal statutes and things like that. But it's a criminal case. It is the same presumption of innocence, the same burden of proof, the same essentially rules of procedure that you see throughout the rest of the country, because they're all based out of the U S constitution. So then you may be saying, well, these are, these are Scottsdale crimes. These are just stupid things where nobody's even arrested. Right. Well, let's take a look. So as we know, we've got 636 different counts here, different charges. Let's take a look at some of these things so we can take a look at column D we'll see, these are the different Arizona statutes or I'm sorry. No, those are the different report numbers. And then what we can see here are the different actual charges. So in row G what we have here, we're going to see we've got DUI DUI. Uh, let's see some criminal speeding here, assault, assault, touch to injure recklessly injuring. We have Nocari narcotic drugs violation. We've got a dangerous drugs violation, several warrants. You can see here, different accidents, burglary in the second degree, drug paraphernalia, armed robbery, which is a good one. Prostitution of course, drug, dangerous drug use another prostitution, let's see aggravated assault impeding the breathing. So that means there was a choking or something going on there. We've got shoplifting kids under age, drinking alcohol, more dangerous drug uses, and the list goes on, right? You just keep scrolling down another burglary, urinating defecating in public, a dangerous drug, sexual conduct, consensual a lot, lot, a lot of different charges. Okay. Many of them more serious than just a simple trespass. So they're able to actually, you know, prosecute some really serious crimes. Whereas here, they're just sort of, uh, you, you entered a building in improperly and you caused some damage right? More and more analogous to a trespass or a disorderly conduct or even a criminal damage. We don't one of those things, of course, I think would all be appropriate, but here we've got, you know, dangerous drugs. We've got what's this one drug paraphernalia resisting arrest. Okay. So those all get, you know, controversial child abuse, vulnerable adult abuse, aggravated assault. The list goes on. So this the city of Scottsdale and their police department and these prosecutors, they're able to just motor through these cases month after month after month after month. And is it, is it more complicated because, you know, because they have to make these arrests or are they just, are they able to process more because they're not actually booking people. They're just giving them citations. You know, it's not that big of a deal. They just stop you and give you a citation. And they're not actually arresting them, like having to find these people and arrest them and book them and have detention hearings like chancellor and all of these other people. Like, you know, it's, it's sort of a, it must be just a kind of a lower level thing, right? No, all of these people are getting booked, not all of them, but a lot of them let's take a look over here in column E now, books, books, books, books, without a warrant warrant warrant books cited in lieu of detention cited in lieu of detention. But look at all these bookings, okay. Booked, booked booked it probably 70 to 80% of these people are actually booked into jail, which means they get arrested, handcuffed, taken into custody. Now there is a little bit of a difference here because these are local offenses and the other offenses, you know, sort of are, are, are scattered throughout the country. But you know, what happens when that happens, of course, is they just issue a warrant for you. So they don't actually have to go and track you down. If you come to Scottsdale and you know, you get book and you leave and you get, or you get cited, they just issue a warrant here, see all these warrants, right? Warrants, warrants, warrants for everybody going through here. Now, you know, there's some other very good data. You can see what the location looks like. And you know, there's some other stuff I want to share with you. Not because it matters. Okay. I think the point's been made here that the Capitol hill police are prosecuting 535 cases. It's been taken them six months. They have to have these commemorative little events where they pat themselves on the back and take their scrapbook photos with each other. Very excited about the work that they've done. Meanwhile, we've got different defendants who are sitting in custody. We're going to talk about Jacob. Tansley in the next segment who just got denied bail for the third time. And they also ask for continuances in his case because they said, well, we're just so overwhelmed. We just can't handle this all. You know, this was the worst attack on American democracy that we've ever seen. And so we just need more resources and the judge go, oh yeah, you're right. Totally. You need more time because, uh, you, you don't have, like, I don't know the entire federal government, the us attorney's office, the FBI and everybody. So we're going to give you 60 days. Good luck. We know you're overwhelmed. Meanwhile, right here, the courts right here, it's like six minutes down the road. They, they prosecute 600 cases every month and they send it, you know, they send some of these he's over to the superior court downtown, if they're going to be felonies and things, but it's, it's very, very possible to easily. This it's not even complicated, but our, our federal government of course has a hard time with it. For some reason, it's actually kind of embarrassing. I was expecting this number to be in the thousands of arrestees. Six months later, it's not 535 people. And at several of those that we have seen, we've talked about here on the show, we've actually discussed their charges. They're not even related to anything that happened on January six. We've covered several cases where people showed up the next morning or later at the night when they were back inside counting the votes and they're all being prosecuted. So I think if you went through this and you went through all 535 cases, you'd probably see, see that a lot of these are just outright garbage cases. Shouldn't ever be brought their political prosecutions through and through. And, you know, they should be embarrassed for themselves, quite frankly, you know, to sort of puff this up as this is a big, big, you know, overarching endeavor that requires all of the resources of everybody from throughout the country for 535 cases. It's embarrassing, man. I mean, you know, if I was a prosecutor, they go to court, my office and we could have handled 535 cases like that, but they didn't. And I wouldn't do it anyways, cause I'm not a prosecutor. Those people are terrible. All right. So let me show you some of the other good data that is in here, just coming from the city of Scottsdale, just cause it's interesting, not that you care too much about it, but I want to show you sort of what I do with this data. And I think you might find it somewhat interesting. So if you take a look at all of the different crimes that occur throughout Scottsdale in the last month, so in June, you can see that they sort of break down into this pattern. So I wanted to just show you, you might see things like this similar in your city, but what we see here, we have sort of the highest offense is DUI. As you might expect, DUI impaired to the slightest degree, 60 of those in June in Scottsdale drug paraphernalia, we had 52 of those in Scottsdale. We had, uh, uh, criminal speeding violations, a lot of those 42. And then we sorta just kind of bounce around dangerous drugs were very high, 26 of those 29 driving on a suspended license, which is a class one misdemeanor, which is the same as a DUI, which is insane, but it's the law narcotic drugs violations. And you'll notice this one, 10 different sexual conduct with minors under the age of 17 years old. So that number is a little bit higher than, than a usual more DUI drugs. Some of the lower tiers, let's see what this one is. Failure to obey a police officer. That's one indecent exposure. That's one failure to appear a handbill distribution. Someone was handing out some stuff that is a crime. And so of course, you know, just kind of some interesting data and we use this for some of our marketing. We use this to sort of, you know, do outreach. We have no, no qualms about marketing. I, I say this frequently, right? If, if we're the best law firm in the state of Arizona, if we, if only we can help people that we've got an obligation to go, make sure they know about us, because there's a lot of other lawyers out there who are not good. And they have a very vocal voice on billboards and on TV camera commercials and things like that. So we're a little bit more tactical, I think, with how we interface with our community. But this data is also interesting. Also I wanted to show you this quickly, before we go, uh, some more data here. If we take down all of those charges and we sort of break them down into charts, I wanted to show you what it looks like. So eight 73% of the arrests are male in Scottsdale and 26% are female. So it's men who are breaking the law out here. And then if you break it down by race, vast majority of them are whites. Okay. So we've got about, about 500. So, uh, whites are, are, have been arrested, uh, black accounts for about maybe, maybe, maybe even less than a hundred. Then I think that is going to be Indian and then Asian. So a very, very few, uh, Asian arrests took place. And then this is just sort of a breakdown of the different districts where they're located in Scottsdale has four different districts and they're sort of, uh, stacked throughout the city. So some interesting data there. I thought you might find that somewhat, uh, interesting. I'd be curious to see what some other cities look like, but I don't have those numbers. So the big question of course is why are they doing this? Why are they puffing this up? Why are they making this whole thing about 535 cases? And, you know, we gotta have a, uh, anniversary party to celebrate our relationship right after six months. And they're going to continue to do this well, it's because it's about power, right? And they get a lot of, uh, they get a lot of money, a lot of funding. They get to exercise, political control. They get to talk about things like gun violence and white supremacy and making sure that we don't have to worry about domestic, violent extremism and domestic terrorism and all these things. So they're just gonna keep milking this thing indefinitely. And you're going to see how like a bad cancer, this just continues to spread throughout the country, which I've been saying, it's going to Joe. Biden's big, big, big, big pro law enforcement wants to make sure they are everywhere has been doing that for the last 40 years. And now the Capitol hill police are going to be expanding as well, right throughout the country. We don't have enough local and federal law enforcement agencies like the DEA, ATF, FBI, and on and on and on. Now we're going to have the us Capitol police showing up in your city LA times is telling us that the us Capitol police are to open a California office following the January six attack. So this was published yesterday by Sarah wire, over at the LA times, this is why they're doing this. The U S Capitol police announced that the agency was opening regional field offices in California and Florida to investigate threats to members of Congress in the wake of the January 6th attack. So did they mean like January six threats or just threats in general? Because it sort of reads to me like after the fact, right in the wake of the January 6th attack, like it happened, it threats made in the week after, right. The boat drives through the water and then the wake flows behind those, the boat. So the insurrection happened and now we've got threats to remember of Congress in the wake. And so now this is not even in response to anything that happened on January 6th. This is just because there are ongoing threats, threats against members of Congress. They say have increased as of Tuesday, total threats in 2021 were double what they were a year ago, according to the Capitol police, which of course would, would, would the Capitol police have any conflict of interest there in reporting those numbers? Like what? It served them. If the numbers were higher so that they could get more funding and so that they could have more offices and everybody could get a promotion, maybe I don't know, home to house speaker, Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy. Who's in Bakersville and other prominent members of Congress. California gives the law enforcement agency, a Western base to investigate claims of threats made against members. This state is home to the nation's largest congressional delegation because it's a big state. Yeah. It's got a lot of people over there. So now is going to be home to the Capitol hill police in California, even though Capitol Hills over in DC. Let's see what else is going on from the LA times. They're going to tell us that the field offices in Tampa and San Francisco is where they're going to be at this time. They tell us Florida and California are where the majority of our potential threats are currently, but your state is certainly coming next. The field offices will be a first for the department. Our regional approach to investigating and prosecuting threats against members is important. So we'll be working closely with the us attorney's offices in those locations. Okay, well, that's good. So are they gonna be able to prosecute more than, I don't know, 10 cases a year, maybe that'll be good. Hopefully they'll improve their efficiency. The new field offices are among the changes made since the attacks six months ago, in which Capitol police were quickly overwhelmed by thousands of pro Trump supporters, hundreds of whom were able to break into the Capitol building, forcing members to halt certification, got all that other changes spurred in part by congressional investigations and reports by the department's internal watchdog include what else? Increasing training for officers, improve intelligence, gathering efforts and protocols for reporting sensitive information, new equipment, and new technology for officers. So they are just coming in hot, right off of this insurrection. They're going to just gobble up as much power as they can, and they're working hard for it. The police agency rarely provides information to the public on how it operates, citing security concerns and member safety. So, so not only are they going to do this, you can't even see how it works. For example, unlike other government agencies, the internal watchdogs reports are not publicly available. Oh my goodness. So I always make fun of the police for investigating themselves and finding that they didn't do anything wrong. Right. And oh no, we checked it's what's good. We didn't do, we were perfectly good. Aren't in that right joke. That's right, Lou. It is. Okay. And so now the Capitol hill police are sort of even a one tier above that. It's like, you don't even get to ask them anything. Why? Because they're the Capitol hill police and are oligarchs out there. The congresspeople, there are so special that they need special rules for them because they're sort of above everybody else. As we all know, now, a spokesperson over from the Capitol hill police did not answer questions on Tuesday about how many staff would be hired or what the cost of taxpayers would be. Spokesman said, other region or officers were ups. My gosh, the spokesperson said other regional offices were expected. So they are coming down hard for very few members of Congress are accompanied by security, outside the Capitol. It's unclear if the new offices will be primarily investigating threats against members or whether it will also help when security is needed in the state. Okay? So it's not even, it's not even just for investigating threats against members of Congress. It also could be for help when security is needed in the state from the Capitol hill police. Isn't that interesting? Wow. What a weird world we're living in the Capitol hill. Police have jurisdiction to investigate all threats made against a member of Congress. So whatever they want jurisdiction anywhere they want to go. That's your Capitol police. That is why we are making so much of the insurrections because they can, and it's very useful to them. So let's take a look@somequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com over in the live chat. So let's see who we have coming in here. We've got engineer 12 V says, y'all know that communication over unsecured services is monitored by the government. God knows. So, so he's got a warrant and everybody in the locals chat, you know, to, to, uh, be careful over there, be brave, says, it's legit guys. The exercise is planned for July 9th. I don't know when they'll go live with, so there's something going on over there. Uh, let's see what else we have. We're going to scroll back down. We've got, uh, the zombies are out there, says be brave. Jeremy Matrine is in the house. He says, so to be honest about why the Democrats always exaggerate the truth is they are compulsive liars. It may sound harsh, but the truth will set you free. But first it will make you mad. Yeah. Farmer's daughter says I loved California left it years ago. It's such a shame. Sharon Courtney says I've seen it go downhill for some time. Good to see you. Sharon Relic hunters here saying, hello, we've got a Jew in the house says, sounds like Biden, America. Biden's America is a police state. Well, it's looking like that, right? Because what's happening. We went through this yesterday on the show, we were talking about China and Hong Kong and how they sort of slowly started to unravel some of Hong Kong liberties away from them. There was sort of that three tier approach that you needed. One of course is to seize control of the courts. The next would be to seize control of the, what was it? I think, I think the third one was seizing control of the speech. So it was the courts. Oh, then it was the election. Then it was the speech. Right? So you say, first of all, we're just going to sort of criminalize a certain, uh, a bunch of activities, which they're working on here. Then next, what we're going to do is try to sort of seize control of the elections. We're going to federalize the elections, which is what they're doing here with[inaudible]. And then of course you have the, the, what was the last one? I just, the Senate seizing control of criminal law elections. Oh, and speech. And then in China, they got rid of Facebook's. I'm sorry. It was Apple's news one. That was the most pro-democracy news or the most, I would say free speech news that was there in Hong Kong. They're gone. No, you can't speak anymore. So same thing of course is happening here. That's why Donald Trump is filing a class action lawsuit, which we're going to talk about in the last section of the show. Let's see here. We've got miss lucky says, hi, Rob, who is paying for all of this? What a waste of money. Doesn't the FBI have offices all over it. They've got everything there everywhere. The FBI are everywhere. Literally. I think, I think in every state easily. Okay. And they've got thousands of employees so-so to the us attorney's offices. Okay. Dwarf, any thing that exists in a local city, municipality, unlimited funding, unlimited people. And they're having a difficult time prosecuting 535 cases. Or let's say you double that. Let's say you triple it. Oh my goodness. Wow. They've got a lot of work on their hands. 1500 cases. Oh wow. We're gonna to just sort of drop everything and reorienting the entire government because we can't handle that. Scottsdale could handle that. Right? We have Superbowls here. We have any, any one of these cities could handle it. What they're doing is they are making this and you know, it's, it's, it's all about the politics so that they can continue to expand their footprint. Three girlies is here, says, wait, they need a credible threat to have jurisdiction. Seems like they will be making up some threats to get the jurisdiction to overreach. So you can just presume that now. So they, they, they are granting themselves sort of unlimited jurisdiction. So they're going to plop them in your city so that they can go and say, well, we're going to be there to address threats against members of Congress, but then simultaneously, if we need to be available for other security mechanisms while we can be available for that too. And of course these field offices are going to need money to function. And of course, they're going to need employees to man, the field offices. And so that budget's going to go up and then once they get it working in California, in Florida, they're going to need to put them in on other and other states throughout the rest of the country. Then you have the national Capitol hill police force in your localities. So it's a good trend now. All right. I guess that's, I guess that's where things are going now. I'm not gas as probably an end goal, but it takes a lot in lot of infrastructure to get that rolling tos forever says, do you think this is to replace the state and local police to have a national police? You know, I have always been somebody who was sort of skeptical about that, uh, about that idea. But I think that it sort of is in alignment with a lot of the other patterns that we're seeing. They want to federalize national elections, where we're seeing trends about sort of a federalization of not the police force, but sort of the police standards, which would be the first thing that you would do in that Domino's in that line of Domino's before you would ever nationalize the police force, you'd want to make sure that you are sort of nationalizing the standards, right? And, and the, and the, and the justification for that for doing that is that we have criminal justice reform problems around the country. We have George Floyds, we have racial art, charred Brooks and Brianna. And the problem is according to these people is that it's too uniform. There are too many, it's too sort of too many variables there in Minnesota. They've got certain standards in Missouri, they've got different standards. And so we need to nationalize this so that they're equal standards across the board so that we don't get knees on the next. And of course that is the bureaucratic solution to virtually everything is just, you know, more rules, more government, more standards, more regulations, more rules, more laws, more enforcement, blah, blah, blah. And it typically never works. So that may be that that may be sort of the first attempt is to nationalize the standards. And then after that, we sort of see of a, uh, more of a, uh, tendency to, to nationalize the police force. And maybe once people get comfortable with the Capitol hill police in their backyards, it becomes less of something that is problematic. And remember this Obama said this in one of his early speeches, this was viral a long time ago. Obama said we need a national police force. That is just as strong. That is just as well-funded as everything else, right. A civilian police force or whatever he said. So I think that this is part of, you know, if we're always going to be having this battle between local governments and federal governments, which we're, we're seeing take place. K and M it's not just me saying that there are governors around the country that are saying, no, we're not following your stinking rules come and force it if you want to. And we've talked about enforceability here, right? I think it was Missouri that governor said, if you come in here and try to enforce federal gun laws, we're going to find your federal agents, 50 grand, a pop, every time they do it. And the justice department responded and said, you can't do that. There's this supremacy clause thing going on. So now you sort of have this kind of soft kind of pseudo rebellion thing going on here, where they're just saying, we're not going to enforce those laws anymore. Well, that's, that's fine. So long as the federal government doesn't come and try to enforce them. Okay. That technically their laws reign Supreme in a lot of situations because of the supremacy clause. But the problem with that has always been enforceability. They may have it right in courts, in the court of law, but they can't actually go out and enforce the laws across all of the different states. And so states are recognizing that. And when that happens and you start to see states sort of push back on the feds a little bit, they're going to respond and how are they responding by saying, well, we're just going to put a bunch of federal police in your states now, and we're gonna see how you like that. Okay. What's Missouri going to do if they put them in there and they start prosecuting gun crimes, we'll see. All right, we've got, I'm not gas says, remember, remember, Rob, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, major eye roll on that one. And I see, I saw that there. Uh, let's see what else we've got. We have Sharon's here. We got tos forever here. Good to see everybody, Joe snow's in the house. He says, have people seriously not realize that America is under attack from within yeah. The enemy within right. Is oftentimes stronger than the enemy without, because you know who the enemy without or outside is oftentimes you don't know who the enemy within is. And, uh, I think it is certainly concerning. So great questions. Thank you so much for all of those coming in from watching the watchers.locals.com really appreciate all the support over there. And before we move on quick reminder that I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group. You can see our sign right there. We're located in Scottsdale Arizona. We offer free case evaluations for anybody who's facing criminal charges and just needs a little bit of help working themselves through the justice system. We want to help them through that because we help people get amazing outcomes. And the main thing, our mission here is to provide safety, clarity, and hope to good people facing criminal charges. And so that's our phone number(480) 787-0394 or online at our, our law, easy.com. And if you don't need any criminal legal services, that's a good thing. Maybe you're interested in some educational materials in particular, my law enforcement interaction training, which is available over at gumroad.com/robert ruler. It's a two and a half hour training where we talk about the 1, 2, 3 rule for dealing with the police. That's the only rule it's going to cover. Most situations think it's well worth your while. That way, if you use that and you never have to get a criminal lawyer in the first place, it's good. A good thing to know. All right. And so those were all great questions. Thank you everybody for your support. I really do appreciate it. Next segment. We are moving on Jacob chancellor. We've been following the Q Anon shaman for some time here on the show. And he's been trying to get out of custody. Believe it or not. Yesterday was the six month anniversary of the insurrection. And it's been a, June six was the date been six months. And Jacob chancellor is still still in custody. He's the Q Anon Sean man, if you recall, he was the guy with the horns and sort of that entourage that was rolling through the Capitol. And they took a lot of, you know, very provocative pictures. And those were spread all over the internet sorta became a symbolic figurehead of the, the entire thing. And so he's been sitting in custody for a long time. On June 30th, we talked about on this show, a request by his attorneys to get him out of custody. Okay. This is something I've been sort of upset about for a long time here saying that the Capitol hill defendants are getting treated poorly and desparately than some other defendants that we've seen throughout the rest of the country. And in particular, we're talking about the Antifa people, some of the BLM protestors, many of them got right out of custody. They were released on their own recognizance or people like Kamala Harris were supporting bail funds that literally helped free people who burnt down the third precinct out of Minneapolis. And so major, major sort of, uh, accommodations were provided to certain people from a certain political ideology to get them out of custody, work their cases through the system. And then what happens is they get diversion deals, they get plea deals and their cases kind of get dismissed and go away. And so, okay. That, that might be fine for those particular defendants. I don't know. I don't know the nature of their cases, but simultaneously we have to ask ourselves if, if a similarly situated defendant is not getting those same benefits, we have to start asking ourselves why that is. Might it be because it's a political prosecution? I think so. And we're going to see what happens here in this case. This is the third time that Jacob Tansley is trying to get out of custody. And we're going to go through this. We're going to get some background here. Of course, this is Jacob Tansley now, uh, you know, he's not, he's not in his outfit and you know, he's, he's sitting in custody. You want to remind everybody out there who says, you know, he's just a piece of garbage he shouldn't have ever been doing. Uh, I, okay, you can have that opinion. He's, he's still a human being. And he is still somebody who deserves due process, the presumption of innocence and the same standards as everybody else would. Right? If this was your son or your brother or your family member, you'd want to make sure that they were being treated fairly and justly, regardless of what they did. So I can understand that perspective, but let's see, let's measure it across a standard rather than sort of pre-judging the man based on the allegation. So here are the article that comes over from Newsweek. It says that shaman chancellor loses the bid for freedom ahead of the Capitol riot trial. So he's on the trial road, a judge today sided with prosecutors in their quest to keep Jacob. Chandley also known as the QL non-common in jail ahead of his trial for the role during the Capitol riot, one of the most, most well-known faces. He had the photograph of the horn head dress in an attempt to secure his client's release from prison. We have chancellor, his attorney's name is Albert Watkins. He argued the judge's original decision was erroneous, huh. Based on accuracies and lacking in evidence. So, uh, that's an interesting approach, you know, uh, typically judges don't like, like that, when you say, Hey, that was wrong and that's an accurate, okay. You gotta be a little bit more careful than that. Let's see what else is going on here, judge Royce, Lamberth disagreed with the defense. He appreciated the argument. He said in a hearing that Watkins failed to present any material evidence that wasn't available originally. And so essentially what this judge is going to tell us is thank you for asking a third time, but you didn't provide us any new information we need, we need more than this. Now there is some new information about what's going on. And so I do want to go through this just to show you kind of how this stuff works and how difficult it can be to sort of fight against the system. Okay. If the courts are going to keep somebody in custody, they're going to keep them in custody. But at the same time, we also have to ask ourselves, you know, what did this attorney do specifically? Did he, did he write a good motion? Did he, you know, is he, is he doing, uh, uh, an admirable job here? Let's see what we can figure out. So on June 30th, as I mentioned, we've talked about this previously on the show, there was a minute entry for a motion hearing. So they, they had a, um, a hearing in court where they were talking about whether they could release him from custody. So the motion at that time was taken under advisement, okay. With a forthcoming order. So what this means is when they all came into court on June 30, June 30th, it was a video motion. So they were all sort of probably appearing telephonically or by video. Okay. And they're having a conversation about Jacob chancellor getting out of custody, releasing him from custody. So they make their arguments. They submit their motions. The defense submitted their emotion, the prosecution opposed it. So the prosecution said, no, we don't want him out of custody. And then the judge listened to everything and said, why I don't have an answer for you right now. I'm going to take this under advisement. And I am going to come back at a later time and give you a formal memorandum, which is what we have over here. So now what we can see is on June six, uh, July six, which is yesterday, we have a memorandum opinion. Okay? So we have order, first of all, which is down here, the order is denying motion, which is the motion to reopen the detention hearing and to release him from custody. So it's just a short order and it looks like this. It says for the reasons set forth in the accompany memorandum, the court hereby denies Jacob chancellor motion to reopen his hearing and release him from custody. So ordered, signed off on here by Royce C Lamberth out of the us district court for DC. Okay. This was filed, uh, just yesterday. And it was page one of one. This is judge Lamberth over here. Of course. And then this is Jacob[inaudible]. So you're asking yourself, well, that's, you know, that's, there's not much there. So what else do we have? That's where we're going to take a look at the memorandum, which of course is over here. A couple other things I wanted to just highlight. We're not going to cover, actually we are going to cover this. This is a status report from the us attorney's office. And so they're going to tell us a little bit about Jacob, his mental health condition. Because last time we talked about this, he is, he's sort of under monitoring right now. Um, it's just sort of psychiatric evaluation and the us attorney's office because the government is in custody. It has him in their custody. The government's responsible for providing the court with updates. So we're going to take a look at what's going on there. There's also a draft transcript, uh, that we're not going to look at. And then there's a motion filed by Jacob Kinsley's attorneys to compel some sort of disclosure. We're also not going to look at that. So let's take a quick look then at the actual memorandum. So again, this is the judge's explanation as to why chancellor is not getting out. This is the third attempt. His attorney has already tried twice. And so the third time it's unlikely that he's going anywhere. Especially if this attorney is sort of not demonstrating or pleading new facts. If they're not going to be introducing anything new, the judge is just not going to find any differently. So let's see what this, what this judge is saying. He says, here, we can see this as a nine page document, and we're not going to read through the whole thing. I actually clipped out some of the more boring stuff. So it's nine pages so we can roll through it relatively quickly. Once again, it says earlier this year, the court denied Lee's motion for release. It said no conditions of release would reasonably assure the safety of the community or his appearance as required. Okay? And so that's the standard. What kind of conditions can the court pose on somebody before they let them go to make sure that they come back to court and to make sure they're not a danger to the community. And now oftentimes people don't, they don't even need to do anything. It's just a simple release. Hey, Hey, you've never been in trouble before. You've never not shown up to court. You haven't so much has had a traffic ticket. Do you promise to come back to court? Yes, I do. Okay. Sign right here. You're on your way. Don't need you to do anything. Sometimes the court will make you post a bond, they'll say, Hey, well, we're only going to let you out. If you post 25 grand, that way, if you leave, we've got some money to go get you back. And somebody says, wow, that's a lot. So an attorney might come in and negotiate that down from 25,000 down to 500 or something. And so they post that, or it's the simple fact of hiring an attorney. We'll sometimes convince a court to release somebody, oh, he's got counsel he's here. He hired them. You know, we trust that firm. And so, you know, a judge may sort of change those release conditions. Accordingly. You can also have a release if you have, let's say an ankle monitor, right? Or you check in with what's called pre-trial services so that you can go and actually communicate with somebody while you are out on release, you can also be sort of confined to certain areas. You can be precluded from going certain places. There are many options to ensure that people can be let out of custody. Okay. In America, remember what we talk about here? It's called the presumption of innocence. Very important concept to a philosophy in general and especially, you know, uh, the law, but the concept is you are innocent until you're proven otherwise. Or until you just agree that these I'm going to go ahead and plead guilty to this thing, you don't even need to prove anything. I'm acknowledging it, but we operate on that basis that everybody starts off innocent. And so when we are in a situation like this, or Jacob chancellor has been charged with several crimes, he still deserves that presumption. And that means that we should do everything humanly possible to make sure that we're not interfering with his Liberty. Because at this moment in time, he is still all innocent. Legally, we've seen the pictures, we've seen the videos we know, but legally he's innocent. And so we have to make sure that we're protecting those liberties and not just saying, well, we all kind of saw the video. So who cares? Whatever. He seems like a bad guy. We don't like his political ideology or whatever. So we're just going to throw away the keys. Nobody cares, right? That's not how this works. And the law says, supposed to say that we do everything possible to let you out. And we only impose harsh conditions on you to make sure you are not a danger to the community. And to make sure that you show up for court. So they're saying it needs to be reasonably assuring the safety reasonably assuring his appearance. And they're saying that previously, when this request was made, that was not satisfied. So let's see what else is going on. Chandley then now moves the court to reopen the hearing saying he's got new evidence and information in quotes discovered after the first hearing, the government opposes the motion saying that he has not put forth any new evidence warranting the reopening. So the court ordered parties to submit briefing. So brief, both sides about the issue of chancellor being a flight risk, which neither party addressed in the initial filings. Once the court received the supplemental briefs, it held a hearing, which we talked about last week upon consideration of the briefs. The court is going to deny Lee's motion to reopen his case, because they're saying that he has not proffered any new information that has a material bearing on the issue and whether any conditions of release would reasonably assure that he does not flee pending trial. Okay? So the judge is basically hanging his hat on that, that judge is saying we can't let them out because we don't know if he's going to flee or not. And, uh, nobody briefed that anyways. So here he says, thus, even if the court were to find that Chandley has proffered new information, that has a material bearing on the issue of dangerousness, the court has no occasion to reconsider Cheney, a chance he's flight risk, which was an independent justification for detaining him while he awaits his trial. So it sounds like, you know, they kind of like his attorney kind of just missed the flight risk portion of the argument. He's not danger to the community. Never been in trouble before has a lot of good mitigation, but didn't talk about the flight risk thing. Oh, okay. Let's see what else. The court assumes familiarity with the facts and the procedural history. We all saw it there. The court found that by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release would reasonably assure the public safety. So let's see. Let me ask ourselves that right. No conditions of release could reasonably assure the public safety. So he has to stay in class really like home tension, ankle monitoring, anything, nothing else is this possible only incarceration seems pretty extreme. To me. It also found by a preponderance of the evidence that no conditions of release would reasonably assure his appearance. So accordingly the court denied the order goes on. He says, now four months later, chancellor wants to reopen all of this. He says that there's new evidence. He discovered that the, after the first detention hearing that sense, it showed that he would not pose a danger to the public. He said in support of this motion, chancellor provides dozens of links to videos that he says confirmed that law enforcement gave him permission to enter the Capitol building. And he re he references that th th th th defense counsel, which is his attorney also notes, and represents that after the first attention hearing, he discovered important information about the flagpole, the chancellor carried under the Capitol specifically, he says that the finial, which is the thing on the top of the flag pole was a fixed to the pole with a zip tie. And thus could not have been used, used as a weapon, right from the, this is from the motion that the defense attorney who was working for Jacobs, chancellor, he filed on his behalf, says that, oh, you know, the flagpole judge that you were concerned about, well, look, you know, it was the, uh, the, the spike at the top of the flagpole that was just on there by zip ties. It's like loosely hanging there. It's not going to, uh, it's not going to actually injure anybody. So don't worry about that. So the judge is sort of framing that out. Now, the government responded. So remember the way that this works is one side moves, the other side responds. And so the court is going to consider what the government has to say. We have Mr. Chandler's defense lawyer who wants him out. And we have the government who says, Nope, we oppose that. They're arguing saying that he has not come forward with sufficient evidence to reopen the hearing. The government argues that if the court does reopen the hearing in the alternative, it should find that Chandley has not proven that he would not be a danger if released to the community. So we're sort of arguing about, you know, dangerousness and a flight risk after chancellor replied. So you file a motion. So the defense files a motion. They, they move first, the government responds and then the defense replies to the response. So the moving party gets the last word. Chancellor replied, the court, ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefings about the flight risk concept in its order. The court noted that although the parties briefs discuss at length, the issue, whether any conditions of release would reasonably assure public safety, the brief say nothing about chancellor Lee's risk light, and be cut because the court found his flight risk to be an independent justification for detaining him. The court requested the parties, brief this issue as well. Chancellor's then supplemental filing on flight risks. Largely rehashes many of the arguments that he made at the first hearing. He repeats he has no criminal history. Okay. No passport. Kay has lived in Phoenix, his entire life chancellor. He also proposes the same custodian. His mother previously rejected at his purse. First detention hearing explaining that the court is not persuaded that the defendant's mother will ensure his compliance with any conditions of release. Given her repeated statements during a 60 minute interview, that her son did nothing wrong. Okay. So what's going on here? Just not happy during the first filing that the defense lawyer didn't address the flight risk stuff. So it says you guys got to go back out there and re talk about that. You got to brief that issue for us. Okay. Before I can let him out, I got to make sure that he's not a danger to the community and he's not going to fleet. So they only talked about to the danger of the community stuff. They didn't mention the fleeing stuff. So then court says, all right, go brief that, go write that up and bring it back to me. The attorney does that kind of sounds is a lot like the first motion rehashing the first one at the first hearing talks about no criminal history, which, you know, it doesn't really make a flight risk, uh, argument, you could say, so you could say that a person having criminal history might make it make, if you have a prior criminal record, any subsequent crime necessarily aggravates the penalty because you've got priors. So, you know, if you had criminal history, maybe this would be sort of the end of the line for him, right? So let's say for example, you know, somebody who comes in they're they're on their seventh DUI, right? Their penalty is going to be a lot more serious than somebody on their first DUI. So they've got a lot more criminal history. If they're on their seventh DUI and they know they may be facing 10 years in prison, they, in my sort of opinion, I have a higher risk of flight because they may just say, no, I'm out of here, right? I'm not going to show up to court because I know what's going to happen. I already did prison for my 60 UI. Now I've got a seventh one. I know what the consequences are. So I'm just going to bail. So criminal history, I think can actually have some, um, flight risk impact, but this judge sort of implying that it doesn't no passport. I think that absolutely goes to not being a flight risk, right? He can't leave the country. He doesn't have a passport. He lives in Arizona, nearly his entire life, which is where I'm living. I've lived here my entire life. So shout out Arizona, what's up. Jacob, Jacob also proposes the same custodian. So his mother and the mom was out there on 60 minutes saying he didn't do anything wrong. He did nothing wrong. So the judge doesn't want to release them into her custody because who knows if she'll actually comply with anything, translate does offer a few new facts. At the first hearing. He represented that his mother lives in Phoenix and that he could live with her. Now, defense counsel adds that many of Chandler's close relatives also live in the area, including his grandfather step, uh, step grandmother, uncle brother's defense counsel further says that if released to Phoenix arrangements have been made for chancellor to procure mental health care from a licensed psychiatrist there, okay. Here in Arizona. And so this is the other aspect of this thing that I think maybe some people are overlooking is that, you know, the judge has to consider his mental health and his mental wellbeing. Let's see where this is going. Defense counsel also introduced new information regarding chancellor's flight risk counsel stated that if the court would not release to live in Phoenix, there are alternative arrangements available in secure locations in St. Louis, near defense counsel's office. Right? So just bring them out over here with us defense counsel added that he would be happy to talk to the court in detail about those arrangements off the record to avoid the disclosure of names and locations. Additionally, defense counsel has arranged for Chandley to receive health care and mental health care in either Phoenix or St. Louis. So man, what a good attorney, man, that's good stuff, right? You know, maybe, maybe kind of overlook some of the flight risk stuff, but that's good. You know, he say, I'm going to propose. He can come here. Health care, mental health care, kind of bending over backwards to do whatever he can to help that guy. So that's good in response, the government maintains the chancellor has not proffered any new information. So it's basically nothing new that warrants a reopening of the proceeding. Chancellor's motion with all this background is now ripe for consideration. So what happens the judge goes through and he talks about the legal standard here about what needs to be in order to sort of reopen this. Okay. The defense is asking strongly to say, we want to reopen this. We've got a lot more stuff to explore. What do you have? Can we open this up? And the court says, well, you can, but you got to meet this standard. Certain things have happen. And here they just don't. Let's see how he explains this in the discussion section. He says after chancellor, his first hearing the court found by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release would assure the safety of the community. And the reason being, he says chance Lee's challenges to the court's initial findings on dangerousness. He says, those are meaningless unless he convinced the courts to revisit and reverse its initial finding on the flight risk to do so. He says, you got to have new information that has a material bearing on the issue of flight risk. Okay. So now you see these quotes here, material bearing on the flight risk. That's over from U S code. So he's saying, okay, now we have a standard, this new information. Does it have a material bearing it? It's good. It's great. That, that, that his grandmother lives in Phoenix. Uh, it's great that, you know, he doesn't have a passport. It's great that whatever, but does that have a material bearing on the flight risk issue? Let's see what the judge says. He says, yeah, there was new information. None of the information, none of it has a material bearing. None of it. He says an impact. The question about whether any condition or any combination of conditions could assure his appearance at trial. He said that the defense counsel first represents that his activities, especially with his mother are, are there. He says it bears a logical connection to the issue, but not a material bearing. Instead he talks about the bail reform act. The court has to consider something that actually affects the court's inquiry. He says this information does not fam only ties do not mitigate any of the other concerns. The court identified. Ooh, I don't know about that. I think I disagree with the judge on that one. My friends, family is very important. Right? It's whole families here. I would tend to side on the side of release there. Right. Release him to the family. He says the family has no material bearing on. It does not actually affect. Yeah. Okay. I'm well, those, uh, those include channel Chandler's ability to travel long distances. Okay. He says family ties do not mitigate any of the other concerns. So the judge is saying, listen, yeah, the family's there. But so what channel chancellor can still travel long distances using untraceable methods and his ability to quickly raise large sums of money for travel through non-traditional sources. Wow. Chan's Lee's family say they have not prevented him from traveling undetected in the past. The court is unpersuaded they will prevent him from doing it future. So it sounds like, it sounds like the family has maybe had an issue with this previously. Like they've had custody of Chandley, but maybe he's just left without their permission. So the judge doesn't have any faith. I'm not sure that that's what he's saying, but it sort of seems like we can glean that from that more over Chandley maintains that if he's released a Phoenix pending trial, he would return home to live with his mother, but the court already rejected that arrangement is insufficient and he did not propose a new custodian, but he also sort of mentioned his lawyer for these reasons. The family ties to Phoenix do not have a material bearing on the court's flight risk analysis, which I totally disagree with that. Absolutely disagree with that. I think that family is very important. I think that, uh, he would be well-served to be with his family rather than being in custody where the judge is talking about here is sort of trying to predict a future or like look into a crystal ball and sort of analyze all of the different permutations. Yes. It is possible that he could quickly raise large sums of money for travel. Sure. No question. Uh there's. It is also possible that he could travel long distances using untraceable methods. Yes. We got that. It's also possible that a meteorite slams into the side of the prison and he just walks right out the front door, you know? I don't know. So there's a lot of possibilities here. And when judges are playing this game, well, while this is possible and this could happen and this could happen and this could happen. Yeah. All day long, all day. But it's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the presumption of innocence. You don't get to sit there and come up with a bunch of reasons as to why somebody should not be released from custody. When I think personally, a family is a very safe place to release somebody into custody. Okay. Especially if you've got a big family like that, you have a number of people all coming into court saying, we're here, we're here to help. We're here to help. We'll take care of them, right? You're a judge. You say yes because of the presumption of innocence because of the family support. This makes sense. We don't want him to sit in custody, not this judge though, nor he says does defense counsel's passing reference to a secure location matter. Understandably defense counsel stated that he would not provide further details. But since the hearing which took place nearly a week ago, defense counsel has not provided any information to the court regarding that secure location. Oh no. That attorney just got thrown under the bus right there. That's a bummer. All right. Without information on the arrangements that have been made, the court is unable to assess whether this release plan would reasonably assure chancellor Lee's appearance as required. The court said I was going to listen to your argument, but you didn't send me any of that followup information. They're not good. Not good. Oh no, that's terrible. All right. Finally, while the court takes seriously defense counsel's representation that chancellor's mental health has declined while in jail. The fact that arrangements have been made for chancellor to obtain mental care in Phoenix or St. Louis does not have a material bearing on the issue. So the guy's having a mental breakdown in there. It is suffering and we're saying, Hey, we've got some pretty good resources out here. Uh, your honor, that we can just sort of, you know, get him plugged into with his family, with some psychiatry, anywhere maybe that should have a material on his release conditions. And it sounds pretty reasonable to me, but the judge just says, yeah, but that has nothing to do with a bearing on his flight risk, because what does that have to do with that? Well, the opposite argument of course is going to be that well, if he, if he gets proper medical treatment and care, maybe some of the underlying mental health problems that led to the underlying crime in the first place would be dealt with. Maybe this would be something that he can actually be rehabilitated rather than just sort of punished and allowed to descend into ever worst conditions, no material bearing. So this judge, okay. Uh, on the issue, he says, the court did not consider the mental health when evaluating his risk of flight. Which of course, if somebody is, I think in good mental health, maybe they don't have a risk of flight. Whereas somebody who's not thinking clearly may have a risk of flight. So you can see how they are logically, how medical care might be useful. Instead, as noted above the court pointed to chance Lee's ability to travel long distances using untraceable methods, court finds that that no conditions of release would reasonably assure his appearance. And he says in some chancellor has not provided any new information that has a material bearing on the issue without this showing the court will not revisit its prior finding accordingly, the court must deny chancellor's motions signed off here, July six by Royce Lamberth United States court district, judge, man, that's a tough, that's a tough day for chancellor and his lawyer. Candidly. All right. So here is the final document that I wanted to share with you. As we heard about chancellor is still in custody. He is still suffering from mental, uh, issues that that are needing to be addressed. As I explained, because he is in government custody, the government has responsibility for that. So they have to provide a status update. They did that also yesterday. They say the government submits this update since the last update, the defendant remains housed in FCI Anglewood in Littleton, Colorado, he's going to undergo his competency evaluation. The parties have been providing the appropriate information to the evaluator and the government does not have any additional updates as to the status at that time. So he's basically just, you know, sitting in there just wasting away and the judge is not going to let him out. So let's see what's going on with the, uh, with the court or with the, uh, not the courts. I read, I read a statement over@localswatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. All right, let's see who, who is in the house. We've got Sharon Quinn and he says he is a political prisoner. Do you seriously expect him to get any kind of break at all? I mean, I was hopeful, honestly, you know, it's this whole, this whole thing I think has really been a, a real big black eye on the criminal justice system and a really big black guy. More, more the, the, the justice system has a lot of black eyes. We can all acknowledge that. What I have seen from sort of the criminal defense bar, a lot of these criminal lawyers out there who say, oh, we're going to represent everybody. We'll we'll represent who anybody anywhere, no matter what, not much from them, right? Not a lot of people are coming to the aid of these people who are in custody. And it is a sad, sad thing. So I, I, I was hopeful that maybe our country had not descended into that quite yet, but I am, of course not surprised Arizona, uh, you know, want to know, let's see if I can get this going, want to know here, says, uh, Arizona people need to watch out for plus it's far from DC courts. Yeah. So talking about, I think them expanding their, their presence all over the place. We have Relic hunter here says, this should be reopened, please. This is terrifying. Yeah. It is a scary thing. Joe. Snow says, this is all terrifying. There is no more justice. There is no more Liberty. There is no more press that comes from Joe Snow. We have, uh, Rella Contra says, this is inhumane. The Jeremy Trita says, should it, shouldn't a judge use the reasonable person test just because something is possible, does not mean it is probable chancellor will likely become homeless. Yeah, that happens a lot. That happens a lot. You know, people, everything disordered, it gets stripped away from him. Now, listen, you know, Jacob chancellor is somebody. Who's got an attorney. Thankfully, a lot of people don't, a lot of people get, you know, public defenders, which are, which can be amazing attorneys. I'm not belittling them at all. They're amazing attorneys. Um, but it's, you know, he's got a lot of eyeballs on this for, uh, for every Jacob channeling. There are thousands of people who are also just sitting in custody that nobody even thinks about just up whatever, right. That guy did this, this guy did this. He's, he's a drug addict, he's a rapist. He's somebody. And th there are people with mental problems. They just get thrown in the back of a jail cell and just forgotten about, so this hap, you know, this is symbolic of a, sort of a deeper problem. I think certainly he's a political prisoner, but there are a lot of people who are also sort of at the, at the receiving end of a tyrannical government. And that's why I get so passionate about these issues. I just, you know, I can't, we have, we have a lot of bullies in this country and our legal justice system, and I, I'm not happy about it. Relic hunter says everyone is a flight risk, according to this judge's judgment. Yeah. Uh, th so this judge is actually a pretty conservative judge if I read that correctly. And, um, you know, a lot of conservative judges are gonna are going to be very tough on crime is we've got three girls in the house as anyone put in sag or in a segregation or protected custody could end up with mental health issues, 23 hours in a cell inhumane, that's from three girls. It's good to see you. Three girls Nadar says what the F is a material, what is a material bearing even mean? And so if you, if you read the discussion, I'm sorry, the, uh, the legal standard section of that opinion, you'll, you'll see what the judge goes into, but it's sort of something that has to be of consequence, right. It to be something meaningful. It can't just be sort of random new information and just like anything in the law, right. It's open to interpretation. So a judge can sort of interpret it any which way they want. Uh, we have, let's see here, uh, Joe Snow says what you got in your pockets right now. My last PD. Oh, no. That's, uh, that's terrible. Yeah. That's, that's awful. I've never, I've never, uh, seen that public defenders are amazing attorneys. Rob stopped drinking the clown world. Kool-Aid so I don't know about your public defenders, Joe, but I, you know, I do know a lot of good public defenders. I know a lot that are not that great also, but I know many of them that are quite good and some of them, you know, do good work with great trainings and things like that. So I never like to, to talk badly about the public defenders they're on the right side, as long as you're on the right side of the line. You're good. In my book, I got nothing bad to say about the public defenders prosecutors though. All right. Great questions. All coming in from over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Thank you everybody for your continued support over there. And as you know, if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona that is facing criminal charges, we would love the opportunity to help at our law firm, the RNR law group, we're dedicated to helping good people get amazing results in their cases. And one of the most important things that we want to do is make sure that they feel that they have safety, clarity, and hope in their cases. Our phone number is(480) 787-0394. We're online at our law, easy.com. We can help with any type of criminal case in the state of Arizona, DUIs, domestic violence, traffic violations, drug offenses, all sorts of offenses, including removing mugshots off the internet and helping to clear up old records like old warrants and restoring your right to vote and possess a firearm. Again, there's a lot that we can do to help. We're super passionate about the work that we do, and we would love the opportunity to speak with somebody and see what we can do to help if you don't need any legal services. That's a good thing. You may want some informational offerings though. I have available at gumroad.com/robert ruler, a law enforcement interaction training. It's a two and a half hour training. That is, uh, it's. Uh, we, uh, I th I, I had fun. I think that the other people there had a good time as well. And we were talking about the 1, 2, 3 rule for dealing with law enforcement. So specifically there's only one rule. It's the 1, 2, 3 rule number two, the two questions that law enforcement can ask you that you have to respond to. And the number three, the three response answers that you can use if they ask you an inappropriate question, very useful stuff, check that out over at gumroad.com/robert ruler. And don't forget to check out some of our other channels and links down in the description below. And I would also, I'm asking for a lot, but I would love, love to subscribe if you have not done so already. All right. So thank you for all of that. My friends, and we've got one more segment left, and this is the kind of the big news of the day, Donald Trump's back in the news, and he's coming in hot. He is now filing a class action lawsuit against the big tech companies. Some of the ones that have given us a lot of grief here on this channel, including Twitter, Facebook, and Google. And so this is catching everybody by surprise a little bit. This is a big move. We've been hearing a lot of, you know, rumblings about Trump's next move. What's he going to do? And a lot of speculation about the next platform. Is he going to be on parlor now that didn't work out? Is he going to be on, get her? No, that didn't work out. Is he going to have a, a sort of his own website or launch something new now? Not really. So now what he's doing is going right back at the face of the beast, taking it right back to these people. And I think it's actually a good thing. I've had a lot of problems with this for a long time. Talked about sort of this in the context of civil liberties, talking about the raising, the standard that we demand free speech in this country. And largely we've said that the government is not allowed to do that, but the government has gotten around that they have escaped their prohibition against limitations on free speech by, in barking on these sort of very, very close, almost incestuous relationships with the big tech platforms so that Facebook can sensor you. And when they do it, it's not the government, it's Facebook, they're a private company. They can do whatever they want. Same with Twitter, same with Yahoo or a Google or YouTube or any one of these other places. They can do whatever they want. And because it's not the federal government it's has no implication on free speech, even though most of the speeches happening on these platforms, the government locked everybody down and said, you can't go outside. So you actually can't go out there and actually speak freely in public. So we're going to lock you down. And then we're going to take away the only mechanisms that you do have to really participate meaningfully online, like Twitter and some of these other platforms. So you can't contest, you can't even speculate about COVID or, or, or the election or any of these things. And they're just going to strip that right out from under you. And we've been doing our part here to slowly but surely sort of build the next platform and encourage this migration to develop other communities where we can really connect a little bit more meaningfully, build something better than the old tech platforms, right? Move over to locals, get off of YouTube, get off of all these other places. And then eventually we can start creating communities that have deeper connections and deeper, deeper bonds. And the tech companies become superfluous, but that takes a long time, right? That takes a lot of, a lot of runway in order to build that we know that YouTube and Google and all of these other companies have been building for 20 years, many of them, and now they're doing well. So it's going to take some time. And I've always been somebody who is a big proponent in free speech and the first amendment. I think it's absolutely critical to everything that we do. That's why it's the first one. Everything else doesn't matter if you can't talk about it freely. And so the fact that Donald Trump and his team are going to be going hard against some of these tech companies. I think this is a good move. Now. I'm not sure that they're going to get anywhere because I don't know that necessarily that the law is on their side, but at least what we see here is a response to this. You know, it's sort of the same thing that we're going to see from the Democrats. They're going to be beating the hell out of the January six stuff, basically for the next probably decade or so. And so whether Donald Trump is, is winning this or not, right? Whether this goes up to the Supreme court and the Supreme court comes back down and says, you're right, Donald, this is wrong, free speech for everybody. And they, you know, they sort of put the limitations on some of these big tech platforms that are, in my opinion, are actually undermining free speech. I think they're dropping below the standard. So the Supreme court is not really mandating anything. It's just sort of reestablishing the baseline standard that we have free speech. We did this previously with civil rights, right? Remember when people would say, uh, well, uh, black people over there at that drinking fountain and white people over here. And we, as a country said, that's ridiculous. That's insanity. Yes, it's a private company. We get that. But that's a violation of civil rights. We're not going to allow that anymore. And we didn't. And it's because we raise the standard up here. We don't let private companies do things that infringe on our liberties and Facebook and Twitter and Google, and the rest of them are not exempt from this. So this at least, regardless of what the Supreme court says, they may not ever get there. They may never find that, but at least we're going to see this continue to be discussed in the court of public opinion, which is why I'm happy about it, because there needs to be an effort here to show these people that there are consequences when you do this. And the fact that this is going to be in a federal district court for the Southern district of Florida. That means that this lawsuit is going to be going on for some time and every day, just like the Democrats are going to do to beat the drum about the insurrection or about the Russians, or about whatever hoax that they're promulgating any particular day, Donald Trump and the right every day are going to be able to keep just rubbing big Tex faces nose in there, unAmerican activities, which is a good thing, which makes me excited. So let's see what's going on here now, before we start, I don't actually have a copy of the lawsuit in this video. So if you're watching for that, I didn't get it today. My understanding is this was filed today. So it's going to hit the court docket at some point, and then I will get a copy of it and we'll look through it because I want to do a deeper dive. We actually may take a whole show on that one. We'll see. Uh, because it, I think it is a very important issue. And this is going to come back again the second time around, right? This is not a done deal. If you, if we think that Twitter and Facebook and Google were all just like, oh, it was only because of Donald Trump that we're never going to do that again. Yeah. Right. Okay. We've got 20, 22 midterms coming up 20, 24. After that, Donald Trump's probably going to be right back in the pack again. And so they're going to have to revisit this. So now's the time to start going after these people, right? I'm not a civil lawyer. I'm not a class action lawyer, but I can tell you it, it, you know, I think it's, it's worth the effort to bring these cases in court. And let's let this unfold in the court of public opinion, as well as the court of law. Let's see what, what they have to say for themselves and how they explain this. Because I can tell you people like me are going to be talking about this a lot and making sure that somebody with some effort, some, some heft to him like Donald Trump and the people behind him have some energy as they bring this. Because I think it is very important. If we, if we lose our speech, we lose the ability to, to fight back at all. We can't talk anymore. And that means that you just accept whatever your overlords mandate for you. Okay? So let's get into the actual story here. Over from the epoch times, Trump announces a major class action lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook, and Google. He announced Wednesday. He is filing lawsuits against all of those people. They suspended his social media accounts. Six months ago, after the January six Capitol incident speaking from his property in Bedminster, New Jersey Trump and his team said the lawsuits are about protecting the first amendment, right to free speech. They argue that his rights were denied. When the three big tech companies banned him. Trump described the major lawsuits as a very beautiful development. I agree with that to protect free speech. He says the suits are going to be filed in the us district court. So that's a federal court in the Southern district of Florida. They're going to ask a judge to order an immediate halt to social media companies, alleging shadow, banning sensoring, blacklisting, and canceling of people who express political viewpoints outside of the mainstream. Here's Donald Trump out there today. We've got former president. He's at the Trump national golf club over in New Jersey. He announced the lawsuit. And so let's listen in and see what he has to say.

Speaker 2: 1:24:17

Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you everybody. I just want to say that I stand before you this morning to announce a very important and very beautiful, I think development for our freedom and our freedom of speech. And that goes to all Americans wait today in Canada.

Speaker 1: 1:24:42

Wait, is that not playing you? Shouldn't with the American? Was that not playing? Was that audio not playing? I think I just took a big gulp,

Speaker 2: 1:24:52

The first policy Institute I'm filing as the

Speaker 1: 1:24:58

All right. So I'm not sure if the audio is playing representative. I can't tell if the audio is playing. I don't. I apologize. I couldn't tell if that audio is playing. Trump came out and he said specifically that he announced what I just read essentially. So let's carry on with the rest of the story. I apologize for that. Trump's lawyers said the lawsuit will focus on provisions in the section two 30, which they argued was created in the 1990s to protect children from harmful online content. The way the big tech firms currently use the law as a shield, he says is not what they intended to do. He said, they're not immune anymore. So this is coming from Pam Bondi. We're going to take a look at the ASPI, which is the America first priorities Institute here in a second. So Pam Bondi is on that team. Meanwhile, former president also appeared to, uh, to the mainstream media. Trump described mainstay. Let's see here. Trump described mainstream narratives around Republicans wanting to defund the police, the Russian collusion claims and COVID-19 is false. So by throwing people off the internet, basically we couldn't discuss any of those things during his news conference on Wednesday includes the federal accused the federal government of using Facebook, Twitter, and Google as a defacto censorship arm during the COVID-19 pandemic, which is exactly what I was saying. You know, it's sort of the government knows they can't do certain things. So they outsource it to these different third parties like Facebook, and they do the censoring because the U S government can't do it. All right. So now we know that COVID-19 sort of emerged as a new theory that maybe it did escape from a lab earlier this year, Joe Biden said many members of the us intelligence community. Now view the theory as viable. So, you know, if this stuff were allowed to be talked about back then when more lives have been saved, if we talked about different treatment therapies and different ideas about how to handle this thing, could the policies have been different and maybe that would have been better for society. Who knows. We know we won't know because all of that speech was silenced. So Donald Trump is now filing this lawsuit and he's backed by a pretty hefty organization. I want to show you what's going on here. This is the AFP, the American first policy Institute. And if we go over to their website, we're going to see here that they tell us that they are a 5 0 1 C3 non-profit non-partisan research Institute. And I always like to look at eight places, you know, principles or values or their mission or whatever their statement is. And here they define it for us. They say our guiding principles are Liberty free, free enterprise national greatness, American military superiority, foreign policy engagement in the American interest and the primacy of American workers, families, and communities. Hmm. That sounds pretty good to me. Sounds pretty reasonable. All pretty good, uh, concepts there. If you happen to like America, which I do now, I want to show you who's on this team, right? Because we've got some pretty, some pretty significant names on here. You may recognize some of these. You've got Linda McMahon. She's chairman of the board. We've got Larry Kudlow. He's over, I think on Fox business and in the honorable Brooke Roland. So we're going to hear from her. And we're also going to hear from Pam Bondi, we have these two people who are a part of this organization at that are, that are helping sort of Trump filed this lawsuit. And so she's the chairman of the constitutional litigation partnerships. So that's Pam Bondi. And then Brooke Rollins is the president and the CEO. We've got David Bernhardt over here, Josh Campbell. He's a constitutional lawyer. We've got Jack Brewer over here, a center for opportunity. You'll recognize some of these other names. Let's see who else. We've got a retired Lieutenant general over here. We have, uh, Catherine cipher. None of these people really stand out. But over here, you may recognize this guy. This is the honorable John Ratcliffe, right? He was the former director of national intelligence. And so he's a port, a part of this organization. You may also recognize this fellow over here. This is Rick Perry, where the honorable Rick Perry, former governor of Texas. Now he's for the center for energy. Independence is a chairman over there. And he's also sort of a part of this organization. So, uh, some other people, maybe you don't, you recognize maybe you don't, but that is the I, and they gave a statement today. They're telling us what this is all about. And here is their press release. They say that the America first policy Institute, they applaud the class action by Donald Trump and other brave Patriots representing Americans. Who've had their first amendment rights violated by people like Facebook, Zuckerberg, Twitter Dorsey, Google, and Sundar Phi is I think how Trump said it, uh, protected by an outdated and misinterpreted section two 30, these elites and their firms ride Rashad over some of the most fundamental American rights, the right to speak the right to be heard, the right to democratic representation. This lawsuit is not the end of that fight. It is the beginning. It's a fight that ASPI is committed to seeing through AFP. I will continue to support everyday Americans efforts, the whole big tech accountable. Every American can share their personal stories of big tech censorship, or sign up for updates on these historic efforts to protect their first amendment freedoms. Where do you go if you want to do that, if you're listening in the audience and you want to go participate in that, take on big tech.com, right? This is a class action lawsuit. So they want everybody to go on there. They created a website called take on big tech. So if you want to go check that out, if you're somebody who's been censored or monitored, then maybe you go over there and you just sort of, you know, let them know what happened. Maybe we'll do that. So let's take a look at two of the, uh, the leaders here who are part of this organization. Of course, right here is Brooke L Rollins president and C F M C, CEO of ASPI. So this is her. This is over from Wikipedia. So she was Donald Trump's domestic policy council, or the director of that council from may 24 to January, 2021 on four under Donald Trump, age 49. It looks like she's over from Texas. And so she says there's not much precedent for an American president and American president sitting, president taking major media corporations to court. He's not sitting now nor is there much precedent for an American president, engaging the judiciary to shape the landscape of American freedoms after his presidency, president Trump often remarked that if big tech is out to get him it's because they're out to get the American people. And he was just standing in the way, the actions of the big tech firms were taking the court, illustrate the point perfectly what they've done, what they've wrought in the past few years, staggers the imagination, all Americans need Donald Trump to win, not for what it will mean for him, but what it will mean for every American man woman or child. Okay. So I am certainly appreciative of their perspective. I think the free speech issue is sort of bigger than Donald Trump. Sounds like she's advocating, advocating for Donald Trump to sort of, you know, to win or something. But I think the bigger issue of course, is his free speech. Now statement, not that I don't want that. Not that I don't want Donald Trump to win. I mean, I, but I, I just, I think that, uh, there's a problem there, right? If you, if you start making this about, you know, only about Donald Trump, if you start saying that, you know, this is just, we're mad that Donald Trump and when that's the wrong issue, that's not a winning issue. The winning issue is free speech. The winning issue is no censorship. The winning, he was free expression, free association, American and ideals. If you fight for those things as a natural consequence, the person who is the symbolic embodiment of that, Donald Trump, he gets the benefits as well. But if you, if you flip that equation, if you make this about Donald Trump first and free speech seconds, okay? I mean, I guess it's still a good fight, but we want to make sure be careful there that this is about free speech, which is the, the strongest, her argument. You cause you'll lose a large number of people. If you just say, well, it's only about Donald Trump, certainly there are moderates or there are people who are populists or these, there are standard Republicans or even Democrats or liberals who were disgusted about some of the censorship, right? The sensors are always the bad guys, always. So you might win some people over to that side of the argument, including judges, including some, maybe some people even from, from within big tech itself, if it's about free speech. But if it becomes about, you know, if it becomes too politically ideological, that becomes a problem. Same thing that happened with some of the justice reform stuff. Remember when black lives matter came about, and now it's morphed into this entire, you know, Marxist ideology trickle group that has virtually nothing to do with criminal justice reform. Don't want that to happen here. Who else do we have? This is Pam Bondi. She is a constitutional litigation partner over at ASPI. She says, things have changed over the past several years. And the first amendment rights of all Americans are on the line. In this case, the law and the constitution are on our side. America is a great country that it is because our constitution protects our freedoms, including freedom from censorship. This lawsuit ensures that those rights are properly defended over here. You can see that she, it looks like was the attorney general for governor Rick Scott and a 37th attorney general over in Florida. I believe that is Pamela Jo Bondi. She's a Republican and also comes from Florida university of Florida and Stetson. So that is, uh, two, two ladies who are helping, helping lead the charge on this thing, which is, which is great. And you'll notice that we don't really recognize any of these people. These are not the same impeachment lawyers. These are not the same, um, election litigation attorneys, either. These are, these are new people and they have a big organization behind them. And so we'll wrap this up before we get some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. But I want to finish over from the epoch. He says, since leaving office, Trump has opted to release statements. He did not sign up on any social media sites like parlor or getter. And he isn't sure if he'll join Twitter, Facebook or YouTube. If the lawsuit is successful, he announced the legal effort that is supported by America first, and he wants thousands of other people to join him by going to take on big tech and Google, Facebook and Twitter did not immediately respond to request for comments on Wednesday. So, okay. So let's see what's going on over at the chat, watching the watchers.locals.com. Let's see what's going on in here. We've got, uh, we've got Joe snows here wants to know, says what I like want to know says what I like about Facebook is I'll keep your ad revenue for myself. If I don't like what you say. So Facebook is, yeah, you can hang out here and certainly run. Your ads will keep all of that money, but you can't say certain things, right? That's a little bit interesting we have in the dark says, uh, you know, go back over to YouTube to somebody. I think Relic hunter says free speech is America. Doesn't America enter all the countries so they can give people democracy and free speech. Well, that's a nice idea. I'm not sure that that's the underlying motivation for, for much of our foreign policy, but I think they tell us that it is right spreading American democracy around. We have three girlies says they are thinning the patriotic herd. I believe that 90% of our military is patriotic. Top brass is apparently is not okay. We have, yeah, that's a good comment. But I don't think that was for me, that was for thunder. Wants to know, says Joe, snow's pretty good. He was ready for that one. The internet is designed. Let's see any other questions? Let's see. So, so there, there's a, there's a lot of activity going on over there in the locals, chat a lot of activity and, uh, and invite you to go on over there and check that out. And we're going to wrap up here for the day, but lot of good conversations taking place over there@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com of course, that is our community, our home away from home over there. So I invite you to go check that out. And of course, if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who needs help with a criminal case, whether it's you or somebody, you know, or love, we would love the opportunity to help. We're very good at what we do. We have some fun on the show and we can get a little bit goofy at times, but when people need help, when they're facing criminal charges, when the system is set against them, we can spring right into action and aggressively, make sure that we get the results that you deserve. We have a framework for doing it. We have a whole team of people who are passionate about it. We would love the opportunity to help. Our phone number is(480) 787-0394. We're online at www dot our law, easy.com. You can take a picture of that QR code with your phone. You can go to our website, we have free case evaluations. You can even schedule online. We are happy to help and ready and standing by if you're not interested or don't need legal services, then maybe you're interested in some informational offerings. Of course, at.com/robert griller. I invite you to check out my law enforcement interaction training a two and a half hour course where we're talking about the 1, 2, 3 rule for dealing with the police. Very easy framework for hopefully police interactions that never happen, but it's better to know it and not need it than it is to need it and not know it. So make sure you go check that out. Want to give a big welcome and a big shout out. We got some great new members over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. So they just signed up. Let's give a big, welcome to copper Lobo. Welcome to you copper. We got justice. Obsessed is in the house. I think I am to have my friend. We have at chop who just joined us, which is the Capitol hill something or other Jay. Good to see you. Chop. We got Jay, he 5 1 5 0 in the house am. And coconut, welcome to you. We have random Graham who signed up and we have bought Aloha in the house. Good to see you, bah Aloha. We have the last villain signed up. We have hell, see how cyan blue is in the house. And then we have, do we have two people who signed up for the yearly plan, which is very much appreciated. That means you're going to be with us for some time that the one Florida man, who we talked about yesterday, signed up for the yearly. Good to see you. And then a realtor, Patty 14 realtor, Patty 14 was a monthly. And then now is a, is a, is a yearly. And we just saw you realtor, Patty. I know I heard you had a little bit of a trouble sort of updating the card over there. I pass that information along over to the team at locals. And, uh, we'll see if they can, you know, kind of fix that. So that's not such a hassle anymore, but we're glad you made it back. And if you want to check that out, of course, head on over to watching the watchers.locals.com, very inexpensive membership. And of course you do support the show. When you do that. As we know, we are demonetized here have been for some time, I submitted my application on March 5th and they said that we'd have, we'd hear about it in 30 days on March 5th. So we'll still keep waiting I guess, but there's a lot of good reasons to go on over there and watching the watchers.locals.com. One of the best is because we have a monthly zoom meetup coming up on Saturday, July 24th, 2021 from seven to 8:00 PM. Eastern time where we get on zoom and your cameras can be on your cameras can be off totally up to you. Won't be offended. If your camera's off, I might call you an undercover FBI, but you know, I mean that with love and affection, but it's a lot of fun over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. We're going to have a registration link as the date nears a little bit, and I'm looking forward to seeing everybody over there. All right. So that is it for me. Let's just give a couple of final bit of farewells. We've got soul Viking in the house and tos and want to know and Relic hunter all over in the chat. I'm going to say farewell to everybody over there and to the rest of you, we're going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow at 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM, central and 7:00 PM. East east 7:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida man, everybody else have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.